tv Hearing on the Armys Fiscal Year 2017 Budget CSPAN February 24, 2016 9:35pm-11:07pm EST
the army's chief of staff, patrick murphy the army acting secretary noted while the base request of $125.1 billion is less than the fiscal year 2016 budget, the army will work with it. this is 90 minutes. good morning, we appreciate very much the attendance of our witnesses and committee members. the purpose of our hearing today and the appropriations committee is to review the budget request for the department of the army.
the purpose of the hearing is to give the mill titary leadership opportunity to answer questions that members of the committee might have about the provisions in the draft that we'll be reviewi reviewing. it's appropriate we begin the hearing with the chef of staff u.s. army and secretary of the army here. we appreciate your being here. general mark milly chief of staff of the army. we know you appreciated statements which we appreciate receiving that gives the staff an opportunity to review the budget request and to have you
answer any questions. today our armed forces are engaged globally more than ever before. there are 190,000 national reserve on active duty in 140 countries. this bill this committee will recommend to the full committee deals with the obligations of carrying out the missions of strength and capability to protect the u.s. industries around the world and look forward to working with the leaders of the army to be sure our men and women in uniform are
performing and are capable of performing well and protecting our national interest. we oh appreciation to those who serve in the military. i yield to senator. >> two points i'd like to make, one is whole heartily support this effort to strengthen our position in europe. european reassurance initiative which we discussed and thank secretary murphy for their service to the country. i'm sure secretary murphy is doing a fine job. i regret the fact the president's nominee for secretary of the army which was
submitted september t21st, 2015 waited four months for a confirmation hearing and another month for a vote in the committee. this is another critical nomination being held up and doing an excellent job despite this. that is a reality of what we face. thank you. >> the budget request as you see fit. we appreciate the honorable patrick murphy acting secretary of the army and general mark mill chief of staff for the army for precedence and leadership. you may proceed. make opening statements.
>> this is my seventh week on the job as acting secretary and truly an honor. i traveled to see our soldiers, civilians and families at fort hood, fort sam houston and iraq and afghanistan. the selfless service and dedication of our team should inspire us all. we are tasked with the responsibility to fight and win the nation's wars and keep our families safe here at home. our army must produce ready units to deter and defeat, respond to crisises, build global security, project power and win decisively by ready we mean that units fully manned trained in the combat task fully equipped and led by competent leaders with the $125.1 billion
base request our army will focus the efforts on rebuilding readiness for large scale high-end ground combat today. we do so because we believe that ignoring short falls puts us at grea great risk. our army has never been the largest in the war and at times we have not been the best equipped but since world war ii, we have recognized that readily soldiers properly manned, trained, equipped, and led can beat larger or more determined forces, for confronting the acts of isis or the desperation of north korea our army must prepare to execute and to win. we train like we fight and our army must always be ready to fight tonight.
next, readiness detours our most dangerous threats. we are reminded with alarming frequency that great power conflicts are not dead. today they manifest on a regional basis. both russia and china are challenging america's willingness and ability to enforce international standards of conduct. a ready army provides america the strength to detour such actions. readiness also makes future training less costly. continuous operation since 2001 have left our force proficient in stability and counterterrorism operations. but our future command sergeants major and brigade commanders have not had critical combat training center experiences as junior leaders trained for high-end ground combat investing in readiness today builds a foundation upon which future training can be retained longer
throughout our army. and finally, readiness prepares our force for transformation. our army must be prepared to face the high-end and advanced combat power of russia or russian capability employed by surrogate actors. we need solutions for this and other future monthties to awill you our force the space to develop new concept or those suggested by the future commission of the army are formations must first be ready to execute against current and emerging threats. the choice, though, to invest in near-term readiness does coal with risk. modernization risk to fight and win in the future. we have no new modernization programs this decade. smaller investments and end strength risk or ability to conduct multiple operation for sustained periods of times. so in short, mortgages our
future readiness because we have to ensure success in today's battles against emerging threats. that's why it's needed to be implemented now. let us manage your investment and this will result in $500 million a year in savings and a return on investment within five years. lastly while we thank congress for the bipartisan budget act of 2015 that does provide short-term relief and two years of predictable funding we request your support as proposed and request your support for continued funding at levels calibrated to current threats and to the national security interest and request your continued support for our soldiers, civilians and their families so that our army remains the most capable fighting force on this earth and will fight and win the nation's wars and keep our families safe here at home.
thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. general, we welcome you and ask if you have an opening statement you may proceed. >> thanks, chairman cochran and ranking member and committee and opportunity to be here today -- >> mike. >> to talk about your army. >> the mike up. >> and we appreciate that microphones work, that we appreciate that your consistent support to the soldiers and civilians and family members. six months ago when i was confirmed as the chief of staff, 39th chief of staff to the united states army, i committed to make sure this nation has the army it needs and postured for an uncertain future and must remain the versatile ground force valued by our friends and absolutely feared by enemies. this mission has one common thread and that thread is
readiness, combat readiness. the army is manned, trained and equipped as the joint force to conduct missions, importantly to detour and if deterrence fails to defeat today, tomorrow and into the future. 15 years of continuous insurgency operations combined with recent reduced and unpredictable budgets created a gap in proficient forces and resulting in an army today that is less than ready to fight and win against emerging threats. ameri america is a global power and varying conditions anywhere on earth. our challenge is sustain capabilities that we developed to a high degree of proficiency while simultaneously rebuilding the capability to winning ground combat.
we can wish away this latter case but we would be foolish as a nation to do so. this budget prioritizes readiness because the environment is increasingly uncertain and complex. today in the middle east, south asia and africa we see radical terrorism and the influence of iran threatening the regional order. in europe or russia modernized the military invaded several solve vern countries and continues to act aggressively towards its neighbors using multiple means of national power. in asia, the pacific, there are complex challenges with a rising china increasingly assertive military and a provocative north korea, both situations creating the conditions for potential conflict. while we cannot forecast precisely when and where the next contingency will arise, i any contingency happens, it will
likely require a significant commitment of u.s. army ground forces. if one or more unforeseen contingencies happen, we the united states risk not having ready forces available to provide flexible options to the national leadership and if committed, we risk not being able to accomplish the tasks at hand in an exceptionable amount of time and most importantly, we risk insuring increased u.s. casualties. in sum, we risk the ability to conduct ground operations of sufficient scale and ample duration to achieve objectives or win decisively at an exceptionable cost in the unforgiving environment of ground combat. the army is currently committed to winning our fight against radical terrorterrorists. the army currently provides 46% of the annual dod global combat and commander demand from
military forces of any type and 64% of all the emerging combat and command with as a chairman mentioned almost 190,000 soldiers committed in 140 countries globally. to sustain current operations and mitigate the risk of the unready force into future combat operations, the army will continue to prioritize readiness over modernization and in infrastructu infrastructure. the security environment of today drive investment into readiness or global operations and potential contingencies. we ask your support to man the combat and combat training at both home station and combat training centers and additionally we ask your support for modernization in five key capability areas, aviation, command and control network, integrated air and missile defense, combat vehicles and emerging threats programs and finally we ask your continued support for soldiers and
families to recruit and retain soldiers of high character and stream line headquarters ruthlessly cut activities that do not contribute to the effect of activities that do not add to the fighting force and request ask for another round of brac. we thank congress for the bipartisan budget act of 2015, which provided short-term relief. with your support, the army will fund readiness at sufficient levels, build readiness for contingencies and invest readily in the force. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your leadership. and we know you have to make some hard choices and you've made some. no connection with army aviation assets. and specifically, i was concerned when i learned that the locada helicopters in the
budget request have been zeroed out in the budget request. that's my first question. to what extent is that going to affect your ability to carry out the missions that you both just described? mr. secretary, will you go first? >> mr. chairman, obviously aviation is our most expensive asset that we have, but it's critically important. and we're looking at with the new commission that came out, we're looking at all the aviation assets and how we implement that through the total force. that's active duty, national guard and reserves. but we obviously are still -- we have die vested in other aviation assets such as the warrior. but as far as the coda, we're making sure we do everything possible that the best fighting force and best assets. we don't want a fair fight, as you know, mr. chairman, with our enemy. we want the technical and tactical advantage every step of the way. the chief and i are working as
battle buddies on this to make sure we can do what's necessary to fund what's needed. >> general milley? >> lakota we use for training out at the joint readiness training center. the national guard gets good use of it. we're sustaining in this budget, we sustain the current lakotas we have. we have to die vest ourselves of those, because we have to cut anything that doesn't have to do with our core combat tasks. as you know the congressionally man dated commission on the future of the army, and there's a variety of aviation initiatives in there, some of which includes increasing lakotas for the training base down at fort rucker. we'll take a look at that. it's not a combat helicopter so we chose to take some risk there. >> senator durbin?
>> thanks very much, mr. chairman. let me ask a question related to saving money and spending money when i was on the simpson-bowles commission, i asked the department of defense, how many contractors does the department of defense pay for. they couldn't tell me. they just didn't know the numbers. well, it turns out since 200, we've asked each of the branches of the military to report to us at contractors. anticipate the reason it's important is that a contractor employee, we've shown here, costs about three times as much as a civilian employee. when the budget request cuts more than 700 civil i can't be jobs and increases contractors 2,300, it seems we're going in the wrong direction. shouldn't we continue with civilian employees at 1/3 the cost of contract employees? >> senator durbin, real quick,
isle give you the answer. we have 146,000 contractors right now. so the army team itself, as you know, is 1.4 million people. about 1,015,000 soldiers. that's total force. about 246,000 civilians, and i would agree with you that they're part of the team and they're cost effective. i will say, though, civilians, as you mentioned, we have to cut with the downsizing of our army, not just our soldiers but also our civilians. we cut about 37,000 civilians over the last few years. it's at that number, 246, and it was in the 280s previously. but as far as the contractors, we have about 146,000 contractors right now. and i share your concern on the cost of them. a lot of those contractors, though, are not full time. some of them are part time on missions and they hire ones out, whether that's in iraq or afghanistan or elsewhere. but i'm going through the budget like a bulldog on a bone to find
cost savings to make sure we have combat capability to fight our nation's wars. and chief milley and i, as he just mentioned, we have to make some ruthless decision which is affect the lives of folks, but those are decisions that need to be done during these budget constraints placed on our army. >> secretary, we tried to ask for more information from each of the branchs so we know on the contractor employees what's happening. and the report from the gao recently suggested that about 25% of your contractual work was not being reported. now, this predates your arrival there, so i'm not pointing a finger, but i have to tell you, if we're going to spend three times as much for contractor employees and you're cutting civilians and increasing contractor employee, we need to have some more data to make sure we're not making a wrong decision. let me ask you this question as well. the decker wagner report in 2011 found that the army had spent $1 billion a year every year since
1996, that's 15 year, on programs that were ultimately canceled. $1 billion a year. ground combat vehicle, future combat system, crusader, camanchee helicopters to name a few. you're going to have a cost overrun, an additional charge of $2.6 billion. what was the reason for this cost growth of $2.6 billion in the program? and does the army have its hands around this decker-wagner report conclusion that when it comes to contracting out, you've had some serious challenges? >> senator, there is no doubt that the army has had some serious challenges when it came to modernization. i'm aware of the report, and i do think that there is new leadership within the building that are on top of this to make sure that we're not wasting
taxpayer dollars, especially as the constraints, the fiscal constraints placed on us are even more so. as far as the amphi program, you will find i will be responsible for you to get you the answers that you need. we need to partner with you to make sure that we're not just asking for dollars, but also being good stewards of those dollars once owe give them to us. >> general milley, what kind of buy-in do we have from our nato alislies to make this stand in europe to stop potential aggression by putin? >> thanks, senator. just one comment on the amphi. i became aware of that cost overrun. i'm going to head out there and take a look at this whole thing and i'm going to report back to
you. with respect to dri, you know, russia as i mentioned in my opening statement, in my view, and i said it during confirmation testimony and elsewhere, in my view, russia is the number one threat to the united states. and the reason is they're the only country on earth that has the capability to be an existential threat to the united states. in addition to not just having the capability, they' also demonstrated aggressive intent since 2008 by invading countries and using national power in ways that are not favorable to u.s. interests anyway. so the europeans then have reacted to that as well. as in the united states. so i went oen a recent trip over there. i think what i saw in scandinavia, what i saw in germany what i saw in poland, france, uk and in other countries, and i met with each of the army chiefs of all the nato counterparts, they're very much in favor of additional u.s. report in order to deter russian
aggressions. as for them, though, i think that we're in a period of about 10 or 15 years, where the european countries have reduced their military significantly in terms of capability, size, technologies, weapons systems, et cetera. that realization is becoming known to them. some of the countries are tu turnitur turning that around. others are not just yet. but the threat is clear. and it depend on which country you are. some countries consider the threat from the east, from russia, the most significant. others consider the threat from the south which is the refugee crisis coming out of the instability through the middle east and north africa as the greatest threat. but i do believe that there's a clear recognition amongst at least the military leadership that i met with about the russian threat and what needs to be done. >> thank you, senator. mr. shelby? >> thank you, chairman. general milley, it's been acknowledged that north korea
possesses several hundred short and medium-range ballistic missiles that could reach targets on the korean peninsula or japan. from an operator's perspective, could you describe what benefits the terminal high altitude area defense we know as thad system would provide u.s. forces in the republic of korea? >> the development of short-range, medium range and icbms are -- that missile technology is worldwide proliferated, specific to korea north korea has developed a lot of these technologies. so the deployment of thad in patriot are critical to the defensive posture the united states has in order to deter north korean attack. specifically we're looking at medium range to take out the short-range ballistic missiles. but that will be a general asset. >> very important, in other words? >> absolutely, yeah. >> it's also been said that north korea is committed to developing a long-range nuclear
arm missile that's capable of posing a direct threat to the u.s. the ground base mid course gmd system, i believe, is the only system in place that offers protections for the american people from such a limited threat. could you tell us what gmd at the moment contributes to the army's mission, then explain what it provides for an operational standpoint. >> the gmd is part of an integrated air defense system that includes aircraft, it includes missiles, it includes cruiser, and it includes the ground missile defense contributions from the army and a wide variety of radars that are spread out throughout the asia pacific region. the seffect is to stop long-rane attacks coming out of north korea. >> the national commission on
the future of the army issued recommendations last month that would impact army aviation and aviation training. the final report suggested that proficiency, which is important, would require additional flying hours, and warned that declines in readiness and possible increases in accident rates could occur in additional training hours were not allocated. what do you expect, secretary murphy, dealing with the future of pilot training? how important is it to our readiness and so forth? and how would this impact the army aviation center and the army itself? >> well, senator, it's critical. we train like we fight. we need to make sure that we have the tactical and tactical advantage over our enemies. the chief and i got briefed by the commission where they suggested they're talking about two additional combat flight hours a month. and we're looking at that, but as you know, that comes with a price. so the chief and i are going
through. we have a commission, which is a joint force commission it's a chaired team looking through the commission reports. there's 63 recommendations. some cost money, some don't. and we're trying to make sure we do the cost benefit analysis. but let me be very clear that we believe in a total force and we need to get back to our basics on that. we don't just have a ten-division army. we have an 18-division army. and we assets in the national guard, reserves, and active duty. we need to make sure we're utilizing to the best of our ability. >> if we shortchange our aviation, that would cripple ultimately the army's ability to project force, would it snot. >> senator, we are looking at the asset, again, the commission, i thought it was a very thoughtful commission. they have great ideas, and we are working with them and with
our tri-chair group, leaders, general officers from all three components of our total army to make sure we can implement these things. but it is critically important to make sure our aviators are the best aviators on the battlefield, absolutely. >> and these were recommendations, ultimately this subcommittee and this committee will decide what's going to be funded and where, is that correct? >> yes, senator. when i taught at west point, we taught there was three branches of government. one isn't more powerful than the other. it's like rocks, paper, scissors. >> the program is critical to maintaining our capabilities for aviation. we have great aviators, but we have reduced it from 14 to 15 hours down to about 11. we need to crank that back up, because we do accept some risk there and we don't want to accept risk. we want the most capable aviators the world has ever seen. we do need some help there.
>> but there's nothing like efficiency and proficiency in the military or any business. but in this case, the military. >> absolutely. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. the distinguished senator from vermont, senator leahy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to be using secretary murphy's rocks, scissors, paper. i appreciate you being here, general milley and general, thank you for taking time for the meeting yesterday morning, too. i must echo the remark of senator durbin about the senate actually doing its work and confirming nominees. it's holding people up for parochial parties is a disservice to the country. it's a disservice to the senate, holding people up for political disputes doesn't solve them. it just extends them.
now general milley, i understand the future of the army is still under review by you and your staff. but since you've taken command, you've implemented numerous changes there ksz certainly within the spirit of the commission's report. and what will you do at headquarters that will bring that total force initiative into play? i know you' been working extremely hard on it, and i appreciate that. >> we want to put teeth into the total force. we want to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, sort of thing. in my view, the national guard and the united states army reserve are fundamental. it's not just a bumper sticker. the united states of america cannot conduct sustained land combat operations without the guard and the reserve. it's that simple. it was designed that way back when by the congress and that's
still true today. it's fundamental. and with respect to the national commission, what we've done is we've looked -- we got the report. our initial sense is that we like what we've been reading so far. 63 recommendations in there, we're working through those 63 recommendations one by one. there's probably about 10 or 15 of those recommendations that come with a pretty heavy price tag. we have to look at those hard. and the others are either relatively inexpensive or no cost at all and we'll likely take those on and there's a few we don't think are worth pursuing. but we're going through that very deliberately, the secretary and i, with the national guard bureau, general grass, with tim catavey and general talley from the u.s. army reserve. the five of us as a group with our vice kwheef of staff of the army will consider all the recommendations in detail, go
through all the rigor, all the math, all the numbers, and we'll come back with a recommendation to congress and the department of defense as to which ones we think are the best ones to implement. >> i know the air force went through all of these things. is that a model that could be applied to the army? >> it is. in fact, we're taking pages out of the air force playbook. so we set up a group of three one stars, a triif he can thfec will, a set of planning teams to go through every one of those recommendations. and then they'll stay in existence to help us supervise execution of the implementation. >> thank you. and secretary murphy, several years ago, the army began exploring the development of small precision initiatives, something that 20 years ago we couldn't even have considered. but now with the kind of war zones we face, to be able to do
precise munitions to go after the people that are enemies, at the same time protect innocent civilians, what's the current status of the research and technology in this field? i'm thinking of small munitions and mortars and artillery. >> senator, i would say that it's night and day how we've evolved as a military. as you mentioned, our country has certain values, and we go after the people that have hurt our families. and we kill them or capture them. and we do so to make sure we limit any way possible collateral damage. whether it's artillery shells or munitions. coming from pennsylvania, we have to worry about the new bullets that we utilize. the ranges that we have, the bullets ricochet off now like never before because they're more effective and lethal and accurate.
that's positive. and it goes back to the theory of we don't want to have a fair fight. we want to have the technical and tactical advantage over our enemy. and we so when it comes to munitions, we're doing so. it's doing this through a public-private partnership. we're going to these communities and asking them to give us the best materials. >> the reason i ask, my last comment, i don't want to sound parochial, but i went to vermont and the things i saw, what they're able to develop in mortar shells and bombs and others is unbelievable. the kind of accuracy, something when i first came on this committee would have been inconceivable. and i would hope that you're exploring those kinds of things, whether it's from my state or any other state.
that we do this highly technical development. >> you have our commitment. >> the distinguished senator from montana, mr. daines. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's great to see you again today, general milley and secretary murphy. as a proud senator from fort harrison back in the 1940s, thank you for your continued leader sh leadership fur our nation as well as to our state. and thank you for what you do for our troops deployed overseas and those at home who must be ready for whatever comes next and we know there's plenty to come next. i want to talk about the army research lab. i'm proud to see partnerships in montana. in 2001, the army science board said there'sen creased mobility and increased fatigued.
but it's recommended that soldiers don't carry any more than 50 times for any length of time is not possible in the field. despite developing some lower-weight gear, our soldiers are still carrying well over 50 pounds under combat loads. question, first of all, as we look at the budget, does the research and development in the materials technology this year, does it cover the full cost to get to really achieving the goal here of finding a way to reduce the load and get under 50 pounds? >> we think that there's a balance. we try to flat line research and development. we lowered the amount of pro-kwurment decrease for readiness. but for research developments, it's not as much as we want for research development. our modernization, we need to invest nor money in it. but given the top line, we have what we have and that's what we put in about 18%. with respect to the soldiers load, we've got an entire
program that's dedicated towards developing light-weight materials for equipment, both personal protection equipment, and load-carrying equipment along with weapons and munitions and so on and so forth. anything to lighten the load of a soldier is important. it's survival -- really, it's critical to the soldier's survival. since the time of the romans, we've been carrying a lot of weight on individual soldiers. and today is no different. and in some cases more, especially now with the introduction of body armor. the research and development for lighter weight materials is really critical. it has to do with the survi survivability of soldiers on the battlefield. >> coming from a state like montana, we have a third of the icbms in our state. we understand what's going on in north korea and it greatly concerns all americans. my question is, south korea's
response for paying half of the u.s. forces korea budget, would their cost inkrecrease with the deployment of a thad system? >> i have to get back to yous as to the cost and coordinate with d.o.d. i don't know the answer to that question. i have to get back to you. >> thank you. in 2002, we developed a task force to help philippines fight in the southeast islands. the joint task force made up of army, navy, marine personnel began to withdraw in 2014. but just the same year, those same terrorist organizations came together and pledged allegiance to the islamic state. we witnessed the islamic state
strike in indonesia. their presence in the asia pacific is just as clear as it is throughout the middle east. my question is you're requesting $1.1 billion for the army in the asia pacific theatre this year. how much did terrorism in the region play a role in establishing that amount? >> from an operational standpoint, it played a role. i wouldn't necessarily put a percentage of how much it played a role. but the three key things as i look at asia pacific and support of admiral harrison one is a rising china. if we were historians in 2016 -- or flash forward 100 years s s 2116, i think someone would say the condition that defined the century was the united states and china. the second piece is north korea and the third is terrorism. because we know the islamic state and i terrorists are not
just iraq and syria. they spreaded to north africa. they're in the pakistan region and the pacific. it's a big concern and that was one of the factors from a securities standpoint to support our efforts in the asia pacific region. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> senator from washington, we agreed to go out of turn as senator schatz's fore bear -- forbearan forbearance, is that right? >> i'll keep my comments short. i appreciate it. secretary murphy, i just wanted to ask you, you mention your soldier for life program, your emphasis on embedded favor yal health profess nionals and the efforts the army is making to
end sexual harassment and assault. i want to thank you. it's a priority and incredibly important. i want to recognize you on the importance of transition programs and making soldier for life program of record in 2017. do you have the resources to transition 105,000 soldiers? >> senator, thank you for your comment. we will be addressing this coming up. it's not in budget, but that's the plan. and again, it's the right thing to do not just morally, but also physically. the department of defense spent $4.6 billion in unemployment because we're responsible for that. that's a lot of combat teams. the army, though, has cut our costs from about $1 billion a year to last year was $242 million. but $242 million is almost a brigade combat team. so we need to make sure we do a better job at that transition.
that's why i fully support and it's a top priority of mine for the flight program. we can't say we're responsible to fight and then we turn them over to the v.a. they're loyal to us, part of our family and our organization. we have 1.4 million people on our team right now, but we also have 9.5 million american army veterans out there. and to have that connective tissue to the soldier flight program, which by the way, will help us with recruitment and other things. it's critically important. >> thank you for that. i also wanted to say i appreciate the work the army has done to find budget savings including by increasing home-base training. but that requires some pretty good communication and cooperation with the local communities. and in my home state of washington, this increase in home station training has led to this proposal for a large expansion of helicopter training areas in the north cascades and southwest washington, join base
lewis mccord is working through their environmental assessment. is the aermt following the requirements of the wilderness act and other land management requirements and can you assure me the army is doing everything possible to address the concerns of our local stake hald holders. >> the chief and i talked about this. we will work with the local commander and make sure that we are always following the law. you have my commitment that we'll work with you and your team to make sure we're being as responsive as possible. >> i will give the general a call and get back to you. i'm confident he and his folks are in accordance with current laws and regulations and proc d procedurally moving correctly. i'll calm and confirm and get back to you. >> i will submit my other questions for the record and i really appreciate my colleagues for allowing me to jump in real quick. thank you. >> the distinguished senator from missouri, senator blunt.
>> thank you . secretary murphy, we recently introduced legislation, the military family stability act, the principal, motivating factor which would be for spouses who for a job opportunity, their own career, or children staying longer or leaving earlier for education that we would have new commitments to be sure that worked. we're working with the department on that, particularly with the army to talk about what the exact about of time this might be to impact how long people's stay in the military might be. we had our initial discussion of
that bill, we had really just persuasive cases of one spouse who -- her husband is going to be transferred from hawaii to fort leonard wood. she got in a ph.d. program at the university of -- st. louis university. she got a teaching contract at another school nearby, missouri science and technology. she needed to be there in august. they were going to leave in june. that was all fine until they didn't leave in june. and then they didn't leave in july and then they didn't leave in august. and the entire cost of the move was -- the family move was needlessly i thought on them. so secretary, your thoughts on those issues generally and what we can do to make that system work better for families. >> i applaud efforts at the military family sustainability act, the type of legislation that's terrific. it's not just the right thing to do, but it also allows us to let
our soldiers know the programs out there already. right now it's on a case by case basis. when you look at an army soldier, it's who they serve on their left and their right and also their families at home that they're responsible for. for almost 5 years now, it's the family that have born the cost and have been really stretched. we're trying to do everything possible to make sure they know we're committed as an army team and an army family. i look at that legislation and i think it's a terrific example of partnering with the military and the legislative branch to let them know that these programs are in place and to make sure that we are articulating that and mandating that. i know your legislation provides a six-month window. those are the type of things that allow us to focus on readiness, but take care of soldiers at the same time. so i look forward to working with you.
>> we look forward to working with you on that, too. the legislation does say six months. if there's a pervasive argument that four months is better, we can talk about that. the strength of the military is the military families. and with everything families have invested, there's enough invested without needlessly creating stress. i don't know what you' seen in your command, your sense of how important this is that we look at this differently than we have been. >> i think it's a key readiness issue. not just a compassion issue. about 60%-plus of our army is married and on average have two children. in world war ii, 10% was married with children. so 60% of our force is married with children. we've got to adjust the system to manage the current talent
pool we have. and if there's one thing soldiers care about, it's their family. if we want our soldier to be ready to focus on his training or the enemy, we owe that soldier to make sure their family is being taken care of with good schools, good health care, the spouse has a job and the stability act and the family act goes towards doing some of that. i think it's very important. i'm in full support of anything that helps army families. >> we look forward to continuing -- i know all the co-sponsors and the members do continued work with you so we come up with something that really works here. but as more spouses pursue their own professional career as students often to either start in school -- start when school starts or stay until school is over, little things like this i'm sure make a huge difference in whether people maintain their commitment to the military it. only takes one or two bad situations for many people who are willing to serve to say i
just can't continue to put my family through this for what appears to most people looking at the current situation to be often no good reason at all. so thank both of you for your comments on that. and thank you chairman. >> the senator from montana, mr. tester. i want to thank both of you for being here. most of my questions are going to be dealing with ptsd and tbi and suicide. the rest of my questions will be written in writing for you. i certainly appreciate the ongoing efforts that the army has done on the discharge process and how we're handling ptsd and tbi. i want to dig into that a little more. there's nothing dishonorable
about the men and women who battle with mental health issues and they deserve to be treated with dignity and compassion. and the best care that we can provide. i would just say, and you guys know this, to be forcibly separated from the military with a lesser honorable discharge for these folks isn't zoing a service to the country or the army and especially not to those folks and their families. this goes for either one of you or both of you, can you provide us with an update on the army's investigation into the discharge process? >> sure, senator. let me start. there's two independent reviews going on right now on the discharge process. i understand, i've read the reports about the 22,000 soldiers. we are looking at it and it's due back to us shortly. i know my predecessor initiated that process. so once that comes back, we will communicate to the senate to make sure they know we're tracking that. from my initial preliminary investigation on this, and look
at this, it's that less than 1% that we' talking about that have that discharged, whether it's otr or if it's oth or dishonorable discharge. that's related to ptsd or pti. as you mentioned, these are iraq and afghanistan, my generation. we need to get on top of it. and that's why through embedded brigade health teams and other things we're trying to get after it. but there is no doubt that we have to -- if i could say one last thing, senator. we also don't want to send the message, though, that it's a get out of jail free card. not that you're suggesting that, but we need to make sure we have a ready force and that we're given the resources needed to make them whole again. >> i think we can both agree is we want to do what's right. and if these folks who acquired
ptsd or tbi in service we need to take responsibility for that. can you tell me when the report is due back? you said shortly -- >> i believe we're talking weeks, not months. i think within forweeks. >> what are you doing with that report when you get it? >> first i will read it and execute. >> will it be open for us? >> i many understandimy underst be a public document. >> do you know what issues they identified at this point? >> i think there are issues from my, again, preliminary read on this, how it was in the past is different than how it is now the last few years. >> so there's a provision that i included in the 2015 mdaa that would say that all folks that were discharged with a mental health condition be reviewed by at least one mental health professional. could you give me an update on the implementation on that. >> you have my commitment that i will give you that.
my understanding is that when you look at some of the health care professionals to review the medical documents. >> so what you're saying is that hasn't been implemented yet? >> i believe -- that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is from my understanding, and i can get back to you with more accuracy, but from my understanding, they have hired mental health professionals to review those past cases. there's a short fall, but they've hired those persons to execute that piece of legislation. >> so current discharges are meeting that now? >> and they've hired more professionals to do the past ones. >> okay. let me go to my last one and then we'll let it go. and it deals with female veterans who commit suicide at nearly six times the rate of civilian women, five times more likely than male veterans to commit suicide. what is the army doing to address that? what i would say is a rise of
suicide among women in the military. >> senator, i will tell you that i write a letter every week, and i average about ten a week. and there's several are from suicide. and we need -- it's getting worse in active duty, better in reserves, better in reserves, worse in active duty. year for year, it was getting better. 2015 was not a good year. almost one a day. and that's the total soldiers and also their family members and civilians as well. almost one a day. we need to do a better job. i think through these embedded behavioral health teams that we have at the brigade level which is getting to the stigma, it's okay to go see a mental health care professional, that's the most important thing. it's coupled, senator, though, with the not my squad initiative with the sergeant major of the army when we talk about sexual assaults. and we've been very aggressive and have great successes. incidents are down and reports are up.
>> the senator's time has expired. >> you're on it and you're going to deal with it, if we can be of help, please let us know to help you do your job. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the distinguished senator from alaska, ms. murkowski. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your appearance this morning and thank you for your leadership. i have one priority this morning and that is with regards to the proposed reductions to the 425th brigade combat team at jay bear. general milley, i thank you for visiting alaska last week, or about ten days or so ago to observe the fourth infantry brigade combat team there. in to your military judgment, do you think that the fourth infantry brigade combat team should be retained as a strategic deterrent to russia and to support our military
objectives in the pacific? >> i do, senator. and if i could take a minute to -- >> if you would, please. >> so when i first was nominated and then confirmed for chief, senator sullivan asked me to take a look at it. i've done that. i've gone to school on the situation i think reasonably well relative to russia in the arctic, in the northern pacific. and i've concluded after about four, five, six months here, a pretty intensive study, that russia is not only acting aggressively in europe, they're also asserting themselves in the pacific, and specifically in the arctic. they've activated additional brigades. they put up some command and control capabilities and they've done some other things in the north. i think it would be contrary to u.s. strategic national security interests to go ahead and pull out 425 at this time.
my thought is that we should extend them at least a year to see how the strategic situation develops and move from there. right now that's the only airborne vertical forced entry capability available to admiral harris. we've got a variety of situations i already described with korea and chinese operations in the south china sea, et cetera. we want that capable in the kick bag of the president of the united states and the combat and command of the secretary defense. and to have that tool available if required, they can rapidly deploy, they're less than eight hours from any hot spot, not only in the pacific, but in other parts of the world. a great joint strategic deployment platform with air force capenabilities. we have a national capability that's worthwhile keeping. i talked to the commanders, talked to the soldiers. i think we need to keep them for an additional year, defer our decision for one year. and that would be my best
military advice at this time. >> that is very welcome news and much appreciated and just a true recognition of what we have with this only airborne brigade combat team for the pacific. arctic trained, mountain trained, you know all the superlatives. so thank you for recognizing and acknowledging that. i would ask you, secretary murphy, if you can concur with the judgments that have been expressed by general milley. >> senator, i plan, as i mentioned to you earlier, i plan on going up to alaska myself. i've been partnering with chief milley on this. i come from an airborne unit when i deployed with them. i know it strategically is an incredible asset. my understanding from the chief's report, the facilities are second to none. we've invested a lot of money up there. so we are looking at that and it's my understanding i have the authority to act on that and i
look forward to working with you as we review this shortly with an answer. >> again to both of you, i appreciate what you have provided here today and i look forward to working with you to ensure that the capableabilitie have with the 425th are continued to allow for that robust security that we need specifically at this time. and with the components that they have, i think we recognize that it is exceptional and needs to be protected. i thank you for that and look forward to working with you in that regard. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. the distinguished senator from h hi, mr. schatz. >> thank you. general milley, as you know, the asia pacific region has been in the news for the l.a. several months with north korean nuclear test and the chinese aggression
in the spratleys. a casual observer might get the feeling that this is primarily a navy and marine corps issue. i would like you to articulate the army's role in deterring aggression in the region and also reassuring our allies. >> thanks, senator. i think the army plays a very, very important role in the pacific. we've got 75,000, almost 80,000, actually, army soldiers in the pacific command. so about 1/3 of the operational force of the deployable operational army is committed in the pacific. it does a lot of things that i know are worthwhile for deterring any potential outbreak of hostilities and shaping the environment, reassuring our allies. pacific pathways is a good example where army forces routinely three times a year exercise the strategic
deployment capabilities to do that. most of the countries in asia, their militaries, i think, all but three or four of them are actually led by army officers. there's an important engagement function to be done there as well. if you look at what the likely contingencies are in asia, it's clear that the navy and the air force are fundamental. but the truth of the matter is that the navy, the air force, the army, the machines, special forces, no one service wins a war for the united states of america. it takes a nation to win it. and as far as the military goes, it's all the services working together in time and space to get the effects you want. in the pacific, the army plays an absolutely vital role. i think you would hear the same out of admiral harris for sure on the korean peninsula. i'm committed to the pacific and the army has a very important role to play.
>> i want to appreciate general books as well for his leadership. more faces and more places with less bases i know is his saying. if you wouldn't mind spending a little bit of time talking about how pacific pathways actually works and how it fits into how the army has historically worked in the region and also how it's consistent with the army's mission, consistent with its mandate, but also a bit of an innovation. >> so pacific pathways is a series of exercises. it's not a singular exercise. it's an umbrella term that comes with a series of exercises where they're directed at reassuring allies and exercising strategic deployment and tactical employment once the forces arrive. it's done three times a year it. es underneath the command and control of the first corps headquarters out of jblm and the 25th division headquarters out of hawaii. and they go to achieve pacific, what we call phase zero objectives of the combat and commander.
we reassure allies to deter enemies and to engage on a routine day to day basis. it's a series of exercises that achieve admiral harris' objectives. >> thank you. and now just turning to force structure, secretary murphy, i understand we have a couple of major variables. obviously what we do in terms of sequester in the out years and whatever may be happening on the globe, but given those variables, what can you say about the army's inclination in terms of force structure in the asia pacific region and hawaii in particular? >> i think the key, senator, is really the partner capability. again, we are focused on it, as you know. but i would say to you that it's not just american boots on the ground and exercises, it's our partner capability. what that does senator is it creates synergy with our allies, that when we work together as a team and have those relationships, it shows a show of strength. comparable to what's going on right now in europe with a
european initiative. so when you look at the pacific pathways and those exercises at a cost from what i read about $15 million, it is definitely worth it when you look at not just the readiness that it builds with our own soldiers but with our allies in that region. >> thank you. the distinguished senator from kansas. >> thank you very much. excuse me for interrupting in case you were going to say more words after distinguished. general milley, thank you very much for being here and for your service to our nation. thank you for the conversation that we had in our office earlier this week. i found it extremely valuable and i appreciate the amount of
time you're willing to spend and the expertise you're willing to share. let me start with something that the secretary said in his comments, readiness wins wars. and i'm particularly interested in this issue of readiness and particularly how readiness is related to troop strength. and legislatively we're working to increase the authorized levels for both the army, the marines, the active duty as well as the guard. and general, let me visit with you about this topic and ask you if returning the army to its in strength of 480,000 soldiers in the active duty, 350,000 in the nan gua national guard and 205,000 in the reserve, does that support your number one priority of readiness? >> i think the -- the short answer would be sure.
i think that having increased numbers would help out our readiness, if and only if, though, we had the money to support that. and that's really fundamental. the reason that this budget has us on a glide path towards 450 in the regular army and 335 in the guard and 195 in the army reserve is because that's the size force balanced with modernization and readiness that we can afford given that top line. so gwynn tiven the budget agree et cetera -- if more money were available and we could increase size of force, i think that would be great. i do want to caution, though, the numbers are not the only thing. quality matters. when i talk readiness, i'm talking about units that are full up on strength. they're highly trained in combined arms operations. they're capable of sustaining and executing counterinsurgency operations.
so the size of a given force is important. quality has a -- quantity has a quality all its own. that is important. but that's one of many factors. to determine capability and the outcomes in ground combat. but i certainly would welcome additional in strength, only if it came with the money attached to it. >> let me ask the question about training an equipped, which you indicated are so important. numbers alone are so significant, how those individual soldiers are trained and equipped is important. the number of deployments, the time spent training and equipping forces is in part dependent upon the troop strength. >> absolutely. the tempo we have, 190,000, 140 countries, the combatand command out there, you have to have time to train, time to hit the sled
multiple occasions, build up your skill sets to do the type of tasks that we're required to do. so time is a critical resource. if you have a larger in strength, then you can have a larger amount of force dedicated in terms of time towards the training tasks that are required. so for sure, it does factor in on that. >> thank you very much. in one of the aspects of readiness that you and your staff have been helpful to me on, helpful actually to soldiers in kansas is the completion of ir win army hospital at fort riley. you are true to your motto of readiness. in helping us get the hospital out of the morass of lawsuits and construction issues, you did so recognizing in order to have a fully trained, equipped and healthy force that health care administered through the
hospital is important. what we now know about that issue, the hospital at fort riley, is that the construction issues are to be completed by march, next month. but we're still being told that the hospital will not be move-in ready until july. and my request of you is would you continue to work with us to see if we can get the dates shortened from a matter of months to a matter of weeks? >> i absolutely will. let me make a comment, and i'll check with the ax kuhle time lines, et cetera. i was a senior commander at ft. hood, base of 50,000 and a senior commander at fort drum, 10th mountain division. i have some experience with hospital. going through the engineering and the time lines and the constructions, et cetera, that particular hospital, and i
suspect similar things are happening at riley. but i'll check to be sure. once the construction is done, that's not the automatic move-in date. it takes time to move the medical equipment, conduct inspections, certify everything and make sure everything is running in accordance with the medical standard and the engineering standards that are required to effectively run a hospital that's safe for patients. i'll get back to you on the specific time line. i'll work to accelerate it if we can. but i suspect those post construction activities are what's contributing. >> my understanding is that the equipment, the furniture, et cetera, has already been moved in. i just raise this issue for your awareness as well. my time has expired. if i could just ask a very quick and passing question. yesterday, the administration announced a plan in regard to the closing of guantanamo bay and the detention facility that's there. general, let me ask, my understanding is that the military, the army has provided perhaps information necessary for that planned number of soldiers, costs, et cetera.
but was there analysis completed by the army in regard to that plan? and i ask in particular because potentially the housing of those detainees may be at a military -- an army installation, perhaps in kansas or in colorado, and i wondered the extent. was this the department of defense? or did the army specifically provide analysis in the preparation of that report? >> what we provided were facts in terms of what's available in army installations, how much space there is, what the security arrangements are, costs, the amount of soldiers that are currently committed to gitmo, how much that costs out of the army budget, et cetera. so facts. as far as the analysis of the plan, i haven't seen a plan, other than what i saw announced the other day. i personally haven't. i'll check with my staff.
i don't think they have analyzed a plan, per se, something that i would consider a plan. but we did provide input, data input to the department of defense and those folks that are working on some sort of plan. >> thank you, general. thank you, mr. secretary, thank you chairman cochran. >> senat >> udall. >> there are tremendous changes occurring in the army after over a decade of war. one thing i would like to concentrate on is how we're preparing for future conflict. and my biggest concern is that too often today's priorities reflect yesterday's way of doing things. and do not adequately reflect the world as it may become. white sands missile range has the best air space in the country, yet this testing range
is just empty high mountain desert without sophisticated sensors and roads and infrastructure and people that support the nation's testing mission. how does this budget support maintenance and revitalization at the base? and will the army commit to providing funds and a plan of action to revitalize white sands missile range so it can continue to support the modernization and the third offset strategy? >> senator, white sands is a critical national strategic asset actually. and a tremendous amount of testing is going on out there. it's adjacent to fort bliss. you have an absolutely huge piece of ground there, not only to conduct testing but also training. so white stands is important, and we're committed to continuing to fund that. with respect to the third offset, the so-called third offset, the idea there is to
invest -- it's a dod initiative to invest capabilities in advanced technologies and systems that would prevent any peer prevent any competitor from matching the capabilities of the united states. white sands will play a critical role, there's no doubt in my mind, in the development of those systems. >> thank you. it's very good to hear that. and thank you also general milley for mentioning ft. bliss. although ft. bliss is not in new mexico, it's right very close, and many of the people who work at ft. bliss live in new mexico. ft. bliss and its activities have a major impact on southern new mexico. and people in southern new mexico are very welcoming of that activity from ft. bliss. now, at white sands missile range, the army's high energy laser systems test facility, otherwise known as hel stat,
remains underfunded and lacks the necessary personnel to conduct its mission. with dod's own third asset strategy promising significant investments and high energy lasers, where does hel stat fit in and how does the funding properly reflect this role? >> i'm going to have to get back to you specifically on that program's funding. >> okay. >> i don't have the specificings on that program's funding. >> that would be great. we'd appreciate that. the air force is beginning to take note about the need to combine kinetic and signer training and, i included language last year to promote this efforts, which would enable our troops to train for an environment under both kinetic and cyber attack. how is the army working to prepare for this type of future battlefield environment, and are there adequate funds in this year's budget to begin this type of training? >> we have put things in the
budget for this. the future environment, it depends on what you go against. if it's isis, taliban, that's one set of conditions. but if we're going against these hybrid, higher-end threats, there's no doubt, we're going to face a very significant cyber threat, and it will be a very lethal environment with the proliferation of precision-guided missiles and artillery, and so on and so farth. ieds, machine guns, terrorists, what we've been fighting for 15 years, if we engage with one of these new competitors, that battlefield calculation will be significantly different. this whole budget is all about that. this whole budget for the army is all about increasing readiness to fight in that environment. that's the one that we're concerned about, and we have to be able to do that in a combined
arms way. this won't be just light infantry and counterinsurgency patrols. we got to be fully integrated with air and naval capabilities. stand-off weapons systems, but importantly, we also have to have, and we have to train to it, increasingly disperse our force and reaggregate our force rapidly, because any kind of concentration of force in that type of environment is not going to be long for this world. so we've got to think not only about the weapons systems and the sizes of force, we have to think of the ways in which we're going to operate in that environment. that will be a fundamentally different operating environment than we've seen in the last 15 years. >> the time of the senator has expired. >> thank you very much for that response, and i will submit additional questions for the record. thank you very much. >> the distinguished center from missouri -- >> i have one other question, if
you think we have time. >> whenever the input hearings, the assessments were held around the country at various bases last year, one of the things discussed there was civilian employees as well. i want to take a slightly different approach to this than senator durbin did, though i share his concern that we just don't replace civilian employees with contract employees, and my question to both of you is, are we gonna get -- when will we begin to get a sense of the civilian employee component? i'd also like to make the point that -- largely school house, it has a lot of functions, but it has a lot of the various schools there, because of that, probably a little more of a civilian component than you would have in an average installation. so a percentage cut would not be appropriate there, i don't
think, and hope you don't either. but anything you'd like to help us with, to understand where we are on civilian. we know the end strength military number you're heading for. i'm not sure i have the right sense yet of what the -- how the civilian component relates to that and it might be, to some extent, the same question you answered already to senator durbin, and he and i i would think would share the same concern that we don't just transition people who have been employees of the federal government into employees of a contractor that doesn't recognize the service that those individuals have provided as federal employees. >> senator, again, i talked about a total force in the army and that includes our civilian counterparts. and as i mentioned, there's about 246,000 of them and they're critical, especially when you look at ft. lenwood, missouri.
because over the 15 years -- almost 15 years of war, continuous war, we have put our green suitors, our soldiers out there fighting the fight and we've had to increase the civilian capacity to make sure we can build a proper generating force. but specifically, senator, and to your point, we're not just throwing them away. we value their service, they're definitely part of the team. but i would say, 37,000 have left, but it's through attrition. they've not been fired. they're gone on to do other things, or they've retired. so we're hoping to continue to do all these things, only through attrition. but there's no doubt that the army itself is critically important to have the best and the brightest within our ranks, and that includes soldiers and civilians. and we have to have the proper mix, and i think we're almost all the way there and we'll continue to make sure we monitor that, but there's nothing drastic -- >> so you believe you're close to the civilian number that would be the target --
>> i think we're hitting our targets where we'll be able to go down only through attrition, yes, senator. >> general milley? >> the numbers i've seen concur with that, that we'll meet our targets through attrition and voluntary retirement. >> and i would just make my point again, that there are some installations where the civilian component may be a higher component because of school obligations and other obligations in training, and so it will be interesting to see how the retiree -- the people that leave federal service, how that works to fit the target number. though it may not be an exact match with the employee number you still need to make a specific installation work. >> and senate, if i could say one last point, because i think it's analogous to what you're saying. don't underestimate the fact that there are army and our generating forces, we are a
joint force and what we do to train the other branches is second to none. >> right. >> if you look at a u.s. army soldier in the green suit, the dress uniform, 53% of them are gonna be in the guard or national guard or reserve. the majority of our soldiers are in our reserve component, but we are a total force. but along with them are critically important civilians. we could not do this until we did it together. this generating force that we're doing on that base and elsewhere, trains marines and airmen to be the best of the best as well. >> and like the military police school or the chem/bio schools, or the other schools there, do that for beyond the confines of the army and i'm sure the other services appreciate and are grateful for that. thank you, chairman. >> thank you, senator. the distinguished center from
illinois, mr. durbin. >> i agree with his comments. the one element that we've been told repeatedly, these contract employees cost three times as much as civilians. so if you're eliminating -- >> that is not the goal, and that's not what we've been doing. but i will make sure that i'm on top of it and i will get back with you, but that's not the intent and that's not what we're doing. >> general milley, let me ask you one last question, a little different than some. based on your personal experience and your current responsibility, what would you say is the most encouraging news you can give us on our fight against isis, and what is the most sobering thing that you see as you consider this enemy? >> senator, i had an opportunity right after confirmation to go visit and spend some time in iraq, talk to u.s. commanders, iraqi commanders.
i went back in december for a second visit and i'll be heading back there shortly for yet another one. so in my capacity as a member of the joint chief staffs, i've served many times over there, but i wanted to get that update. when i went over in the september time frame, i was not -- i came out of there not particularly optimistic. i thought at that time that the enemy had the strategic momentum, that things were not going so well. and i think that played out in many ways in the news. when i went back in december, i came away with a different picture. i saw our different -- at least tactical and operational situation and somewhat different strategic situation. so what changed? we put in place in the fall some new aspects -- modified aspects -- we modified the strategy. assessed the situation, we collectively, jcs, et cetera, and we put in place some
different aspects of the strategy, some of which are classified, some of which are not. the long and the short of it is, isis has come under significantly increased pressure at multiple locations simultaneously and you're seeing that play out in the news. and you're seeing things like increased number of isis killed in action. isis leadership is under intense pressure. their finances are under intense pressure. they've lost a significant amount -- relatively significant amount at least tactically of battle space or territory. they lost ramadi, which is important. and there's been a lot of interdiction on the lines of communication. so they're under a lot of pressure. however, that's all on the good. we're not there yet. and no one should think we are. this is a long-term effort against this enemy. the president's intent is to destroy this organization and we intend to do so.
the most alarming thing bond beyond their brutality and viciousness, they're now displacing, it appears to me anyway, that they're displacing capabilities to other areas, to out-stations. the most disturbing of which now appears to be libya. so there seems to be, at least in my view, without going into classifications, an increase in isis capabilities in libya that should be cause for concern. i know it is cause for concern. which really is emblematic of one of the phenomenona we're seeing as a transitional organization. they're not solely in iraq and syria, although that's their center, the caliphate. but they're spread out. so this involves af rick comand ukrom as well. so it's a transregional approach. we have to apply all the elements of national power to achieve the president's end
state of destroying them and help out our partners and stabilize the region. >> thank you, senator durbin. are there no further questions. our senators have asked them, and we appreciate very much for your assistance and your appearance before us today. senators are permitted to submit written questions. any questions that are submitted, we would appreciate you respond to them in a reasonable time. the committee will reconvene on wednesday, march 2, :00, at 10: a.m., to receive testimony from the demeanor of the navy. until then, this subcommittee stands in recess.
thursday on capitol hill, secretary of state john kerry testifies at a house foreign affairs committee on his department's 2017 budget request, 9:30 a.m. eastern live. then in the senate, a confirmation hearing for education secretary nominee john king, live, 2:00 p.m. eastern. how can we best get people to pay attention to wasteful
spending? so we tend to find things that are interesting, a little different, easy to understand, because the government is so large, an organization like cagw has to cut through the noise and other things that are going on. members of congress talking about the wonderful things that they're doing, and try to get people to be more involved and make it a little more personal. so that they understand the impact on them and their families and their children and grandchildren. >> sunday night on q & a, thomas shaft, presidents of citizens against government waste talks about his efforts against wasteful governmental spending. they also compile the bpig book. >> it was called the congressional pork busters coalition and they came up with the definition of what was then called pork barrel spending, and still is, eventually became the
term earmark, and we went through the bills and started the pig book, it went all the way up to $29 billion in 2006. and every year that we can find earmarks in the appropriations bill, we release a congressional pig book around april or may. >> sunday night on c-span's q & a. governors from across the nation were in washington, d.c. last weekend for their annual winter meeting. one of the discussions focused on opioid abuse. this is just under an hour and a half. >>