tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 8, 2016 5:45pm-7:46pm EDT
at least short and medium term drs would require more deployments, more training more equipment -- in order to counter the rising threats that we see that secretary murphy outlined in his opening statement. is that true? general milley: that is a correct assessment. en. mccain: and that is why he -- you have assessed, come to the conclusion that we are at, quote, high military risk? general milley: to fight -- we have sufficient capability and readiness counterinsurgency and to fight counterterrorism. the high military risk refers specifically to emerging threats and the potential for great power conflict. i am specifically talking about the time it takes to execute the tasks. high risk would say we would not be able to accomplish all the tasks in the time necessary
in terms of casualties. sen. mccain: thank you to you and secretary murphy for your forthright testimony before the committee today. i think it is extremely helpful. and senator manchin? senator: thank you both for your service. i have had a chance to talk to some of your general officers and came away with with two big oncerns. about the reduction of the size of the army and budget predictability. i have been shaking my head at sequestration for years now. it's a foolish way to set budgets. it was a penalty we put on ourselves. we never thought we would go there. and become dysfunctional. but we did. we have to move on. general milley, i would ask you to walk me through specifically how sequestration has forced at the army to reduce its size to the most critical level. that i think that we've ever
faced right now with all of the threats that we are facing. general milley: there are a couple of points to be made. one is the unpredictability of he year-to-year budgeting. in reality, as we have continuing resolutions it ends up being a nine-month cycle. the unpredictability and short-term nature of it does not allow for longer lanning. in rodges and certainty equipment or training plans, for example, that is a big deal thethe uncertainty. the second piece of it is the magnitude of the cuts. since 2008, the army has had about a 74% or 75% cut in the modernization account writ large and about a 50% cut in r&d writ large. in less than 10 years, that is a significant cut. if we think 10 years ahead and look 10 years behind, if the trend continues, that is not good. if you -- we focusing on today's readiness.
the 20 and 21 and 22-year-olds, etc., that are in the army today, we're focused on getting them ready for combt readiness if you are 10 years old today, i am worried about the 10-year-old who will be the soldier 10 years from now -- that is the bigger risk that we are taking. we are compelled into that risk based on the top line that we're given. senator: from everything i heard from your front-line generals is that there is no way we can reach the imminent threat around the world. with 980,000 people? can you confirm that is high risk? what will it take for us not to be at high risk? these are artificial caps and all this other bull crap that we're dealing with. general milley: i have a series
of studies that are ongoing. if we operate under the current national security strategy, the current defense planning guideness, in order to recuse to significant risk or moderate risk it would take roughly speaking about a 1.2 million person -- at a billion dollars per 10,000 soldiers, we will make the most efficient use of the army we ave. nator manchin: secretary murphy, if i may, i have a lot of concerns regarding level contract supart. -- support. i've talked about that and never gotten a good handle on it. for everyone soldier we have in unit, we have two people that think that soldier up. my question to you is are the long-term savings that some of your bean counters are telling
us about, do they provide substantial or is the number of contractors driven by the are per -- arbitrary caps that prevent us from deploying soldiers to do these jobs. are they telling us it's long-term savings here and with the caps, the only way to get around them is to have more contractors on the backend. to do jobs that snoges uniform should be doing? sec. murphy: we went from our gate guards and security forces at the compound in bosnia from our soldiers to private contractors. senator manchin: because of the cap? >> not trying to be disrespectful, but they were not at the level of readiness. that is what we have been doing for 15 years. i'm not saying it is right. we have cut civilians and contractors 16%. 146,000 of them.
i'm looking at this. senator man chin: how many troops did we cut over the same period? >>we cut 30% soldiers, 16% in civilians and contractors. i am trying to balance this, senator. e talked about the cuts. senator manchin: someone has put caps in the system. for whatever reason that i cannot understand to the good people of west virginia, why you don't want people in uniform to do the job. who we count on and train properly. sec. murphy: when i was where you were, we did not even know how many contractors we had. we are getting after it. we're making sure that it makes the most fiscal sense but for national security also. secretary minchin: if we go to he million two, do we have a
proportionate contractors? would the contractors with that 1.2 million be able to do some of the jobs the soldiers are doing now? sec. murphy: i would say more soldiers would do more of the jobs. our soldiers are geared for brigade combat teams to win. senator man chin: thank you. my time is up. sen. mccain: we eagerly look forward to the day when you can tell us how many contractors are employed in the department of defense. that will be one of the most wonderful days of my political career. senator fischer. senator fischer: thank you mr. chairman. his committee has held a number of hearings about the future of warfare and what technologies are going to be required. this is something the secretary and the deputy secretary have discussed at length as well. we have heard some bold predictions about incorporating robotic systems on the battlefield as soon as the next 10 years. you think we are going to see a
real revolution in the role of unmanned systems on the battlefield in the next 10 years? do you think that is a goal we should be working towards in the view of other near-term equirements you're facing? general milley: revolution might be too strong a word. i do see the very significant increase to the use of robotic in terms of manually controlled and autonomous and ground warfare over the coming years. specifically, i don't see some sort of revolution like we will go to the horse from the tank -- to the tank from the horse or the musket to the rifle. but i do see the introduction, at about the 10-year mark or so, of the widespread use of robotics in ground warfare. we are already seeing it in air and naval platforms. the ground warfare is a more complex and dirty environment
but i do anticipate that we're going to refine the use of robots significantly and there will be a wide use of them in ground combat by 2030. senator fischer: as a service secretary, what role do you have in the third offset initiative? we have heard there will be new operational concepts and capabilities for ground combat. is that something that the army is leading on? ec. murphy: we are talking about technologies. when you look back at the second offset, we are about precision munition and gps. when i was in iraq, we did our operations at night. night vision goggles. again, this is the techingnology drswhen i say that we don't want a fair fight, we want to be at a tech -- tactical advantage. i do think it will be robotics.
robotics, cyber, electronic warfare. the gains we need to make their -- either way, ma'am -- our peer competitors are investing in those things as well. we cannot be outmanned or outgunned. we have to have tactical advantage. i am part of that within the army and with in the department of defense. general milley: for the next five-10 years, for ground warfare, you will see evolutions and you will see acceleration of some of these technologies brought in but they will be episodic. 10 years and beyond, i do see a significant transformation of round warfare. the character of war, not the nature of war. it would include robotics, cyber, lasers, rail guns, very advanced technologies. 3-d printing, all of these
technologies that are emerging in the commercial world i think will end up having military applications just past a decade from now. we the army, going back to the risk of the future, need to invest in the r&d and the modernization of that or we will find the qualitative overmatched cap between the united states and our adversaries closed. we are already seeing it closing today. senator fischer: when we talk about the third offset we focus on the stuff. on the new technologies that are out there and we hear about the robotics and the lasers. i would like to know how much input both of you would have when it comes to setting goals and missions and then trying to figure out what technologies are out there and what needs to be defined in order to make those olds instead of -- those goals instead of reacting to the technologies that are there. how do you view that?
general milley: it is an interactive process. about 25 or 30 years ago, much innovation was done by the department of defense. in terms of techingnology. today, most technological innovation is being done by the commercial world. it is important we have linkages into the commercial sector including a look on valley -- silicon valley. 128 up in boston, the triangle and so on. we need to keep in touch with them closely and we do have a lot of input, not just personally, but also through the organization of the army. we do have a lot of input into it. there are a lot of technological advances out there. the challenge -- there are a couple. one is what does the year 2025 or 2030 look like, demographically, politically etc. but also technologically. those are big questions.
once we figure that out, we can drive the ways in which we desire to fight. once you figure that out, you can figure out the equipment, the organizations and training plans to create that organization. we first have to divine what that world will look like. at least as best we can. we won't get it exactly right but we want to get it more right than the enemy. senator fischer: i wish you good luck in trying to figure hat out. and to meet those goals for the future. thank you very much, mr. chairman. sen. mccain: thank you. senator reid: general milley where would you focus on readiness? eneral milley: couple of key
places including aviation flight hours. you think -- i think that's importantwe dropped that in 2014 or 2015 which is the requirement per month. down to about 10. we need to bump it back up. secondly, home station training. e want all of the units to go to the joint readiness training center or the training center in germany. so, the key to success at one of those big ticket training centers is the home station preparatory training prior to going. all the gunneries, the field training exercises, etc. that has been underfunded over the past few years. if we can get home station training up to a level, the units will come out of the ctc's at a much higher level in combined arms training. i would put in probably aviation flight hours and then home station training. lastly, if we did have additional moneys, i would probably put it towards additional c.t.c. training for
the nad guard. the national guard will be very important because of the capacity issue of the regular army to deal with the current day today but also the contingency operations. we need to increase in short in short order we need to increase the readiness of the national guard. >> this year i believe you have two scheduled rotations to training centers. general milley: and we are trying to increase it to four. >> a related issue in terms of the emphasis on readiness, particularly on aviation. theprocurement and acquisition process, are you at a point now where you could jeopardize long-term aviation programs, or do you still have a little bit of headspace? general milley: i think we are approaching the margin. it is very tight right now. we have had to stretch out
aviation modernization, in order to reach some of that for readiness. aviation is roughly speaking 20% or so, 25% of the operating budget. so we have stretched out aviation modernization, taking those moneys to put them into readiness. d: one of the one points you made in your comments, the emphasis on training, which means the units have to be at home, essentially, the time element, rather than the deployment element. general milley: that is correct. senator reed: so not in terms of major contingency, but the current situation, if we begin to increase our footprint in places around the world, that would, the dilemma would be that that would rob you of the time and available troops to get ready for the next big battle. is that a fair statement? general milley: sort of,
senator. in that some of these overseas exercises actually improve your readiness. senator reed: i'm talking about commitment. general milley: an operational commitment would consume readiness. enator -- center -- s reed: you have to understand the cost not only short-term and long-term as we fall behind in the readiness curve. general milley: that is correct. : the point that has been made very powerfully by the chairman and myself, sequestration has to be eliminated. this year might be manageable. the next year of sequestration becomes frankly impossible. you would have to come here and tell us you probably cannot perform their mission. is that a fair -- general milley: i think if sequestration were imposed and went to those levels, we could not perform the missions
assigned to us under the current strategy, and, most important to me as a commissioned officer, and important to this committee, we would risk american lives if we were committed into contac -- combat. senator reed: thank you for your service. >> thank you gentlemen for appearing before us. i would like to return to the issues laid out by senator reed. more aviation hours and more home station training for regular army units, and finally more ctc training for national guard? general milley: those would be three areas. cotton: those are the priorities you would spend with the first extra dollar in the budget, or are those limited to readiness? general milley: those are readiness dollars. sen. cotton: ok. you mentioned earlier about the
soldiers we are sending to fight today, and your priority for readiness. you said frequently during your tenure as chief. whosea's moms and dads soldiers are serving in your they can be assured you would never send one of their sons or dollars into combat and ready to fight -- on ready to fight -- unready to fight? general milley: that is correct. senator cotton:= but that has a cost in modernization. those whose children aspire to be in the army have to be concerned about the capabilities of a future army. general milley: that is also correct, senator. senator cotton: there is some discussion in the congress about mandating a certain strength of the army at a higher level than 450,000. i think that would be a good idea. i would like to see it much higher than that.
can you talk about the consequences if this congress does in fact mandate a certain strength without increasing your budget numbers? i think if we: were mandated to go to a higher and, more soldiers, figure, we did not have the dollars, i personally believe that would be disastrous for both the nation and the army, in that we would have to at the end of the day mortgage more modernization of the future, taking down installations, quality of life, all caps offense would have to happen. at the end of the day, we would risk literally having a hollow army. we do not have a hollow army today, but many on this committee remember the days we did. when people did not train, and units were not at appropriate levels of strength. there wereparts. all those things would start happening if we increase the force without the appropriate money to maintain readiness. because atton:
mandatory strength without a budget to match would mean they don't have the money to train, to be equipped. however, you also mention the greater risk of modernization. i assume that's because if the army mandated a certain strength, because of your commitment to send our sons and daughters overseas fully equipped and trained and manned, you would take even more money out of modernization? general milley: that's exactly right. the three levels are strength,, readiness, and modernization. if strength went up, the first one at the door is modernization. i certainly do not recommend that. if there were a mandated increase of the size of the army, for whatever reason, then i would strongly urge that that happened with the money appropriate, for the readiness, etc. that, it would be a big mistake. general milley: i support a
higher strength than we are on the path to have, but it would be deeply on advisable to do that without a concomitant budget increase. turning to modernization, you were speaking to senator fischer about some commercial technology we have seen. could you talk a little bit about your new acquisition authorities, and your desire to use more commercial on the shelf technology? you famously said the army's handgun program, you had $34 million, you could go to cabelas and buy 17,000 handguns for the army? you see that across other domains as well, with the global response force desire for enhanced mobilities. or d6 versus commercial technology. general milley: i think the proposals that are out there now are absolutely in the right direction. i welcome that and embrace it. i don't claim i know everything to know about acquisition, but
empowering the chiefs to really take greater responsibility, and with that comes accountability, and i welcome that as well. we should get into it. rule our sleeves up, get after it, and get the right equipment to the war fighters in a faster amount of time at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. the pistol was just one example. but i am bumping into these things all over the place, in a wife writing programs. so there has been an -- in a wide variety of programs. there has been a lot of discussion in the army. ourdesire is to make sure soldiers are taken care of. imagine weton: i will continue to bump up against your unlike some of counterparts who cannot just go -- auy index to narration
next generation submarine. thank you. my time has expired. >> fortunately, members of this committee are without controversy. senator shaheen. to beginhaheen: i want by adding my support to those on the committee who believe we need to deal with sequestration, and that it poses an imminent threat to our national security and a lot of other things with respect to our future. to begin by adding my support to those on the committee whoi want to folle conversation you had with senator fischer, general mille,: talking about the importance of innovation, technological innovation to our future. when we were having hearings on the future of our military, one of the things we heard is that, as you pointed out, there has been a dramatic decrease in support for r&d on the part of the department of defense. the one program that has consistently provided the kind of innovation that dod needs is the small innovation -- small
business innovation research program. i wonder if you could speak to the importance of that, for providing new technologies the army is looking for. general milley: it is a great program. i fully support it. i think, small business not in all cases, but often times small entrepreneurs are the most innovative. they tend to be very adaptive, agile, and innovative. so supporting those initiatives in order to take advantage and leverage emerging technologies is something i fully support. hopefully ween: can get this reauthorized for next year without the kind of challenges we had last time we tried to get reauthorized. i had the opportunity recently to meet in brussels with officials from europe and particularly eastern europe, the baltics. they were very pleased to see our proposal to increase the
european reassurance initiative rfold. you both mentioned in your testimony the threat from russia. one concern they asked about which i could not answer, which is why the decision seems to be made to pre-position the equipment, to do the rotational more in western europe than in eastern europe on the front lines. so, how do we explain the decision to do that? all, i milley: first of defer an authoritative answer to general breedlove. he determines where that equipment goes. but there's a couple of issues here, not the least of which are political negotiations with foreign governments as to where it goes, where you base it, building the infrastructure to support it, and so on. nche will bring
the equipment. the rotational units will bring equipment, rather than having it bp positioned initially. you will see in 17 and 18, we inl have a pre-position europe. there are advantages and disadvantages to pre-positioning and/or bringing it with you. both are valuable. the advantage of deploying with your equipment is to exercise the strategic climate systems. the navy and the air force, along with the army, in order to long-haul heavy equipment. the pre-position equipment, the big advantage there is the speed. so a combination of both actually is what would be required in a time of crisis. but the positioning of that equipment physically inside europe, i would like to defer that rationale to general breedlove. senator shaheen: i have had the opportunity to ask him about it.
it sounded to me like you are saying that the locations are based not just on military effectiveness, but politics have also been part of those decisions. general milley: european politics. senator shaheen: sure. general milley: political and dramatic negotiations between countries have to occur before we get that locked in. senator shaheen: one of the things that obviously our continued readiness depends on is the effectiveness of our reserve and guard. i was pleased to see that this budget included two military construction projects in new hampshire that are very important. right now we rank 51st out of 54 in terms of the condition of our facilities and armories. so, maybe this is appropriate for secretary murphy, can you talk about how we ensure the national guard has the resources it needs to be ready whenever we
expect them to deploy? sec. murphy: senator, the national guard, we are a total farce. we are not different forces. we are one army, one team. senator shaheen: sometimes the resources don't always seem like we are a total force and one team. am, when you ma' milcom, it is the lowest it has been in 24 years, but when you dive into the numbers like i have. hooksett, $11 million. rochester, $8.9 million. we are one team. there's different leadership. asking -- there's not two different teams. we are one team. we are giving them the resources
they need to make sure they have the resources they need. haveher comment, we mortgaged modernization. i know time has run out, but i can expand on it later if you would like me to. senator shaheen: thank you. mr. chairman. milley, earlier this week lieutenant general mcmaster testified. our chairman has alluded to this. his quote is exactly as follows. we are out ranged and outgunned by many potential adversaries. he also said, our army in the future risks being too small to secure the nation. do you agree with that statement in whole or in part? general milley: in part. "many" is probably an overstatement.
but to say the gap is closing, the capability gap is closing between major great power adversaries and the united states in terms of ground forces, that is absolutely true. i think that was the intent of what he was saying. i agree with his comment on the size of the force. but at range and outbound -- outgunned, i think it is a mixed bag. senator wicker: are we arranged by any potential adversary at this point? general milley: yes. senator wicker: which ones would that be? general milley: the ones in europe, on the ground. senator wicker: would you tell the committee what it means to russia?anged by general milley: with either direct or indirect fire systems, grant bae systems, tanks -- ground-based systems, tanks, artillery, those things. i would have to get you the actual range. it is not overly dramatic, but it is a combination of systems. we don't like it. we got want it.
but technically out ranged, outgunned on the ground. that's factual. senator wicker: so out ranged and outgunned has the same definition, and we are out range and outgunned by russia, to some extent at this point? general milley: that's correct. senator wicker: what does that mean for our nations security? general milley: it depends on what we want to do, relative to europe. the financial task there is to deter, maintain cohesion of the alliance, and to tear from russian aggression. if we got into a conflict with russia, then i think that it would place u.s. soldier lives at significant risk. senator wicker: and what specifically should we do? what steps should this committee and this congress take to reverse these trends and maintain the army's supremacy
over our adversaries? general milley: i think there's a couple of things. one, in terms of the capability of the force, the most important one is what is emphasized in this budget, readiness. that has to be sustained. what is readiness? manning, making sure we have enough people to man the organizations at appropriate levels of strength. equipment, we are ok. it depends on the unit. we have a lot of not available's in the force right now. it depends on the given unit. right now, ideally you want a unit to be well above 90% before you send them to,. that is not necessarily the case. when you get availability, start feeling back unit by unit and you find the number of troops in a given battalion or brigade deploying is not necessarily what you might have expected from the paper numbers.
is not necessarily the case. does the equivalent work, secondly? that is a work in progress. more or less manning and equipping is not bad. training is the long pole in the tent. then there is leadership, cohesion. and discipline and trust of the force. all of that equals readiness. i would say the number one thing at least near term would be readiness. in addition to that, because we have to look past lunchtime here, in addition to readiness we have got to reinvest in our modernization and r&d over time. attrit that,e to that will result in a bad outcome five to 10 years from now.
those are the two things i would offer to you, senator. senator wicker: perhaps you can elaborate on that. i do need to ask you about the light utility helicopter. you recently published an unfunded requirement for 17 lakotas in the fiscal year 2017. i was relieved to hear that. can you elaborate on how these 17 lakotas would be utilized, and what risk would we incur if you don't receive those? those are tied to the national recommendation. response. a they are specifically try to the recommendations. they would be utilized at fort rucker to free up apaches to go to the guard, utilized to train
new helicopter pilots. aircraft.a combat it does have great utility for things like training areas, using them to simulate enemy aircraft, using them to train pilots, but it is not a combat aircraft. the 17 are there to use as training aircraft at fort rucker. it is linked directly to the recommendations. senator wicker: and they will free up, aircraft. general milley: which we can then transfer to the national guard to execute other parts of the recommendation. general, would you add retention to that list? general milley: retention, recruiting talent. i mentioned the modernization. the readiness piece is the most important piece, but absolutely, to the list. i want to associate myself
with your comments in the opening statement, perhaps putting in a little context. we had a meeting talking about the overall budget issues. what a lot of people don't realize is that the expenditures nondefense and discretionary have fallen dramatically in the last 50 years, enter medically in the last 25 years, to the point where defense as a percentage of gdp is now the lowest it has been in 70 years, 3.3%. in 1965 it was about 9%, it has fallen almost by two thirds. so we always focus on the numbers, which are very, but as a percentage of our economy we are at one of the lowest levels since world war ii. secondly, the budget numbers we are now working with were established in 2011. before syria, isis, ukraine,
russia's militarization of the arctic, china's race to military modernization, north korea's nuclear capacity, cyber, encryption, and of course on the domestic side something like what we have seen in the last two years with the heroin epidemic. we have locked ourselves into a straitjacket of financing that does not allow us to deal with current realities. it is absolutely beyond comprehension that we should do this, particularly given the sacred responsibility in the preamble of the constitution to provide for the common defense. that is the most fundamental responsibility of any government, to keep its people safe, and we are knowingly, blindly going through this process of trying to continually meet these new challenges that were established since these
numbers were set up as limits. the response of this country to a continually shrinking package -- it is irresponsible, and we have to start talking about the larger picture. ok, to move beyond budgets. during the break, i spent some time in poland and ukraine. they are talking about a new kind of war. i want to ask you, general milley, about a new strategy and new doctrine. they are talking about hybrid war. what happened in the ukraine. not a frontal attack, not sending in the russian army, not sending tanks across the border, but using some indigenous russian language speakers, some troops, but not in uniform necessarily. whichkind of incursion clearly is a possibility in the baltics, which are nato allies. general milley, what is your
thinking? we need a new strategy to deal with this. this is probably what the next concert might look like. general milley: it is clear that in the rush in case they are using a new doctrine developed, -- they haves various names for it. indirect war, hybrid war. what they are trying to do is to advance their interest at levels below direct arms conflict. how do we respond? is the one thing indigenous peoples of that region, the front-line states, the baltics as an example, they want to be able to defend themselves. action to help them defendants else, because they are nato article five members. that is fundamental.
secondly, i think a lot of training exercises. what is embedded relatively to the army pieces is very important. we need to send a very strong message to the russians. we are doing that by pre-positioning equipment and the rotation of heavy forces, in this case an armored brigade, conducting well over 40 exercises in europe to let our allies know we are there, letting our enemies know they are there. >> i was surprised to learn that one of the ways we are really getting hammered is by a very effective propaganda and disinformation campaign on behalf of the russians. it drives me crazy that the country that invented hollywood and facebook is losing the information war. we have got to do that better. they are laying the groundwork for this kind of hybrid war by disinformation and propaganda soilis creating the rich in which hybrid war can take place.
they are using all means of national power, using information, the cyber domain, space capabilities as well as ground special operations, etc. they are acting very aggressively, relative to their neighbors. they are using all those techniques, many of which were not necessarily new. there's new systems to deliver those techniques. .s.i.a. out of business in 1997. we need to get back into the business. senator king: i want to commend you for the comment about procurement. we need to talk about 80% solutions, not perfect weapons. commercial off-the-shelf, quite often the best is the enemy of the good. we need more timely and more affordable development of systems that use commercial,
already available, already developed, already are in the -- r&ded equipment to the maximum extent feasible. we cannot go for these perfect systems everyone has a piece of. thisrole as a chief in process is very important. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank both of you gentlemen for a couple things. as the chairman mentioned, illey, your forthright testimony is appreciated on what these -- on these difficult issues. secretary murphy, general the commitments you made earlier about looking at some issues in alaska, keeping your word on that, making an independent judgment after a very thorough review, i appreciate that as well. i want to let you know, i think
it is safe to say on this committee we are working, not that you are not doing a great job, secretary murphy, but we are also recognizing ther importance and quality of mr. fanning, in terms of what he represents for the army, committed to working on that issue. general milley, i want to go back to your statement, your testimony, which i think is a really big deal. it's kind of a warning bell. when a service chief of the most important ground force for the most important military in the world talks about high military risk, that is pretty remarkable. i certainly hope members of congress will recognize what a remarkable statement it is. at what point does that become unacceptable risk? there was a subcommittee hearing recently with a number of senior members of the military.
whose call is that? is that our call as oversight and policy makers? is that your call? is that secretary carter's call, the chairman, the president's? we use high risk. but at what point is that unacceptable for where we are? looking at another task force situation, which i know the army and many historians look at the army and many other historians look at with a lot of trepidation. general milley: my job is to provide my best military estimate of what the risk is. it is our civilian leadership to determine whether that risk is acceptable to the nation are not.
>> for the record, i believe when you are saying high military risk -- not too many service chiefs in my recollection make that statement, it is a pretty important statement. i think it is unacceptable risk for the country. as you mentioned, for our troops. general milley: again, it is up to this body here, the u.s. congress. it is up to the president and my civilian leadership to determine whether it is acceptable. >> thank you again for your forthright testimony on that. i know that is not an easy statement to make. i want to go back to senator forces would we need to bring that risk down to medium or low risk, he talked in terms of the overall number. i want to ask the question more specifically with regard to -- with regard to active force. just so i am clear, the high risk assessment of 450,000
active-duty soldiers -- i base it off 980 because, and again, it is based on the contingencies of these higher-end threats. >> have you looked at the 450 number and what we would need to get a look at the number on the active force? believe the number 450 is too small. we have got a: variety of studies we did to determine the force relative to the national military strategy and the defense planning guidance. that answers the question of for what, what do you need to the army for? we needed to do these tasks. we associated the structures. it is my estimate that about a
1.2 million total army would be required. again, the money is not there. down, thebroken active piece of that comes out it just a little more than 500 k. but it is not just numbers and i know you know this. but it is not just numbers. it is the readiness of that force and the technological capability of that force, how the capability plays into the joint force. it is the sum total of all of those things. we tend to laser focus on size. i think that is critical, capacity size. think that is fundamental to the whole piece. there are other factors to calculate beyond just the number of troops. it is important to consider that. >> thank you. murphy, i think
from the hearing today, it is agree you are rightly prioritizing the readiness of the men and women in uniform. it is clear that because of the budget box that we put the army in, that we are not modernizing staylevel necessary to where we have been in the past. i'm a big believer in directed energy, where i started my career. i have seen not only what is possible what is capable today. i believe it should be a piece ofal peas -- the strategy. just like you talked about with the advantages of night vision goggles, gps, we have to invest that willechnologies give a technological advantage to ensure that we have an unfair fight with the enemy. committee was informed that
none of the funding provided last year by congress for the initiative is going toward directive energy, despite a clear direction from congress to do so. i will give one example. the high-energy laser mobile demonstrator has already proven capable of destroying 98 incoming mortar rounds, with its kilowatt laser, and there is a lot more to come. you what is the army's plan to deliver an operational directed energy system, in an environment where i think it is always too easy to and the nexte r&d big fancy thing that is perfect, when we could be developing and fielding programs today.
>> part of the acquisition, if i could make one mention if that sure,i just want to make this gives us a savings of $2 million p on the talk about modernization and direct energy, and modernization programs, when we talk about science, technology, modernize asian, you have to follow the money. the budget of the army was 200 240 $3 billion. .e had a 39% cut it is now a $125 base.
we are asking for $25 billion in the budget. agoas $46 billion six years . >> i think we all recognize the stresses you are under. given the money directed by the , to utilizest year those specific funds and how we maintain the qualitative edge, why not more emphasis on directed energy within that specifically? >> again, hard choices. we have chosen to take the r&d type moneys and put them into other areas. think you talking about scale and proportion. is becausereasons some of our services, we operate
as a joint force, are feeling a lot of work on energy. we do not want to duplicate their work. we will let them pump their money into it and see what comes out of directed weapons systems, and we will modify that research. we can leverage the work of some of our other services. >> i want to thank both of you for your leadership and strength in the integrated air missile defense, and announcing an air defense attachment. we are all very excited about that. in proliferation of military systems by our adversaries means we need to enhance our training and parties to better protect men and women deployed around the world as well as our homeland. can you just talk a little bit about this kid it missile what the armyng, is facing today, and what steps are being taken to counter that threat? general milley: the countries i
mentioned in my opening veryment all have sophisticated now and increasingly more sophisticated thatrated defense systems are very complex, lethal, and robust. toy a point where u.s. fixed rotary wing air, from army marine helicopters, are at risk. terrestrial-based defense systems in accommodation with the fixed wing air defense system. an increasingly growing capability. you heard about our belief in the air force and navy many times, the denial of threats, these are real and they are in place today and they are growing quite thank you to
both of you for being here. the national commission on a future of the army recommended the armyhis year that maintains four battalions of h in theing helicopters, army national guard under the restructuring initiative. to know from either or both of you what has been the army's assessment of this recommendation and how does the army plan to react and respond to it? what we havey: done is a very rigorous study. more or less about 50 or so we think are achievable at relatively little or no cost, or we already started. there is one we absolutely
disagree with and we recommend no. there is about nine others to 10 that do incur some more significant costs in turns of dollars. we are implementing that, the one you mentioned. ofpromise the secretary defense we would give a written report on our recommendations on which ones we think are good to those, how would we execute and implement those recommendations. report will come to you after you are submitted to the secretary of defense. on the 15th of april we expect to do that here it i guess whatever that is, next week. that report will be not only signed by the secretary and i, jeff, the tim, and
guard andur national reserve. all of the stakeholders involved so we can come to a we think is our consolidated edition. the important priority we are doing now is working for that commission. >> if the army does decide to maintain a capability within the national guard, can you tell me how the army would determine where these human -- units would be assigned and how this might apachethe current battalions within the -- general milley: tim and frank rest would analyze -- grass would analyze, determine how they are involved in operational plans, and where they stack in the deck of readiness, responsiveness, the speed to its
that unit has to respond, and what active unit they might integrate into once mobilized. all of those factors would be at play. the head of the guard bureau would make that recommendation to the secretary and i and frank and then we would approve or disapprove or modify the recommendation. >> thank you. following the chattanooga tax year, we havelast gun e-mails and letters in communications of every sort from constituents having connections to all of the branches of the military. these constituents were expressing concerns about domestic bases an international basis, especially for their families at targets outside the bases.
doneme what the army has in the united states and bases eastrope and the middle fore they are targets attacks and one of the options for considering the possibility carryowing people to personal firearms around the base to protect themselves? general milley: i will defer on the polity -- policy pieces of with respect to stations that are small and ,solated, recruiting stations the assessments are done by local commanders, the secretary authorized the commanders go and conduct their assessment and make a determination of whether it is appropriate or not appropriate to arm them. we delegate the authority on the assessment to the commanders,
which is appropriate. commanders should make those decisions because one size should fit all. it depends on risk and so on. trained, itto be must be a government owned question, etc. so that is out there. association, fort bragg, in terms of caring privately owned weapons on that is notes, authorized. it is a dod policy. i do not recommend that be changed. we have adequate law enforcement on that basis to respond. you take the incident where i was commander, those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead. that is pretty quick. a lot of people died in the process of that. that was a fast evolving event. what it convinced, from
know, that carrying privately owned weapons would have stopped that individual. i have been around guns my whole life and i know how to use them. arming our people on military bases and aligning them to carry concealed military weapons, -- concealed weapons, i do not recommend that. thank you.: >> thank you for your service and your leadership. i was in iraq last week to meet with general mcfarland, to visit out and province where we were training iraqi security forces. i've met with a number of our soldiers deployed in the fight. tremendous credit to the country and the army. it is my understanding the army is the first service to meet the annual health assessment requirements set out by the act across any -- every proponent. we thank you for leading the way in the effort. recently, there was a report issued by the indiana
university. researchers have been able to use certain markers in, nation with questionnaires to predict suicidal ideation with 82% suicide relating accuracy was 78% accuracy. if you would, i would like you to take a look at this report applyt me know how we can research like this to better identify soldiers who might be at risk. can you take the time to do that? yes.al milley: >> thank you. you stated the army only has about 1800 of the 2100 behavioral health providers necessary for adequate care. i think one is education centers more enable us to find providers. the other is utilizing non-provision provider types. practitioners, licensed mental health counselors to help fill the gap. do you support these tools and
he you have any other plans to ?ddress that gap >> we appreciate your leadership on this, i know you did not mention it, the health team has been a great success on that. are out there, there are 60 teams right now, that is a game changer when you talk about getting rid of the stigma of mental health. with regard to any look at other they couldort hood, not hire certain folks because they did not have latency. we are looking at that and there is a potential that if they do not have a license, maybe they could be supplemented to break that. and they canle go hire these people and we cannot.
when i travel and ask these tough questions to make sure we can get these numbers out, because last year, it was 301 suicides. week, tohe notes every their families and children, and my first week on the job three months ago, we had lost 10 folks in my first week. think the army is leading the way and getting after it but there is much more i can -- much more we can do. we can look at some of the criteria and certifications. >> this is to both of you, whoever wants to answer, in my home state of indiana, this is weregards to technology, partner with researchers at purdue to try to improve the tech knowledge he. i am interested to know if you have ideas and how we can boost our efficiency of operations.
we are spending a significant sum transporting ammunitions to the locations. can we take a look at maximizing to asset storage locations? -- ow that is technical, right now, we mostly store as you know, which comes in, i forget the exact number but i think it is something like 2 million. i would have to get some detail and get back to and i would provide that to the secretary to get back to you. >> thank you. i am running out of time. i just want to ask you, while in iraq, it seems we're moving isis out of town after town at the present time.
things are moving in the right direction. the big action that will take place, i was wondering, in your conversations with the general and other people there, how you think that is shaping up as we move forward? i took this job and i've served multiple tours over there. december, and i have been in frequent contact with the commanders. you are correct that things are moving in the right direction. there is progress. but no one should think that this thing is over. it is not. there is a lot of work to be done. are an -- currently engaged in the battle of heat. there are significant efforts being done up in the northern
areas and the lines of medication have been cut and our basic strategy shifted in october and we are seeing the results of that today with personnel, key leaders, their finances and loss of territory, and they are under a lot of rusher. are intentionally doing that. multiple problems all simultaneous and we are hitting that in a lot of ways. yet.is not exactly winning the caliphate has to be destroyed. isis has to be destroyed. they have also chosen to display some of their forces in libya and elsewhere. this is a tough fight and it is by no means over yet. no one should be dancing in the end zone yet. there's a long way to go here. >> met with a number of the sunni tribal leaders. one of the things they said was if i saw you to thank you for the cooperation and assistance of the u.s. army so thank you. >> thank you, mr. senator. >> thank you, mr. chair. my colleague here, senator sullivan and i, were talking about how much we appreciate
your candor and giving us the information we need to be instructed in the job we have to do. i want to go back to acquisition reform. for you, mr. secretary, or general milley, we made several recommendations. that was focused on improving costs, schedule, execution and performance. one question i would have is did you agree with or do you think that some of the things have actually been helpful or if some have and some haven't, and then give me some specific examples of how it's changing your execution. general milley, we'll start with you. general milley: thus far, senator, i think it has been helpful. number one, it changed the tone. that's important. it changes people's views and attitudes. i think that's not unimportant.
clearly and unbigabig with usually. that also alerts a lot of people as to some new rules in town sort of thing. for the army, we've instituted a new process. a really revitalized process of the army requirements oversight counsel. it's unambiguous within the army itself. personally approving and are approving the requirements for every single program. in addition to that, we've made that a commander central program. because the united states military operates off commanders. commanders will be held accountable. commanders that are going to generate requirements and commanders that will approve requirements. one key thing in the legislation that is important is the role of the chief of staff. i think that was really good and we appreciate that. i would ask that you take those into consideration for enactment. thank you.
>> senator, i would say there's no doubt we're going to. it's creditedicallyitically -- it is critically important. decreasing the amount of time it takes to put these weapons or these systems back. i think that's been the frequency from when you start one milestone to the next and the next has improved about 33% but it needs to improve much more than that. >> and general milley, some of the key acquisition programs. the striker upgrades. the common ground system. do you consider them to be some of the key programs that we have to focus on for modernization and can you explain why? >> the mobility piece is very important because once light forces are on the ground and they've been moved strategically by air or sea for example, what
we want to make sure is they have increased mobility to move around the technical battlefield. as you know, the humvee fleet has been around for a while. our ground mobility is going to be split about 50/50. 50,000 humvees. so that's an important system. the striker. when he talks about being outgunned, outranged, in direct fire weapons, for example, the striker just can't match a tank. it's a good vehicle. it's a great vehicle. but it's not going to go toe-to-toe with any tank. so that's what general breedlove has. a striker regiment over there. he's got light infantry, foot infantry and strikers and very little else over there. that's why we're rotating in armored brigade. so striker fatality is going to up-gun that particular weapons system. it's critical and it's important to deterrence. i've taken a hard look at d-sigs.
my rough assessment is that d-sigs is performing reasonably well at kind of echelons above big grade. we have to move it around and jump it from place to place. ease of use for young soldiers. there's a very high density training requirement, et cetera. taking a hard look at that whole piece on the d-sigs. i've got personal experience with it. very, very good system at the strategic level, operational level. your ability to pull down national intel assets, et cetera. when it gets down to the tactical level, more difficult to work with. not quite as fast. difficult to jump from location to location in the mobile battlefield. those are important systems, yes. >> thank you. in a final comment, i share senator sullivan's concerns about -- first we appreciate what the risk is. what i think we also need to do.
we met with a group of marines who -- almost matter of fact way, said this capability we have to cover threats in the region may be cut in half next year because of other competing priorities. in a matter of fact way, like, they had to do it, because of the pressures they're having on budget and limited resources. i think we need to understand this particular case. i'm going to follow up in a private setting. but we need to do a better job. i told them. of give us that ghost of christmas future. give us a real meaningful idea of what your risk is going to look like if we're not successful and i know the chairman hopes to be successful with ending sequestration but we have to recognize it's a high threat we may have to deal with. if we do, what does that look like? if we're concerned with where do we go from here. with the chair's indulgence.
>> i would say we know what the number's going to be. if sequestration, which is grave, we already are testifying today it's minimally adequate right now. but if you would go back to sequestration, if the congress does this, we're down on the active duty side at 4:20. that is not acceptable. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as the rebalance to the asia pacific takes shape, while we do not stop training for the types of environments we face in iraq and afghanistan, we also look to enhance our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to perform in the asia pacific. one of these environments we have to be able to handle is the jungle environment. while our last official schools to perform jungle training were closed decades ago, there is an opportunity for our troops and our allies to learn how to perform in this environment.
this would be at the jungle operations training course at schofield barracks in hawaii. can you talk about the importance of this kind of training for our soldiers readiness as well as the ability to train members of other branches of our armed services as well as those of our allies? general milley: thank you, senator. environmental training is very important. as i mentioned in my opening statement, the united states army has to be prepared to deploy anywhere on earth. there are many, many places that have jungles or heavily forested areas. we did close our jungle school years ago. commander general set up the jungle school out in hawaii. it's a good school. but it's mostly locally used now. i think we can expand the usage of that to other forces so they can get environmental training. we do winter warfare training in
alaska. urbanized training at the training centers. and world train at most installations. and jungle training in hawaii. it's a critical thing. environmental training is important to keep soldiers up to speed so we can operate in any particular environment. >> so is there any effort or any move to expand or strengthen the jungle training schools facilities? >> he's operating the jungle school right now out of his own budget. i did ask him, it's funny, yes. i said, sent me the full poi. i want to see the pro -- program of instruction. i want to see the program of construction you're using out there because i'm considering anointing it is an official army school as opposed to local 25th division school. that would also -- there's some things that come with that for soldiers. you award a little center, so on, so forth. -- a certificate, so on, so forth. the baseline premise of what you're saying is absolutely accurate. it's environmental training to be able to operate any part of the world. we support that. i am looking actually at expanding that. >> thank you, also, general, turning to the utilization of our national guard, they are an important aspect of our total force.
your confidence in their abilities for support. happening this summer, which the third and second brigades of the 25th infan right division will be a part. this pilot program will match one reserve unit within active duty counterpart unit which can lead to more formal training coordination, improve readiness guidance and closer coordination. can you comment on this pilot program and discuss the attributes of this kind of coordination and work with the national guard? >> thanks, senator. the purpose is to increase readiness. and increase the cohesion and the bonding of the total army.
just saying total army, just saying we're all one team, et cetera, is only so many words unless we, you know, walk the walk. we used to have a roundout program years ago. it's sort of a revised version of that. the benefits of it are the guard is exposed to the regular army. the regular army equally important. the regular army is exposed to the guard. and we break down whatever barriers there may be. and then secondly, is that each leverages the other's skills to improve the readiness of the force. if that regular army goes, if we succeed in the program and we get it wired in the next couple of years. if there is a contingency, those guard units would be alerted and mobilize with those active units.
>> we can talk about one army and all of that show less text joni ernst but you have to provide opportunities for them to interact and work together in the kind of cohesive way you're talking about. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chair. secretary murphy and general milley. i want to thank you for being a very active and cohesive team. you're really making strides. i will follow up with what the senator said. i appreciate your efforts with the national guard of course. i think we have a great relationship there. one team, one fight. so thank you very much for that. i'm going to follow up on some concerns the senator gave us about the vehicle program for our infantry fighters.
the rotation that you mentioned for the bcts through -- the armored bcts through europe. i'm concerned about rotating those units through europe and instead of permanently standing one up in that region, i'm just not certain that that will show the commitment that we need to have for our allies in that region as well as projecting that strength to russia as well. so just very concerned about that. and as you know, the national commission on the future of the army included forward stationing and armored bct in europe. that was one of the recommendations. i agreed with that recommendation. general milley do you agree that rotating an armored brigade in europe is the optimum course of action to reassure our allies and defeat russian aggression, rather than having one permanently positioned? >> there's advantages and disadvantages to both, senator. i actually favor -- personally actually favor rotation and here's why. when we permanently station -- first of all, the infrastructure's been toned down over the years.
-- torn down over the years. it would be costly to rebuild some of that stuff for families and pxs to forward station a permanent force. also important is when a unit rotations, they have a sole focus which is to train and be prepared to destroy the enemy. there are no families there. your families are not with you. you're focused. you're mission focused. i think in terms of readiness and your ability to deter, usher and defeat, think rotation is a better way of doing it. in terms of strategic intent to deter. if we go -- the plan is to go heel to toe. so the effect of permanency is being achieved. we're going to deploy an armored big grade for nine months. right on their heel comes the next armored brigade. there's never a gap between the
armored brigade and this rotation cycle. the effect of a permanent armored brigade for general breedlove will be achieved. the disadvantages of forward stationing cost, etc., are not going to be incurred. battle focus, mission focus, that does get achieved. i personally think the advantages of rotation outweigh the disadvantages. >> i appreciate that feedback. i'm going back to something we've discussed many times over and that's the modular handgun program. i'd love to have you visit a little bit more about this. it really has turned into a boondoggle. just to work on this issue has turned into something more than it really should be. i do appreciate your high level
of motivation and attention to the issue. and we just want to make sure we're getting the program right and we're streamlining this so we can get a better pistol in the hands of our soldiers. if that's what's needed, that's what we need to do. can you give me an update on your efforts and where we stand in this process right now? >> i think you got a little bit of an update or some members of the committee got an update the other day from generals, etc., and they describe the various levels of pain folks have been going through. it's all good. we're going to deliver. we're going to make it right for the soldiers and the taxpayer and make sure we get a new handgun. the 9 millimeter, it's more expensive to repair it than to purchase a new one. ridiculous amounts of time, two years of testing, $17 million to do a test, so on and so forth. we're ripping all that apart. we've hit the -- you know, we're just ripping that all apart.
and we're going to make it better. so in short order here, i think pretty soon measured in weeks, not years, we'll have some decisions. we'll be moving forward. we'll be able to provide the joint force, you know, all the services lead for the handgun. we'll be able to provide the joint force with an acceptable quality handgun that will work and it will do what we need it to do in combat. >> thank you. thank you, both, very much for your service and attention. i appreciate your candor, general milley. thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank senator mccain for yielding. just a couple questions pursuing the line of inquiry that senator donenelly began on mental health. the 1,700 of 2,000 roughly that are needed in terms of psychiatric personnel. is there a plan to fill those
positions and what is being done to do so? >> senator, we'll get after it on this issue. we need to as an army. because it's all about our people. and our soldiers. when i give you the number, there's 301 suicides, that's the total force. so when you look at those numbers, levels of certifications, do you really need a masters degree, can you have different things -- because we have to fill the ranks. we were not just competing out there in the market within the army. it's other source of government governments, private industry. trying to get these recruiters. we're try to help make this push we need these young americans to
go out there, get their degree, get their certifications, get this profession, so we can use them and bring them within our ranks. but as i said earlier, there's no doubt that a game changer for the army has been our embedded behavioral health teams. breaking down the stigma these professional mental health providersters are brigade areas. >> i understand that and i commend you on it. as you know, the va has a active recruitment effort using scholarship assistance and loan repayment incentives and i wonder whether the army is doing the same. >> we are looking at everything, senator, and we will continue to work with you and your office to do this step.
>> i think what's necessary is a plan with specifics. i understand that great progress has been made. i think you would agree that more has to be done. so i would welcome you working with us. thank you very much. general, have you received complaints about the eo tech site? it was a subject of recent report in "the washington post." i'm wondering whether any of the men or women under your command have raised questions or concerns about it. >> senator, obviously, there was something out there or you wouldn't be asking. no, personally, i have not. that's not ringing a bell. but i'll dig into that. >> i would appreciate you doing that. and getting back to us. >> and you call that complaints at the equal opportunity -- >> no, it's a site used on rifles. >> oh, rifle sites. okay. >> made by a company named eo tech. >> no, i'm not aware of that. i thought you were talking about something else. yeah. i'm not aware of that. >> sorry to confuse you. >> yeah, weapons sites.
now you're talking guns so i'm good. no, i haven't but i'll look into it and get back to you. i'll find out about the eo tech site. got it. >> i would appreciate it. you can look for reference to the "washington post" of i believe this week. there was a story on the front page. about the discrepancies and issues that have arisen with respect to -- >> i'll do that. >> thank you. army and marine corps. >> yes, sir, got it, will do that. >> thank you, mr.
chairman. >> i take it, secretary murphy, that you are taking great effort to implement the clay hunt suicide prevention act? >> no, doubt, yes, senator. >> and i hope that that's an outline for -- i mean, i hope that members of this committee are aware that we passed unanimously the suicide prevention act, which calls for most of the things that we are concerned about. it's not perfect, but i'm sure that many of those provisions you agreed to unanimouslyare being implemented. >> that's correct, chairman. we've made great strides, over-doubling these teams -- >> you know, maybe you could tell some of the members of the committee that have questioned it when you get a chance to talk about, get them a report on the progress that's been made. maybe you could just send a letter to all of us and -- so we can know what measures are being taken. thank you. senator. >> that would be very helpful, thank you, mr.
chairman. >> thank you to witnesses. i want to also association myself with the comments of the chair with respect to the effects of sequestration and the need to find a better solution. a compliment and a question. so the compliment. earlier this week, the army made a decision, there had been an earlier temporary decision, but earlier this week, i actually think it might have been thursday or friday, last week, the decision to allow an army captain who is a sikh to wear both the beard and the turbin that is a foundational part of his religion as he served. he's a combat veteran with an afghanistan tour. this is something senator gillibrand and i have been writing letters to dod about for a couple of years, and i wanted to just comment you on that. i'm very passionate about this issue. maybe just being virginia biased. the statute of religious freedom that thomas jefferson authorized that became the basis for the first amendment that basically says in our country you can worship or not and you won't be preferred or punished for how you worship and you can freely exercise your faith. was one of only two ideas that was unique to the american constitution. the rest of it was a great borrowing job. but free religious exercise and interestingly enough, that war should be started by congress, not the president, were the only
two things that were unique to our constitution. so it's very foundational. i know there are issues of how you balance, you know, people's religious practices with, you know, how you can wear a helmet or a gas mask and you want people to be who they are without profitalettizeing. this is becoming more and more important. all over the world we see violence and even war that is driven by sectarian tensions. whether it's hindus and muslims in myanmar. whether it's atrocities against
religious minorities. whether it's -- i said buddhists and muslims in myanmar. hindus and muslims in areas of india and elsewhere. you also see even when there's not war, rifts within armed services. one of the reasons the iraq military many cited as having been very ineffective against the initial waves of attacks by isil is because of deep tensions within the iraqi military that renders is less effective. and one of the virtues that the united states plays generally and in our military is demonstrating that people can live and work and go to school together with different religious faiths and we can make it work. i was on a kodel that senator gillibrand led. in both nations, leaders said to us, wow, what's with the anti-muslim rhetoric we're seeing in your political space? what they sort of disclosed is, hey, we live in a neighborhood that has a lot of sectarian tensions but we don't always
want to be that way. for us to get better, we have to have an example. the u.s. has been our example. so the decision to allow one sikh for the first time in history of the history of the army to wear a turbin and beard might seem like a small thing but it's actually about a deeply critical american value that, sadly, is really wanting and needed in the world today. and so i certainly would encourage the army and the dod generally to look at this policy, the defense minister of one of our greatest allies, canada, who is a vet, who's been deployed multiple times in afghanistan. he's a sikh who's been able to wear his board and turban in service. i would hope that we would recognize that as not only true to our values but also as something where we can hold up an example in the world in a way that is really needed right now.
the question that i have is about the european reassurance initiative. it's a little about the readiness issues. the tug-of-wars in putting a budget together. we've got all these readiness gaps. at the same time, the proposal is to quadruple the investment in the european reassurance initiative and to take it up to 3.4 billion. i just would be curious, as you talk about hard choices, how do you trade off the need to do this dramatic increase in the eri with the fact that we are still short in some of the readiness investments that we need to make? >> senator, the eri is really important. and it trades off -- trades off dod made to make that happen in other accounts, you know, those are priorities set by the secretary of defense. i can tell you the erai is really important. is cratea critical national security priority. they've been a aggressive since 2008.
across all domains and by the whole government approach. this is important. deterrence happens because an aggressive perceives that the cost of further aggression is going to exceed the benefit of aggression. by putting a division's worth of equipment. rotating an armied brigade there, it will be clear, we think, the cost of further aggression will come at a very high cost to the united states of america. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> on behalf of the chairman, senator mccaskill please.
>> thank you. secretary murphy, as you're aware, the army has been investigating concerns regarding the guard recruiting assistance program. for years, in 2012, a preliminary report found that all expenditures made through the program, a total of over $400 million, violated ada. the anti-deficiency act. at the time the army anticipate add final report on the matter will be released by october 2014,2014 2014. in late december, trying to be patient, i penned a letter to your predecessor, secretary mccue, and asked for status update on this report. i need a date, secretary murphy. i can't understand -- there is no way this report is not finished. and i can't understand why what this stall is about. all it does is just incredibly air p irritate me that we are this nonresponsive. and how do we fix problems if we're not willing to be forthcoming when we find problemsdealing with the way that our military has spent almost $400 million? >> senator, i've been straight with you since the beginning that i will always be -- i will always be honest and straight forward with you.
i will get you an answer within a week on where it is. i know i've been here for 12 weeks. i've looked at that. i've said, what's gone on with that. and said, it's come, it's coming. will get you an exact date. >> i don't want to camp out but it's coming. it's coming. it's been since october 2014 it was supposed to be here. i need a date that report is sgog to be produced. >> and you'll have that date within a week. >> thank you. >> for the record, i have also taken responsibility. so mistakes like that will never happen again.
>> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> general milley, i had the pleasure of a briefing from colonel ikoff, the command for u.s. army defense in europe last week. i believe she's the first woman to hold that position. and i was very impressed and proud and just wanted to convey that. i was taken aback when she talked about some of the european reassurance components that are in the budget, that they're all in oko. i think, you know, there aren't very many members left here, but this is like one of these embarrass things that we're
doing. is there any rationale reason why our strength of equipment and troops in europe wouldn't belong in the regular budget of the military? is there -- have we -- now have we gone past the rubicon? is there now everything we can stick in oco we stick in oco because of the unwillingness of congress to step up to its responsibility as it relates to sequestration? >> senator, i won't comment on -- i don't even know the techniques of whether it's right or wrong or indifferent. what i care about as a member of the joint chiefs of staff of the united states army, provide best military advice, is to deter russia from further aggression. where that money comes from is frankly somewhat less concerning to me. what is important to me is we get a division worth of equipment and other capabilities over there to help general breedlove, general hoges, to deter deter aggression from russia. >> you and i couldn't agree more
on that. i just think this artifice we're using, this ruse, that we are performing on the american people, that somehow if we put it in oco it doesn't count as us spending money, is damaging long term for the military. we ought to step up, you all step up to your responsibility every day. we ought to step up to our responsibility and fund our military in a way that is forth right, transparent, that sends an important message to the world. us playing this game that pretending because it's in this fund we don't have to pay for it is i think beneath the honor and respect we should show the military. i just wanted to get that on the record. >> i would second your motion, senator. >> first, i want to thank both of you before i ask this question about your trips. i know you went and i know, secretary murphy, you were just recently there. i don't need to convince either of you the importance of that institution as it relates to the generating force. say nothing of the other capabilities, of engineering capabilities and military police capabilities and the other joint operations that are so
important. but i know as we try to get women into our military in all roles, women in the generating force are very important. because they are, in fact, very visible to women that might be considering a career in the armed services. so i wanted to ask, is there any plan in place to get the proper leadership at these training facilities as it relates to gender, as we try to encourage more women to say please take me, i'm willing to give me life for my country? >> yes. we tried to encourage that throughout the force. as you know, we've got the infantry and armored recently opened up. one of the first principles is to put leaders, infantry, female infantry leaders in those units first.
so not specific to leonard wood. but we're going to generate now coming up in may/june time frame. i think it's 44 women have volunteered to be infantry lieutenants. and if they meet all the appropriate standards, then they'll go through the various infantry schools. the basic office leadership course. then they'll do their follow-on training that is normal for infantry such as rangers school. if they continue to meet all those standards, they'll be assigned to infantry units sometime about this time next year. you'll start seeing infantry, female infantry and noncommissioned officers and junior soldiers in those combat units. so the idea of starting with leaders is a fundamental first principle and there's no doubt in my mind that we want to take advantage of 50% of the world's population and maximize their talent to increase our readiness.
>> thank you so much. thank you for your service and the hard work you're doing. >> when i was there, we had three females. lieutenant lynn ray. so that's, again, as the chief mentioned, we have instructed, initiated a leader's first program at these units where you have two women per company. >> and you all know how tough sapro is and the fact we've been putting women through sapro for a number of years. we can learn a lot about the how to prepare women. so thank you for that, secretary murphy. >> on behalf of the chairman, let me recognize senatorgillibrand. >> thank you. i'm going to continue with the
line of questioning of senator mccaskill. before he retired, then south com commander general john kelly raised concerns that lowering standards was the only way to ensure women became infantry. that position has been contested by you and your fellow service chiefs as well as the commander of so com until recently general votel. yet general kelly's comments represent prevalence views. do you plan to allow the standards? how do you plan to deal withthese views from leadership and junior personnel levels? >> absolutely not. standards are standards. those standards are developed through years upon years of blood soaked lesson learned from combat. neither male nor female. they are combat standard. they're related to combat. if you meet the standard for combat, you pass go, collect 200 and move on your way.
you don't, then you do something else in life. those standards are inviable. they're based on combat. we would place unit discipline, cohesion and ultimately effectiveness at risk. we must guard against that. all of us. members of congress, members of the executive branch, members of the uniformed military, etc., must guard against the lowering of standards. general kelly and the general, their comments exactly right. in the sense of raising the flag. a warning flag.
that this initiative in the infantry and armored special forces has the potential to lower standards and the rest of us must be guardians of those standards. we must not allow the lowering of standards. those are related to cam batombat. if we do that, we're actually putting into risk the unit and the women that would go into those services. potentially putting into risk the lives of their teammates as well. standards are inviable. at the must not they must not and will not be lowered. >> how do you deal with views of personnel you are lowering standards? how do you reinforce that these women are properly trained, are ready and have met everything and will do a great job? >> i think the -- i think there's a couple of things. one is, first, don't lower the standard. and then ensure that you educate people that they understand the standard's never been lowered. rangers school. i've heard a lot of commepds about rangers school. the three women, one of whom was a mother of two, that graduated ranger school. standards were lowered. i said really? i said, why don't you start walking 12 miles with 35 pounds on your back? why don't you run the swams of
florida? those standards haven't changed. those hills haven't changed. 12 miles is still 12 miles. it's still a five mile and 40 minute run. those standards haven't been changed. they met those standards. so part of it's education. leadership. making sure we have everyone understand the standards. the key principle of do not lower those standards, that's inviable. we cannot allow that. >> i agree it's a leadership issue for our army. we now can be more clear. first of all, women don't want those standards to be lowered. they weren't asking for it to be lowered. they met the standard. that's why they're rangers. so we're a standards-based army. we couldn't be more clear from the top. it is emanating throughout the force. >> i hope you have their back when they pass through these requirements. if they're getting feedback they're still not good enough, that's problematic. especially since you didn't lower the standards, right? >> i have huge confidence, male or female. they'll be mutually respected by their fellow peers and soldiers. >> i do have a doubt in my mind they will not be respected so what i'm asking you to do is to be vigilant that these women who do pass and do meet the standards are then respected for meeting the standards. because you didn't lower the standards. >> that's right. >> and i just cannot tolerate this notion that after these women have been through hell and proven their mettle, that they're still discounted when given their mission. >> they won't be. >> okay. >> they meet the standard, they
won't be discounted. >> good luck. i give you many blessings on that. i'd like to shift to cyber. last year, the army national guard announced the establishment of ten cyber protection teams including one in new york and new jersey national guards. this was a huge step forward for our national security and these teams, each located deliberately within nine of the countries, ten fema regions, can serve federal and state purposes including bolstering civilian. new york has already experienced the hacking of a small dam and we're constantly alert to the threats of cyberattacks. yet absolutely no funding in the army's fiscal year '17 budget request was set aside for these new units. months after the announcement we're still left wondering how they will be supported. unlike the air guard cpts, they're not designated to the cyber mission forces.
the army has not funded them. it is not clear when they might get trained. general milli, since becoming chief of the army, you have made it a priority to talk about one army and to look for ways to take advantage of the benefits of the different combponentcomponents. how do you envision we can use the national guard to address cyber threats and do you know why there's no money al located in the budget? and can you tell us when we might expect to see it fully operation operational? >> this 41, i think it is, 21 and 10 for the regular army, split up with offensive and defensive capabilities. and then there's ten in the guard and 10 or 11 in the united states army reserve. they're coming online at various paces. by 2018, all of these teams, across the total army, should be trained. this is a -- i won't say it's super long, but there's a process here that we have to go
through a vetting or selecting, identifying and selecting and vetting, because the higher order of skills involved in cyber war. so that goes up front to recruit them and then organize and train and equip these teams. so i'll gback and double-check. think by 2018, all of these teams are online and -- at least have initial operating capability. i'll get you a better answer with a definitive date, if you don't mind, but i think it's 2018. >> thank you both for your service. >> i'm afraid general sullivan has another question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a few to follow up. very quickly on lowering the standards. general, just to be clear, that's a joint responsibility, right? senator gillibrand's questions are about the military leadership. you also don't want congress to mandate lower standards, correct? >> i don't want anybody to lower standards.
>> all right. >> just clear on that. >> regardless of of wherewhere they are. >> general, you've been very focused on this issue of the tooth to tail ratio in the army. this committee's been looking at that. are we there yet? in terms of what you believe is the proper balance between combat forces and tail forces? and whose responsibility is that? is that something you can work out through your authorities as the chief? or is thatsomething you need additional support from the congress on? because i think it's a critical issue. i commend you for focusing on it so much. >> senator, you're always
looking tooth to tail, making sure you get the right balance in the force structure, etc. i think we have some room to improve, particularly in headquarters. i think our headquarters, they've been playing a very important function. today's different than it was 50 years ago. advances in technology, information, etc., etc. but my own observation is i think our headquarters remain still a little bit bigger than what needs to be for combat. for example, if you were to deploy a brigade or a division, say, the footprint of that -- the on the ground footprint, that headquarters, is very large. in today's environment and in tomorrow's environment. increasingly in tomorrow's environment. grow if you have a large footprint. from computers and radios and everything else we have. given the acquisition and the capabilities of some of our adversaries, for russia, for example. we've seen they can acquire the electronic signal quickly, fly unmanened vehicles over there and mass artillery on you. so you'll be dead. what do we have to do? we need to pair down or headquarters to very nimble, mobile capabilities that can in fact survive what we think is the environment, the lethal environment that we would see in
the future. that could mean increases in reachback, for example, where much of your headquarters foot prince, the processing of information is done at a home station at a garrison or a base here in the united states. given today's technologies and the pipes, the electronic pipes that are out there today. we can push a lot of that information forward rather than put, you know, 800 or 1,000 man head kwaerts are some tactical battlefield in the future with nothing but a target. we're taking a look at that. there's some streamlining that needs to be down to reduce the tooth detail. in my professional opinion, especially in the future contingency we're looking at, large tails are going to result in significant amounts of casualties and potentially battlefield losses, the loss of a battle, a campaign or a war. >> you have the support of this committee on your focus and please let us know if there's statutory authority that you needs initially to what the
chairman led on the headquarters. there's a lot of discussion on the in-strength, you know, when the chairman and the secretary, secretary carter were testifying and in your testimony there's a focus on the conventional challenges, russia, north korea, iran, china, isis, other terrorists group. i think there's a notion -- i'd like for you to talk about it a little bit -- that a lot of what we can defend ourselves with, because they're certainly capable forces is our special forces. they get a lot of press, go a lot. they're all over the world and they're incredibly capable. but i think it's also very important to recognize that on certain of these threats -- in fact almost all of the ones that are listed right here, it's the conventional forces that are what we need the most. can you talk a little bit about the difference in their capabilities and how important
it is to have airborne brigade combat teams that can drop out of the sky 5,000 soldiers in addition to the special forces? because i think sometimes there's so much focus on the sf forces that we lose the focus on how important our conventional forces are. >> sir, i think there's several myths of war, so to speak, that are prevalent in various communities. one of those key myths, i think, is that you can win wars from afar, from standoff distances etc.. another myth is that special forces can do it all. as a proud member of special forces, special forces cannot do
it all. it depends on what you're trying to do. if you're involved in a war, if you're using the language of war and you're defining yourself at war, then you need to apply all of the synergistic i vents of the force of time and space to impose your political will. that's a lot more than special forces. that's everything from the domains of space, cyber, naval, air, marine, special operations forces. all of that converging to rip the sleds of the enemy. if you're at war. you can do lot of other things. you may not define yourself at war but you want to impose cost or want to punish. those things can be done in a variety of stages. you can to that from standoff systems or perhaps special forces.
but the idea that special forces can do it all is not true. and the professionals in special forces will be the first to tell you. one of the fundamental roles of the conventional ground forces whether army or marine is to seize and control the territory and deny that same territory to enemy forces. special forces does not seize and control territory. they were never designed to do that. but if you want to impose your will on the enemy, that's a key task that you's going to be to get done if you define yourself in a state of war. thanks for the question. it's a myth out there. it's be very prevalent. special forces has huge talents, love it to death and they can do a lot of things. but winning wars in of themselves not capable. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> some of us think that that myth has been adopted into pentagon strategy to defeat isis. general, we will be doing more on this tooth detail issue. it's not only the size of the staffs and bureaucracies, but in many cases it's duplication of effort. different branches of the defense department have staffs
that are all doing the same thing. and that is one of the, one of the aspects of reform that we will be acting on in this year's ndaa. secretary murphy, if you would, to each member of the committee, if you would send a letter describing what actions are being taken on this whole issue of mental health, suicide, i would appreciate it. obviously from what you've heard today, there's significant interest in the issue, as there is amongst the american people. we have to work on the suicide rate not only of active duty personnel but we also know that 8,000 veterans a year are committing suicide as well and they has to be one of our highest priorities. so we thank you for your very forth right system.testimony. this has been a very ben initial hearing. senator reid sfl. >> thank you for your service and testimony. >> you're still too young, mr. murphy. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you sirs. >