<DOC>
[111th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:55314.wais]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 4, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/budget/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-314 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina, Chairman
ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin,
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
XAVIER BECERRA, California JEB HENSARLING, Texas
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
MARION BERRY, Arkansas MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
ALLEN BOYD, Florida PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts CONNIE MACK, Florida
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts JOHN CAMPBELL, California
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina JIM JORDAN, Ohio
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, DEVIN NUNES, California
CHET EDWARDS, Texas GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
RICK LARSEN, Washington
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
[Vacant]
Professional Staff
Thomas S. Kahn, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Austin Smythe, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held in Washington, DC, March 4, 2010.................... 1
Statement of:
Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Budget.. 1
Hon. Paul Ryan, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget...... 2
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, prepared statement of....................... 3
William J. Lynn, III, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Defense.................................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr.
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Spratt, Becerra, Scott, Langevin,
Larsen, Schrader, Ryan, Hensarling, Garrett, Lummis, Austria,
Latta.
Chairman Spratt. Let me call the hearing this morning to
order and explain to our two witnesses that we still have a
Democratic Caucus going on, and members will be coming in as
the morning goes along.
But you have a short time frame yourselves. We need to get
under way. Today's hearing is on the 2011 Defense Budget. I
want to welcome our witnesses, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill
Lynn, the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller Bob Hale.
Secretary Lynn and Secretary Hale, I believe that you have
to leave here at 12:15 or thereabouts to make another
commitment in the Pentagon before returning to the Hill to
testify before the Senate. With those constraints in mind, I
will rely or be riding the gavel today and asking Members to
keep their questions confined to the five-minute rule.
Our first priority in Congress is to ensure that we have a
military that is second to none and with the understanding and
support of the men and women who serve in uniform, especially
when they are in harm's way.
We must also be realistic about what we can afford over the
long run. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the defense
plans developed by the Bush Administration the year before he
left. They found a significant gap between planned programs and
outyear projections. They concluded that tens of billions of
dollars per year would have to be added to those plans to pay
for their implementation.
One of the goals of this hearing is to get a better sense
of whether or not we are closing this gap. Is this
Administration adjusting defense plans so they are in sync with
fiscal reality, more affordable and sustainable? Is it still
sufficient to meet the security challenges our country faces?
That is a key question.
Last year the Administration and Congress took on the
problem of cost weapons--of cost overruns in major weapon
systems by implementing acquisition reform, by canceling some
weapons programs no longer needed, by restructuring those that
were experiencing problems. It was a good start. In fact, CBO
estimates that the acquisition changes proposed in the 2010
budget will reduce outyear costs. Let us hope so.
While the CBO analysis concluded that more funding will
still be needed to finance defense plans, particularly for
operations and support, that is the sum of military personnel,
O&M, and revolving fund activities. This makes up more than 60
percent of DoD's budget.
Under defense plans included in the 2010 budget, CBO
estimated that the operations and support funding needed would
be continuing--propose a continuing requirement of a real
growth of about two percent a year, which is a substantial
increase compounded over time.
The cost of our overseas operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
will also continue to be significant for some time to come. The
defense budget for this year includes a full-year estimate for
2011 of $159 billion--that's in 050.
Place holder estimates of $50 billion a year are put in the
budget for each year thereafter. And Bobby Gates, Secretary
Gates, has testified that this is not a realistic number. But
it is a plug to indicate there will be a cost. That cost is yet
to be determined.
This is an improvement over where we were a couple of years
ago when there was no accounting, no recognition of these costs
beyond the budget year.
I hope today we can get a better sense, a better
understanding of the Administration's overseas plans, the
assumptions that were made in the development of these cost
estimates, and what is their likely extrapolation over five
years to conform to our budget.
Again, I welcome each of you. And I appreciate you coming
and I think the whole Committee does. And I want to give Mr.
Ryan an opportunity to make an opening statement himself before
we move on to your testimony.
Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Chairman. I would also like to welcome
our witness, Deputy Secretary Lynn. We had your predecessor
Gordon England here quite a few times. So we look forward to
seeing you here quite a few times in the future.
I want to take a second to note that Chairman Spratt and I,
along with a few other members of this Committee, recently had
the opportunity to visit Afghanistan to see firsthand the hard
work and the dedication of our men and women in uniform. And it
is impossible not to be impressed with the size, complexity,
and the capability of DoD.
Most of all, we are humbled by the skill, the dedication of
our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines. And we are very
thankful for what they do and for what you do as well.
I want to simply say though I am disappointed that once
again the President's budget uses the enacted war level of $130
billion to create the illusion of savings. What I mean when I
say this is it does this by inflating the baseline to assume
the 2010 level of war spending continues every year for the
next decade and then claims three quarters of a trillion
dollars savings by not funding DoD at these levels for the
duration of this budget.
Now this is something that OMB does. I realize this is not
something that DoD does. But that is a pretty embarrassing
gimmick that we saw last year from the Administration. And
reusing it this year, certainly doesn't lend any credibility to
the President's numbers.
That aside, I do appreciate you providing us with a full
request for the war in 2011 and for using the $50 billion as a
placeholder for the future.
We all know this isn't going to be the exact number. And I
think most assume it will be much higher. But at least it is an
acknowledgment by the Department that the Global War on
Terrorism should be accounted for in the budget.
Finally, with the incredible rate of growth the Department
has experienced in the past decade, I am somewhat concerned
that at least some of it is going to be very difficult to slow.
A few examples, military and civilian pay, fuel costs, and
certainly TRICARE and the Defense Health Program.
All of these have been growing much faster than inflation.
Yet I see the President's budget projects real growth in the
Department of just one percent over the next five years.
What I don't see are any meaningful reforms to help you
achieve that growth rate. I would imagine that it will be a
pretty significant challenge on your end.
So as far as the federal budget becomes increasingly
squeezed, the deficits in debt threaten not only our economic
security but our national security. I want to simply ask that
the Department do everything it can, working both internally
and with Congress, to address these cost drivers before they
consume your budget, because above all else we must ensure that
our men and women in uniform have the resources necessary to do
the extraordinary task that are asked--that our Nation has
asked them to do.
Thank you.
Chairman Spratt. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
Let me, as a matter of housekeeping detail, say that, ask
unanimous consent, any member who cares to file an opening
statement may have it inserted in the record at this point.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Ohio
Good Morning. Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan.
First I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding
this hearing on a very important issue. I would also like to recognize
our distinguished witnesses, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn,
III and Under Secretary of Defense Robert Hale. I want to thank you for
all of your hard work you do to protect our men and women in uniform,
and I look forward to hearing your testimony this morning.
I represent the largest manufacturing district in Ohio. Over the
last decade, Ohio lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs, which included
significant defense manufacturing jobs. Ohio has been a leader for many
years when it comes to producing material our men and women in the
Armed Forces use each and every day to protect America and ensure its
security. The Midwest continues to host the majority of the country's
automotive industrial base, including those committed to supporting
specialized military vehicle requirements. I hope the Department of
Defense will take the necessary steps to sustain their military vehicle
industrial base under the Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Budget and the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
One of the concerns I have with the President's Fiscal Year 2011
defense budget is that the Army will cease to purchase new High
Mobility Multipurpose Wheeling Vehicles or ``Humvees'' because the
Service has met its purchase goals for the vehicle. However, nowhere in
the budget does it state that the Department of Defense will fulfill
the requirement needs of the National Guard. The Ohio National Guard
currently has 75.4 percent of their Humvee requirements fulfilled, and
over 60 percent of their total number of Humvees is over 20 years old.
Currently the Army National Guard has a shortfall in 20 states for a
total need of 5,000 Humvees. These numbers are alarming to me, having
worked with the Ohio National Guard during my tenure in the Ohio
General Assembly, and now in Congress, to make sure our men and women
in the National Guard have had what they need to fulfill their stated
mission. I would like to know if the Department of Defense will plan to
ensure that the National Guard's Humvee fleet is modernized.
For the foregoing reasons, Congressman Joe Donnelly of Indiana and
I have formed the Congressional Humvee Caucus. This caucus will serve
as an informal, bipartisan group of House Members dedicated to
advocating for the best vehicle mix for the U.S. Armed Forces and
National Guard and the important role played by the High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeling Vehicle. The Humvee has served as a versatile,
high-performance four-wheel drive, air transportable tactical vehicle
for over 25 years. We want to work to educate the Administration about
the unique and integral role the Humvees have played for the defense of
our country and maintaining homeland security and effective emergency
response.
According to the FY10 Presidential Supplemental and the FY11
Overseas Contingency Operations Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
(ASFF), production costs for Humvees will total $1.3 billion for the
Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan National Police in 2011. This
procurement will not be for our troops but will provide Cargo,
Enclosure, Up-Armored, and Ambulance Humvees to the Afghans. U.S.
manufacturers will build Humvee's for the Afghan Security and Police
Forces, but will vehicle production use the same American manufacturers
and suppliers, and will these vehicles be the same Humvees produced for
our troops?
I look forward to working with the committee as budget
deliberations continue, and I look forward to working on the issue as a
co-chair of the Humvee Caucus with Congressman Donnelly.
With that Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Spratt. Once again, we welcome both of you to the
Committee today. Is each of you to make a statement?
Mr. Lynn. I think I will make a short opening statement.
Chairman Spratt. Secretary Lynn will make the opening
statement. We will make your statement in its entirety part of
the record so that you can summarize it.
Mr. Lynn. Absolutely.
Chairman Spratt. And we would encourage you to take your
time and cover particularly the points that you would like to
make to the Committee about your budget for the forthcoming
year.
Thank you again for coming. And we look forward to you
testifying. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. LYNN, III, DEPUTY SECRETARY;
ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT F. HALE, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. LYNN, III
Mr. Lynn. Thank you Chairman Spratt, Congressman Ryan,
Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the
Department of Defense.
As the Chairman indicated, we have a full statement that I
have submitted for the record. And I appreciate your including
that in the record. I will summarize it for you. And then turn
to your questions.
I would like to begin with a word of gratitude for your
support for the men and women of our armed forces. Everything
we are doing and the budget as a whole is directed towards
their success.
The President's top line budget request for fiscal 2011
totals $708 billion. This includes $549 billion to fund base
defense programs, $159 billion to support overseas contingency
operations, and $33 billion to pay for the additional 30,000
troops being deployed to Afghanistan.
The base budget represents an increase of 3.4 percent over
last year's budget. That equates to about 1.8 percent after
adjusting for inflation.
As a share of the economy, that is as a share of Gross
Domestic Product, DoD outlays remain flat at approximately 4.7
percent.
Our budget reflects three overarching priorities, all of
which are based on this year's quadrennial defense review that
was just issued.
First, the budget continues the rebalancing of America's
defense posture. It emphasizes capabilities needed to prevail
in current conflicts while still enhancing our ability to
respond to future threats.
To prevail in current wars, the budget increases Special
Operations Forces, helicopter lift, intelligence surveillance
and reconnaissance and other enablers of the forces engaged in
our current conflicts.
By increasing military pay, fully funding the military
health system, and improving family support, the budget also
reaffirms the Nation's commitment to the all-volunteer force.
To meet future threats, the budget allocates $189 billion
to conventional and strategic modernization programs. Funds are
included for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a new aerial
refueling tanker, new ships, missile defense programs, space
capabilities, and a new Cyber Command.
Second, the budget continues the reform agenda established
by Secretary Gates in the fiscal 2010 request. In last year's
budget, Secretary Gates recommended cancelling or curtailing
programs that if taken to completion would have cost the
taxpayers $330 billion.
This year he has proposed cutting seven additional major
programs. These include the Next Generation Cruiser, the Navy
Intelligence Aircraft, the EP(X), the third-generation infrared
surveillance system, the Net-Enabled Command and Control
System, DIMHRS or the Defense Integrated Military Human
Resources System. It proposes curtailing the C-17 after the
current buy. And it proposes not funding an alternative engine
for the Joint Strike Fighter.
Further procurements of the C-17 and the joint strike
fighter alternative engine are two systems in particular that
we are opposed to funding further. We have considered the
metrics of each carefully. Our bottom line is that continuing
either would not serve the interest of the taxpayer, the
military, or our partner nations.
We are also continuing to reform the way the Defense
Department does business. This includes strengthening our
acquisition workforce and reducing our reliance on private
contractors.
Our goal is to serve as good stewards of taxpayer dollars
as we provide the war fighter with the world-class capability.
Third, this budget makes a strategic choice to resource
America's military needs. President Obama has funded real
growth in the military and in other national security agencies
even as he--even as he imposes a spending freeze on domestic
agencies.
In DOD real growth is projected at 1.8 percent this year
and approximately 1 percent when averaged across the fiscal
2010 to 2015 time frame.
Modest real growth in the DoD base budget is necessary for
several reasons. Some of our costs such as pay and benefits
increase with inflation. Other significant expenses, especially
healthcare, are growing faster than inflation. So because the
total costs of sustaining the force is growing faster than
inflation, DoD needs real growth simply to maintain present
force levels.
Making cuts in the size of our forces or our operations
while we are engaged in two conflicts is simply not an option.
Nor can we responsibly defer preparing for new threats that we
may face as we go into the future.
Mr. Chairman, in closing we believe that the fiscal year
2011 budget request represents the minimum funding needed to
provide for the defense of the United States and its people. It
gives us the tools to prevail in the wars we are in while
making investments appropriate for meeting future threats.
We strongly urge Congress to support our full defense
request in its upcoming budget resolution and in subsequent
funding allocation.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. Mr. Hale
and I are available to answer whatever questions you might
have.
[The statement of William J. Lynn, III, follows:]
Prepared Statement of William J. Lynn, III, Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of Defense
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request
for the Department of Defense.
On behalf of our Servicemen and women--as well as DoD civilian
employees--I would like to thank the committee for your support of the
Department's vital missions. Our troops have shown incomparable bravery
and compassion in their service in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, and in
many other countries around the world.
The budget request for fiscal year 2011 is, in the judgment of
Secretary Gates and DoD's senior leadership, what is needed to sustain
and rebalance our forces to address the national security threats we
face today and anticipate in the future.
This budget continues the reform agenda established by President
Obama and Secretary Gates in the FY10 budget. Building on the FY10
initiatives, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) assessed the
threats the U.S. faces in the coming years, established strategic
priorities, and identified key areas for investment.
president's fy 2011 budget request
The President's topline budget for FY 2011 requests $708 billion
for DoD. This amount includes $549 billion in discretionary budget
authority to fund base defense programs, an increase of more than $18
billion over the $531 billion base budget enacted in FY 2010. The
increase amounts to 3.4 percent, or 1.8 percent real growth after
adjusting for inflation. The FY 2011 request includes an additional
$159 billion to support overseas contingency operations, primarily in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
It should be noted that, even with modest real growth, DoD outlays
as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will remain flat at 4.7
percent in FY 2010 and FY 2011. Considering only the base budget, DoD
consumes about 3.5 percent of GDP.
growth in the dod budget topline
As the President stated in his budget message to Congress, ``Our
future is dependent on maintaining American leadership abroad and
ensuring our security at home.'' The President's budget request for DoD
accordingly reflects the administration's commitment to modest, steady,
and sustainable growth in defense spending.
In making his budget decisions, President Obama carefully balanced
our national security needs with our economic needs, including the
deficit. Even as the President imposes a spending freeze on domestic
agencies, he has made a strategic choice to continue funding modest
growth in the military and in other national security agencies. Real
growth is projected at 1.8 percent this year and approximately 1.0
percent when averaged over FY 2010-15.
Modest real growth in the DoD base budget is necessary for several
reasons. DoD has some costs that increase with inflation, such as pay
and benefits. Other costs are growing faster than inflation. In
particular, military health care expenses are likely to increase by as
much as five-to-six percent per year over the next five years,
reflecting the rise in overall U.S. health care costs and increasing
use of the TRICARE program.
Because the total cost of sustaining the force is growing faster
than inflation, DoD needs real growth simply to maintain present force
levels. Sustaining our current size and capabilities is essential to
prosecute current wars, meet U.S. commitments worldwide, and conduct
unanticipated operations, including relief efforts for natural
disasters. We cannot afford to make cuts in the size of our force or
our operations while we are at war.
DOD must also enhance capabilities for which we have an identified
need and prepare for new threats we may face in the future. Building
the capacity of partner nations to support U.S. counter-terrorism
operations has emerged as a crucial national security priority. The
budget therefore includes higher funding under the Section 1206 Train
and Equip authority. The budget also increases support to defend our
computer networks against cyber attacks, enhance our space
capabilities, and deploy advanced missile defense systems.
We urge Congress to support our full defense request in its
upcoming budget resolution and in subsequent funding allocations by
House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The bottom line is this: We
need modest real budget growth to sustain and equip a military at war
while also preparing for the future.
themes and programs in fy 2011 budget request
The base budget for FY 2011 request reflects three overarching
institutional priorities.
First, it reaffirms and strengthens the nation's commitment to care
for the all-volunteer force, which Secretary Gates has called our
greatest strategic asset.
Specifically, the FY 2011 budget includes $138.5 billion for
military pay and allowances, including a 1.4 percent pay raise; $2.2
billion for enduring programs to support wounded, ill, and injured
Service Members; $50.7 billion for the Unified Medical Budget and the
Military Health System that serves 9.5 million beneficiaries; $8.1
billion for military family support programs; and $18.7 billion to fund
critical military construction and family housing requirements.
Second, the proposed base budget continues the rebalancing of
America's defense posture by emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail
in current conflicts, while still enhancing capabilities that may be
needed in the future.
For the wars we are in, especially the conflict in Afghanistan, the
budget provides for more rotary-wing aircraft; the addition of 1,500
new helicopter pilots per year by 2012; increased Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) support; enhanced Electronic
Warfare platforms; and increased funding for Special Operations Forces.
The FY 2011 base budget also allocates $189 billion to conventional
and strategic modernization, including:
<bullet> $10.7 billion for continued development of the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter and procurement of 42 aircraft;
<bullet> $864 million to support development of a new aerial
refueling tanker;
<bullet> $25.1 billion for procurement of new ships, equipment, and
research and development;
<bullet> $3.2 billion support the restructuring of the Army's
Future Combat Systems;
<bullet> $9.9 billion for missile defense;
<bullet> Funds to strengthen U.S. capabilities in space and to
stand up a new U.S. Cyber Command.
These advanced weapons and capabilities are essential to keep us
ahead of our adversaries. We need weapons systems that give U.S. forces
an overwhelming advantage in combat, which will both save lives and
shorten conflicts
Third, the President's budget will continue the Department's
commitment to reform the way DoD does business, especially in the area
of acquisition.
To ensure that every defense dollar is spent wisely, the FY 2011
base budget will bolster the capability and size of our acquisition
workforce. The eventual creation of 20,000 new positions in the federal
acquisition workforce will enhance our ability to oversee programs and
generate independent cost estimates, in compliance with Congressional
legislation. We ask the Congress to support our in-sourcing initiative
to hire new civilian workers in place of contractors, a move that will
ultimately reduce costs and operational risks. Our goal is to serve as
good stewards of taxpayer dollars as we provide the warfighter with
world-class capability.
An important component of acquisition reform is having the
discipline to curtail or end unneeded and troubled programs. In last
year's budget, Secretary Gates recommended canceling or curtailing
programs that, if taken to completion, would have cost the taxpayer
$330 billion dollars. This year he has proposed cutting seven major
systems, including:
<bullet> The Next Generation Cruiser CG(X)
<bullet> The Navy Intelligence Aircraft EP(X)
<bullet> The Third Generation Infrared Surveillance system (3GIRS)
<bullet> The Net Enabled Command and Control System
<bullet> The Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System
(DIMHRS)
<bullet> The C-17
<bullet> An alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.
The C-17 and the JSF alternate engine, as Secretary Gates has
already discussed, are two systems in particular that we are opposed to
funding further. Three department studies completed over the past five
years each confirm the adequacy of our current strategic airlift
capacity. The C-17 is an excellent plane. But we already have 194 C-17s
and will have procured 223 when the currently authorized procurements
are completed. This is in addition to 111 C-5s.
The second JSF engine is similarly a capability that careful review
has found to be more costly than the benefits it would provide. We took
a fresh look at this issue, considering the $2.9 billion of additional
funding it would take to develop a second engine to take it to
competition, the downstream complications of separate maintenance
regimes, potential savings achieved through competition, and the
development status of the original engine. Our bottom line is that
pursuing a second engine would not serve the interests of the
taxpayers, our military, our partner nations, or the integrity of the
JSF program.
fy 2011 costs for overseas contingency operations
Besides the base budget, the FY 2011 budget request contains funds
to support overseas contingency operations. As Secretary Gates has said
repeatedly, DoD's highest priority is to provide troops in the field
with everything they need to be successful.
We are asking for $159.3 billion to fund military operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq in FY 2011. Included are funds for:
<bullet> Operations ($89.4 billion),
<bullet> Force Protection ($12 billion),
<bullet> IED Defeat ($3.3 billion),
<bullet> Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces ($13.6 billion),
<bullet> Coalition Support ($2.0 billion),
<bullet> Commander's Emergency Response Program ($1.3 billion), and
<bullet> Reconstitution or resetting of equipment ($21.3 billion).
The budget supports a responsible drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq
and transfer to Iraqi responsibility and control. The budget also
supports the growth of forces in Afghanistan, including a supplemental
request of $33.0 billion in FY 2010 to pay for the additional 30,000
troops that President Obama has ordered to be deployed.
longer term prospects
As we conduct a responsible drawdown in Iraq and eventually leave
Afghanistan, the Department's war-related costs will decline. Because
we cannot accurately forecast wartime costs more than about one year in
advance, DoD's long-term budget contains a placeholder of $50 billion
per year for wartime spending from FY 2012 through FY 2015.
Long-term trends in the base budget depend largely on threats to
U.S. security and the forces and equipment that must be maintained to
counter those threats. If we must maintain current force levels, we can
expect the base defense budget to require some continued real growth.
We will continue to search for ways to minimize this growth and to
achieve efficiencies in all areas of the defense budget. Health care is
one area in particular where the introduction of efficiencies may yield
cost savings. If present trends continue, we can expect health care to
consume 10 percent of DoD's budget by 2015. We have proposed some
health care efficiencies in this budget. Our goal is to work with
Congress to continue providing high-quality health care while slowing
cost growth.
closing
Mr. Chairman, in closing I want to thank you and the Committee for
the opportunity to testify about the Department's topline budget. Your
support of our troops and their families is deeply appreciated. We are
confident that the choices and priorities contained in the FY 2011
budget request will provide for the defense of the United States and
its people. We are committed to ensuring that our Armed Forces have the
tools to prevail in the wars we are presently engaged in, while also
making the investments necessary for the future.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I welcome the
Committee's questions.
Chairman Spratt. Thank you very much, Mr. Lynn.
Let us talk about the $50 billion plug for the current
fiscal year--for the forthcoming fiscal year 2011. The
Administration has included an additional sum that will take
overseas contingency, expeditionary costs, call it what you
will, Iraq and Afghanistan, up by $130 billion if I am not
mistaken over and above what is already provided. Is that
correct?
Mr. Lynn. The----
Chairman Spratt. So that you have a total of 159----
Mr. Lynn. It is not--it is a total of nearly $160 billion I
think.
Mr. Hale. 159.3 in fiscal 2011.
Mr. Lynn. That is just--when you add in the $33 billion
that will be required to increase the troops, that is a slight
reduction from fiscal 2010.
Chairman Spratt. Now that is for 2011?
Mr. Lynn. That is for 2011.
Chairman Spratt. But 2012, 2013 and the out years to the
extent you show those, the number is $50 billion.
Mr. Lynn. That is correct.
Chairman Spratt. Now how was that number derived?
Mr. Lynn. That number is not derived by any analysis of
operations. It is just too difficult to forecast troop levels
and operational costs into the future. So that number is, I
think you indicated--the word I would use is plug. That is a
plug.
As Congressman Ryan said, we know that there are going to
be some costs going into the future. We don't know exactly what
those costs are. So we put a placeholder in. And that
placeholder is $50 billion.
Chairman Spratt. We will we be filing a budget resolution
that looks out over a span of five years? What are the
prospects that we can see a significant reduction below the 160
number for next year? So that the years that are now plugged
years, $50 billion, will be that or something in that range. In
other words, is $160 billion coming down in the five-year span
that we look like? Is it realistic to expect that we will
actually be spending less than 160, two, three years from now?
Mr. Lynn. If you are looking out that far, I think that
that is realistic. It is as I say difficult to forecast.
But the plan right now is to draw--is to continue the draw down
in Iraq. We will be down to 50,000 troops in September. And we
will be out by the end of fiscal 2011. We are on track on that
plan.
We will be examining where we are in Afghanistan looking
towards adjusting troop levels towards the summer after this in
Afghanistan. So there is the possibility that we would look at
lower levels two to three years from now.
Chairman Spratt. So there is a distinct possibility that
the out year number in the future years, three, four, five,
could be substantially less than the $160 billion we are
talking about for the upcoming year?
Mr. Lynn. That is correct.
Chairman Spratt. One of the elements of the defense budget,
which has risen inexorably but not gotten a lot of attention is
the personnel and support costs. Will you comment on what we
are doing to try to contain those costs given the increases we
have seen over the last several years?
Mr. Lynn. Well I think we are trying to do two things, Mr.
Chairman. One is we are trying to restrain all of our costs,
including operations and support costs. An important initiative
in that area is the in-sourcing initiative. We are bringing
functions back into the government that were outsourced in
earlier years. That should produce some savings and it should
produce better oversight, which may in the end actually also
lead to savings.
But another thing that we are trying to do with operation
and support costs is to budget for them accurately, so that we
are not assuming things in the out years that we don't think
are going to happen. There is sometimes a tendency with those
costs to assume that you are going to get savings that nobody
has any realistic plan to achieve. So we have tried to both
have concrete plans to achieve savings while at the same time
have realistic budgeting.
Chairman Spratt. Do you have a number or range for how much
we have budgeted as opposed to how much we have planned, the
planning/budgeting shortfall so to speak?
Mr. Lynn. If I am understanding your question right, I
think we have budgeted for O&M and personnel at the levels we
expect will occur. I hope frankly we can----
Chairman Spratt. Over the full FYDP?
Mr. Lynn. Over the FYDP. I mean especially in the next
couple of years. By the fifth year of the FYDP there is a great
deal of uncertainty.
We have about two to three percent real growth programmed
into the O&M budget. And historically that has been what has
happened. I hope we can hold it down and make use of it for
other needs. But I think it is realistic to have it there.
Chairman Spratt. Acquisition reform, procurement R&D, the
investment accounts. Are the acquisition reforms you are making
saving money? Achieving their potential or does more need to be
done?
Mr. Lynn. We think we are taking the right steps on
acquisition reform in terms of independent costing. In terms of
trying to fix the requirements at the outset and in terms of
trying to bring the appropriate expertise into the government.
I think over time that should restrain acquisition costs.
But in some instances, particularly in the near years, that may
increase your budget. When you use independent cost estimates,
if you--you tend to increase the initial estimate rather than
decrease it. Usually the independent cost estimate is higher.
And we, for example, with the joint strike fighter, we have
gone with the independent cost estimates this year. That has
increased the budget. That has increased the request.
Now we think that that was going to happen anyway. The
independent cost estimates tend to be more accurate. It is a
more efficient means to program as if you get the costs right
up front. And if you program it right up front, in the long run
that will save the government money. But I can't give you
budget savings in the near years.
Chairman Spratt. I put this question to Mr. Hale, Secretary
Hale. Are you satisfied with the management reporting cost
variance-type systems that we have in place now, the SAR, the
executive reports that are disseminated in the E-Ring and other
things that keeps you abreast of what is happening in the
field?
Mr. Hale. Yes. I think they are reasonable. I will say
DoD's financial systems are strongest at providing information
about how we have spent against the money Congress
appropriated. That is what those systems were designed to do.
They aren't as strong in providing cost-type information
for particular activities or initiatives that we are
undertaking. We are trying to do better there. But often times
it requires special reports or special exercises.
So I think in general we have the financial information
that we need. It could be better. And there are a number of
initiatives under way to make it better.
Chairman Spratt. You've got two items here in the--on page
five of your testimony about the different elements, military
personnel, O&M. And down to the bottom line which is other,
minus 22.6 percent. That's a pretty big hit on other. What is
taking the hit under that category, that heading?
Mr. Hale. Those are, I believe, revolving funds. And it is
a complex part of the budget. But among other things it has a
National Defense Sealift Fund in it. And we are buying one less
ship.
But let me expand on that for the record. I think there are
no major policy decisions there. Have I got that right?
Chairman Spratt. Let me ask you one overarching question. I
have been on the Armed Services Committee for all of the 26
years that I have been here. And we have seen the QDRs come and
go.
Your most recent one is like previous ones in that the
question it leads you to ask as you finish it is $738 billion
is a whale of a lot of money, a lot more than we thought we
would be spending just a few years ago on national defense.
By comparison to what our allies are spending, it is even
dramatically more, the percentage of GDP in absolute dollars
and by every other measure. What are we doing or can we do to
make our allies pull more of the load in policing the world and
carrying out the missions that we are carrying out in Iraq and
Afghanistan and other places in the world today?
Mr. Lynn. Well, it is always a difficult challenge, because
you are dealing with sovereign nations and they make their own
decisions. I think Secretary Gates has been particularly frank
recently with our European allies in his belief that they need
to increase their national defense contributions.
That said, I think the support that we are getting in
Afghanistan and the increased support we are getting in
Afghanistan from our European and other allies is critical to
the mission there. So it is always an uneven story. And we have
to push hard. But we have limited control.
Chairman Spratt. Thank you very much. And answer any
questions that Mr. Ryan may have for you please.
Mr. Ryan. Okay, thank you, Chairman.
We had a number of hearings last year to go into the cost
drivers. We had, you know, CBO, GAO, CRS come by. And they did
a fine job of identifying the cost drivers, you know,
escalating military personnel costs, TRICARE, weapon systems
costs.
What we haven't heard is, you know, what is DoD doing to
address these cost drivers. Can you tell us kind of what is in
the President's budget? This is sort of the first full
President's budget. What is in here that is going to address
these cost drivers?
Mr. Lynn. Well, I will ask Bob to expand. Let me start. I
think the first thing that this budget--where this budget
differs from prior ones is the discipline in the acquisition
amount.
We have taken on some of the programs. This has not always
been popular. But there are programs that are either not
performing to the level that we would like, and we have
cancelled those. There are other programs that are strong
capabilities but in very narrow niche areas.
And we have come to the conclusion in a cost benefit
analysis that we should not be buying those kind of exotic
capabilities for very narrow purposes.
And then finally, probably the most controversial, there
are very good programs such as the F-22 and the C-17 that we
simply have enough capability in. And we propose ending the
programs with the current buys. So I think that is a critical
step.
A second step is the one that I mentioned to Chairman
Spratt is in the acquisition reform context. We want to budget
for these things right, right out of the box.
So we have taken a strict look at our largest program, the
Joint Strike Fighter, and we have come in with higher budgets.
But we think that that is what it is going to take to bring
this program in. And we think in the end having honest
budgeting is going to be the most effective cost control
mechanism.
Mr. Ryan. Those are weapon systems. What about the other
cost drivers?
Mr. Lynn. In the personnel area, we have now achieved close
to parity in terms of civilian and military pay. So we are no
longer proposing to add to the employment cost index, which has
been--over the past several years we have been adding a half a
percent a year.
This year we proposed a pay raise at exactly the employment
cost index. So that will--particularly if that--when you
reflect that over the whole course of the FYDP, that is
multiple billion dollars in savings.
In the medical area we have taken some steps in terms of
pharmacy pricing, in terms of pricing to Medicare costs that we
think will help bring down our healthcare costs. But I would
say frankly I think that is probably a large open area.
It is one we need to work closely with Congress frankly,
because in the end you are talking about medical benefits for--
--
Mr. Ryan. Yes.
Mr. Lynn [continuing]. Servicemembers and their families
and retirees. These are people who have contributed enormously.
And so we need to treat them fairly.
On the other hand, copays and deductibles have effectively
been frozen since the mid-1990s. You cannot sustain that
forever.
Mr. Ryan. So Iraq is kind of, I guess the mission has
matured to a place where we are much more comfortable with the
operation. And we feel like we have advanced our goals and
objectives there.
As I mentioned, the Chairman and I just went to Afghanistan
in January where we were nowhere near that stage of the
operation. It is my opinion that the July 2011 announced
deadline was counterproductive for achieving our objectives,
even though we all want to have a deadline in our own minds.
Assuming that that deadline is flexible, based upon what we
are doing in Helmand and Marja and the success of that, where
we are headed to Kandahar, and the operations that are
forthcoming, where do you see this time line unfolding? And do
you think the COIN is working?
I mean, the counterinsurgency strategy, which we are now
employing in these areas, do you from your lens see it working?
Are we kind of where you thought we would be at this stage in
the game? And what do you think that the real time line is with
respect to getting this mission to the maturation, the
government working, and all of those things that we have seen
in Iraq?
Mr. Lynn. I mean I think we have seen some important
elements of progress. I think General McChrystal has described
the situation as dire but no longer deteriorating. You know, we
have not turned the corner. I wouldn't say that at this point.
But I think we have taken some important steps. I think the
operation in Marja is one of them. I think it represents a
major effort to implement the COIN strategy that you described.
The military side of that operation is we are starting to
get to the completion of at least the initial phases of the
military side. But if the COIN strategy is truly to work, it is
the civilian and the Afghan side----
Mr. Ryan. Right.
Mr. Lynn [continuing]. That has to be married to that. And
we are just--I mean, we are just putting in place the Afghan
governance and bringing in the security forces.
And so I think--yeah, I think we have to say we haven't
seen the full results of that yet.
Mr. Ryan. Do you think it can all be pulled off by July
2011?
Mr. Lynn. In Marja, yes.
Mr. Ryan. All right. I am talking Afghanistan.
Mr. Lynn. I think we are going to see over the course of
the next year and a half important indicators of whether we are
on the right path.
I think that in many ways one of the important things that
we need to do over the next year and a half is change the
direction of the momentum. And the momentum had been working
against us.
I think as General McChrystal has indicated, we have at
least slowed, if perhaps started to reverse that momentum. And
reversing that momentum is important in terms of capturing the
allegiance of the population. If they think they are on the
winning side, that is a critical element in the success of the
strategy.
And, yes, I do think over the next 18 months we will get
important indicators as to whether we are achieving that.
Mr. Ryan. All right.
Chairman Spratt. I do think the gentlemen will agree one of
the messages we took back home from the Ambassador, General
McChrystal, and others was that this particular date had had
its salutary effect on the Afghans with whom they deal, making
it clear to them that this was not an indefinite, open-ended
commitment. And they bore a major part of the responsibility of
making it work. And we heard that pretty consistently up and
down the line while we were there. Let us just hope it works
out.
Mr. Becerra.
Mr. Becerra. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Secretary, thank you
very much for being here, appreciate it.
Please convey to everyone at the Pentagon that we
appreciate the response that was had to some of their requests
by our troops to improve certain services, to be able to
respond as quickly as possible to some of the requests by our
soldiers in the field.
And I appreciate that we seem to have done a much better
job from when we first started in Iraq to now be able to
respond in a much quicker manner to the requests of the
soldiers that are out there. And I think from point A to point
B it has worked a lot faster than it was before. Now when there
is a concern expressed by the soldiers on the ground, that we
need to adapt to the situation. I think that has gotten to the
generals a lot faster and to the Pentagon. And I appreciate
that very much.
Mr. Chairman, I am actually going to focus on something
that is very discreet. And the Secretaries may not be prepared
to answer this. So we may have to take this under advisement
and respond back.
I hope you can respond to some of this, because it is a
small, discreet issue. But in my eyes, it could become very
big, and it is in regards to Afghanistan.
I have some general concerns about how we conduct this
engagement in Afghanistan, because I don't believe that we
should continue asking for supplementals, asking this to be
deficit spending. I believe that if our soldiers are prepared
and having to face the possibility of death that we should be
prepared and ready to accept the payment of this so that our
soldiers know that their children aren't going to pay for this
war that they are fighting.
And so having said that, let me go to this discreet issue.
I am concerned that having visited in Afghanistan that I am
hearing from folks that a lot of the Afghan companies that we
are contracting with to try to help Afghan--this Afghan first,
a policy that we have to try to lift the Afghan population, so
that they can care for themselves, they can fight for
themselves, they can purchase and manufacture for themselves,
may not succeed. We are the biggest purchaser in Afghanistan
today. We are the biggest supplier in Afghanistan today.
But what I am hearing too often is that too many Afghani
companies that are trying to contract, legitimately contract
with the federal government through DoD for some of the
services that are out there, are finding some real difficulty.
And it is basic stuff like getting paid. We may think in
terms of having a credit line in this country, a small
business, and therefore you are able to float your payments a
bit. So you are going to take a loan out from a bank so you can
pay your employees for the work you have done. And 15 days
later, 30 days later, you get the money from the contract you
had from the federal government.
A lot of Afghani companies don't have that kind of float.
They don't have that kind of credit eligibility. And they don't
have the time to wait 30 days, 40 days, 60 days, 90 days for
payment by the federal government for work they have performed
and performed well.
And what I am hearing on the ground is that some of these
Afghani companies are going under, because they haven't been
paid by the federal government for work they have performed
well.
I don't know if you have heard that. But that would panic
me, because we are trying to set a good impression. And the
worst thing we can do is say that we asked them to do something
and they performed. And then they didn't get paid in time
before they had to go under, because they couldn't pay their
employees.
Mr. Secretary, I don't if that is anything you have heard.
Mr. Lynn. I am not aware of it. Bob, are you?
Mr. Hale. I have not. I will check. I will say there is a
balance we have to strike. And that is there have to be some
internal controls. We have to have some kind of invoice, some
sort of proof the work was done.
Mr. Becerra. That I understand, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Hale. And we have had difficulties, which I think are
getting fixed in terms of getting both finance and accounting
personnel, and even more important, contracting officer
representatives trained over there. These are U.S. people now
who check the work, who check the bills.
We have been focusing--I have joined in a team with
Secretary----
Mr. Becerra. Mr. Secretary, let me stop you there. I want
to check you on that.
Mr. Hale. Okay.
Mr. Becerra. I want you to get me the numbers that show
that. I am going to give you specific cases.
Mr. Hale. All right. I will.
Mr. Becerra. Let me give you another example.
Mr. Hale. We are up to about 90 percent on CORs and finance
and administration people, because I monitor this very
carefully. But we will be glad to get you the specifics.
Mr. Becerra. Okay. Let me give you another example that was
given to me that I wanted to raise with you. In about three
weeks, on March 25th and 26th, there will be a conference that
will be held here. It is the Second Afghanistan Aviation and
Defense Summit here in D.C.
The stated purpose of the conference is to focus on
business opportunities that will aid in the recovery process of
Afghanistan and help in the effective implementation of the
country's development programs.
Here is the problem. Afghanistan businesses will not
attend. Afghanistan businesses will not attend this conference,
which is there to help Afghanistan lift itself up.
Why? They can't get visas to come into the country to
submit bids or to talk to the potential federal agencies.
Most of them don't have the kind of money it takes to be
flying all the way to the U.S. to participate. But they do
point something else out to me. Afghanistan government
officials are being flown over to the U.S. to Washington, D.C.
to participate in this conference.
Why? So they can talk to the potential bidders about this
work in Afghanistan. So this is the craziness that I am
hearing. You are going to send our government officials to the
U.S. to participate in these conferences, to bid on contracts
in our country.
But we the businesses of Afghanistan can't participate,
because we can't attend the conferences, either because of your
visa requirements, or terrorism alerts, or we don't have the
money to pay for something like that.
I hope that we can follow this up and have further
conversation, because this is what drives everyone crazy is
when we hear a legitimate Afghani company saying to me, ``We
may have to go under, because we performed. But we didn't get
paid on time. And I don't have the money to pay my employees.''
I hope that we can follow up, Mr. Secretary, on this. I
think it is just one of those things that we just have to
recognize how we can best do business in Afghanistan to help
the Afghanis.
By the way, I am not saying outsource jobs, American jobs,
that we Americans should be doing to anyone else. I am saying
work that is being done in Afghanistan that Afghani companies
should be able to do with Afghani workers so we can help them
lift themselves up so they don't have to continue to depend on
us. We should help them where we can. And I hope I can follow
up with both of you on this.
Mr. Lynn. Absolutely.
Mr. Becerra. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hensarling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Secretary.
One, I want to let you know that I was heartened to hear
you use the phrase ``cost benefit analysis.'' That is a phrase
that is not often heard within the confines of the Budget
Committee. We always hear about the benefits of a certain
spending request. We just don't often hear them run against the
cost, so thank you for that.
The Ranking Member actually focused on a number of issues
that I wanted to focus on. So I really want to step back, get
away from the trees, and look a little bit more at the forest
long-term.
Can I have the debt chart pulled up, please?
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Hensarling. I mean, clearly we all know that we are
looking at a sea of red ink for as far as the eye can see.
We have had the CBO Director, Dr. Elmendorf, testify, ``The
outlook for the federal budget is bleak. U.S. fiscal policy is
on an unsustainable path.''
We have had the Director of OMB, Dr. Orszag, say that
ultimately the ten year--the deficit numbers that are in the
President's ten-year budget are unsustainable, because they do
not drop below three percent of GDP.
Former Comptroller General David Walker in looking at our
long-term spending patterns said, ``They are a fiscal cancer
that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country.''
I am sure you are aware that Moody's has recently opined
that within the next few years if America does not put forth a
long-term plan to deal with that sea of red ink that our AAA
bond rating could be jeopardized.
Clearly Greece has been in the forefront of the financial
headlines. And so I guess my question is to what extent do you
believe that this particular sea of red ink that we are looking
at, which as we know doubles the national debt from fiscal year
2008 in five years and triples it in 2010, if we don't get this
house in order, do you believe there is a long-term threat to
our national security?
Mr. Lynn. I think certainly the underpinnings of our
national security is the health of our economy. So absolutely
there are national security implications for these numbers.
That said, I think what the President has done is try to
balance concern for the fiscal situation that we are in and the
needs of specific national security programs. And I think that
is what led him to the conclusion that in the budget that he
proposed there would be a domestic freeze. But there would be
some modest real growth in the national security related
agencies.
I think he is trying to balance the concern that you
identified for the overall state of the economy with specific
needs in the national security arena that are needed to meet
threats that we face. Of course we are in two wars and so on.
Mr. Hensarling. If I could, Mr. Secretary, I would like
your reactions to a couple of news articles that have come
across my desk recently. I mean, clearly you know that we
continue to be quite reliant on the Chinese to buy our debt. I
think I read perhaps Japan became our number one debt holder
recently. And then somebody recounted the numbers and it was
China yet again.
But I think in rough terms they hold about $800 billion of
our debt. I think now we are right at that tipping point
whether the majority of our debt is foreign owned.
On February 10th, the Washington Times reported, ``China's
military stepped up pressure on the United States on Monday by
calling for a government sell off of U.S. debt securities in
retaliation for recent arm sales to Taiwan.'' Do you have any
comment on that?
Mr. Lynn. I mean, I think the Chinese, as they said they
would, have criticized the sale to Taiwan. We thought it was in
our national security interests. And we are working with the
Chinese. We hope it----
Mr. Hensarling. No. But more specifically, Mr. Secretary,
leveraging the debt that they hold--leveraging the debt of ours
that they own to attempt to impact our national defense policy.
Mr. Lynn. I am not sure where you are going, sir.
Mr. Hensarling. Let me read you another headline that came
up in Bloomberg January 29th. ``Russia urged China to dump its
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds in 2008 in a bid to force a
bailout of the largest U.S. mortgage finance companies, former
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said.''
Again, I just--are these harbingers of things to come,
again, if we do not tackle this particular debt problem?
Mr. Lynn. I am not sure whether the things that you
described are actually going to occur. I do think we need to
tackle the debt problem. I think that the President has
proposed a commission to do exactly that, proposed it with
leaders of Congress.
I think the important element of that commission is that
you have--you can't just slice out one or two elements. You
have to take on all aspects of the challenge. You have to take
on entitlements. You have to take on revenues. You have to take
on discretionary budgets. And that that is the approach in this
commission.
So I think that that kind of approach is exactly the right
approach to deal with the challenge that you have identified.
Mr. Hensarling. I appreciate your level of optimism. I see
I am out of time.
Chairman Spratt. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, just a tale of two kinds of boomers. The
first one is the ones we tend to deal with here in terms of the
broader budget, the baby boomers.
In 2019 they come flooding into Medicare, into Social
Security. And because of the costs of Social Security and
Medicare, the issues that you related to on the Fiscal Reform
Commission become that much more important.
How do we deal with those increasing entitlement costs
coming into the system in 2019, which squeezes out a lot of
dollars to do other things perhaps?
But there is another boomer that is coming in 2019 that you
are probably more intimately familiar with. And I want you to
tell me what you are going to do about it. In 2019 the Navy is
expecting to start with the SSBN-X Program. And the costs to
that program, at least looking ahead, is so much and is slated
to be so high that it potentially could squeeze out a lot of
the ship building budget in the DoD, unless we make that
commitment to the projected costs of that program.
We had a hearing yesterday on this in the Seapower
Subcommittee. We are going to have another hearing specifically
on SSBN-X and Seapower. And one question I have for you is what
kind of commitment does OSD have, and perhaps OMB have, to
fulfill the dollar commitment necessary to follow through on
SSBN-X, as well as on the rest of the Navy ship building
budget?
It looks good on paper so far. But I guess there is a
little bit of concern on the Committee about whether or not
what happens in reality will follow what happens on paper. Can
you talk about--can you talk about the SSBN-X Program, the
dollar amounts necessary for it, and its impact on the rest of
the ship building budget?
Mr. Lynn. Sure. You are correct in identifying that it is
an important modernization program that we maintain our core
nuclear deterrent through the SSBN Program, which is going to
have to be modernized in the 2020 to 2040 time frame.
The costs of that are going to be substantial. And almost
surely can't be absorbed within the current levels of the Navy
shipbuilding program. So it doesn't come up in the current
fiscal year plan which only goes to 2015, which is just the----
Mr. Larsen. Right.
Mr. Lynn [continuing]. Very beginnings of that program.
But in the 40--the 30-year, excuse me, don't make it 40.
The 30-year shipbuilding plan that we have submitted to
Congress we are projecting that there will have to be an
increase in the--in that shipbuilding plan to accommodate at
least some of that--of the costs of the SSBN.
And that is indeed what we are planning on at this point.
That is one of the--we talked about, you know, is there a need
for real growth in the defense budget or not. That is a
specific reason why you would see you need at least some level
of real growth extending out in a predictable fashion for the
defense budget.
Mr. Larsen. Okay. I think in April we have a hearing
scheduled with Seapower specifically on this issue and we are
going to have to explore it more.
On acquisition reform, Secretary Hale, Secretary Lynn
mentioned F-35 and the cost estimates coming in. What is the--
what is the--maybe--I think you can answer this. What is going
to be--what will be the first DoD program that starts from
infancy to the end where our acquisition reforms will be
applied?
Mr. Hale. Well it won't be the F-35, which is well along at
this point.
Mr. Larsen. Absolutely, I'm sorry.
Mr. Hale. If I could give you a name it would be something
early in its life cycle that will experience the full efforts.
Mr. Lynn. I don't know that we have a specific program. Let
me give you one that I know you are quite familiar with is the
tanker program.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sure.
Mr. Lynn. On that program, we have taken an approach of
using the fixed price model even in the development phase. And
that is a little bit controversial. But we think it is possible
in this instance, because the technology is within the current
bounds. Both competitors have the technology in hand. The Air
Force fully understands the requirements that we have.
And we have tried to set those requirements up front so
that we get the plane that we want on day one rather than going
through engineering change proposals to alter the design to
finally get the plane that we want, which is a source.
For all those reasons we think we can use a fixed price
contract. Using a fixed price contract means that we should be
able to hit the budget and cost estimates that we use, because
the risk, unless it is on inflationary and other items out of
the contractor's control, is with the contractor. So it is very
much in their interest to bring those costs in on target.
So that is not exactly what you are saying. It is not an
independent cost estimate. But it is an acquisition reform that
is intended to gain accurate costs and so that we know up front
what we are paying for and what we are getting.
Mr. Larsen. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Spratt. Mr. Latta. We have a vote in ten minutes.
And I think we can accommodate everybody and allow our
witnesses to leave----
Mr. Latta. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thanks very much for being with us today. I really
appreciate your testimony.
Through the years I have done a lot of work with the Ohio
National Guard and trying to make sure that we have--are
meeting the needs of our Reserve and our Guard units.
And one of the things that recently has come to my
attention is, you know, the concern of keeping the Guard
modernized. And a lot of times they sometimes get, I don't care
if it is the Army Guard or the Air Guard, they sometimes get
the hand-me-downs, you might say.
But I have recently seen that the Army has noted in their
budget they are going to discontinue procuring any new Humvees.
However with the understanding that 60 percent of the National
Guard's Humvee fleet is over 60 years old, or I'm sorry, over
20 years old, pardon me, and that the early models are
significantly less capable than the current models, what is the
DoD's plan to ensure that the Army's Humvee fleet is
modernized?
Mr. Lynn. We have hit the requirement on Humvees. And so we
are proposing to not purchase more beyond the next year for the
Army.
However, that doesn't mean that we would be ending the
upgrade programs. We would be--the Humvees that we have, we
would continue to upgrade those. And then there are future
programs that may come in at some point and replace the Humvees
in some of their roles. But that is a number of years out.
Mr. Latta. Let me ask this then. Also I have seen,
according to a fiscal year 2010 Presidential supplemental, and
also in the fiscal year 2011 Overseas Contingency Operations
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, that production for Humvees
will total about $1.3 billion for Afghan security forces and
the Afghan National Police in 2011.
I guess my question is are these units going to be at the
same standard that the U.S. Humvees are right now, or are they
going to be a lesser category you might say without the armored
plating, or what will these units look like?
Mr. Lynn. I guess I am going to have to take that unless--
--
Mr. Hale. Yes. I think I will need to take that for the
record. I think they will be up armored Humvees. But we have to
get you the facts for the record.
Mr. Lynn. But that is an important broader point is
although the Army has hit their requirement that does not mean
that there would not be continued sales from foreign militaries
and indeed potentially other branches of the U.S. military may
still buy some.
Mr. Hale. There will be some Air Force and Marine Corps
purchases as well.
Mr. Latta. Okay. And then finally with these--on the Afghan
Security Force sales and things of this nature, will they be
all U.S. made, or are they going to be contracted? I know there
is some questions about different contractors and things like
that in Afghanistan. But will these all be U.S. contracted, or
are they----
Mr. Hale. For the Humvees now?
Mr. Latta. Right.
Mr. Hale. I think they will be U.S. purchases.
Mr. Latta. Okay, thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Chairman Spratt. Thank you, Mr. Latta. Mr. Schrader.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity.
I am concerned about the statements that are being made
about reforming the acquisition process. It sounds good. When I
look at the budget it looks like there is a seven percent
increase in our weapons procurement systems. But I would hope
we would find a reform that actually would lower our costs
going forward rather than increasing it. Could you juxtapose
those two items for me, please?
Mr. Lynn. Sure. I mean, there are multiple things going on
here. There is an increase in the overall modernization
accounts. We think that that is what is needed to frankly buy
the equipment that is needed for our national security, both in
the wars that we are fighting now as well as potential future
threats.
As I mentioned in the testimony, there are also substantial
program terminations that we have proposed. The terminations in
the last budget, the one that Congress approved last year,
fiscal 2010 that we are now executing, that if you took to
completion all of the programs that were terminated there, it
would have been an additional $330 billion. If you----
Mr. Schrader. What are the terminations the President--what
does the total amount dollar wise that the President's
proposing this budget cycle for terminations?
Mr. Lynn. I don't have the lifetime number. In the fiscal
2011 the biggest two are the C-17 and the alternate engine.
Mr. Schrader. Right. I just----
Mr. Lynn. If you added those two programs in, it would be
on the order of an additional $3 billion.
Mr. Schrader. Okay. I was just trying to get a handle
compared to the 330, 3 billion doesn't sound like very much.
Mr. Hale. The 330 was, as Mr. Lynn said, at cost to
complete. I don't also have in my mind the cost to complete for
the terminations. It would be--that are proposed this year. It
would be much less than 330.
But as he said, the savings in fiscal 2011 are about 3
billion. By contrast, if I remember correctly, last year's
terminations resulted in savings of about 10 billion, 10 or 11
billion.
Mr. Schrader. My comment would be I wish the Administration
would go back the other way. I keep pushing Congress a little
bit to be a little more aggressive in dismantling some of these
programs. And hopefully in reform acquisition we should be
setting targets to do better with less.
Clearly the Cold War is over. I mean, we still need some
nuclear capability. I appreciate that. But the Cold War is
over. What sort of draw down has gone down on our
intercontinental ballistic missile systems and our military
personnel in Europe seeing as how we have to apparently build
up our forces in the Middle East?
Mr. Lynn. I am going to have call back from memory. But I
think at one point we had over 300,000 troops in Europe. And
now we are down to around 100,000. I will check those and get
those for the record.
Our ICBM levels I think are at 450 currently. I am not sure
what the high. But they were in the midst of negotiations with
the Russians to try and reduce by a relatively substantial
mutual number the strategic nuclear delivery vehicles.
Mr. Schrader. So you envision those going down, continuing
to go down?
Mr. Lynn. Absolutely.
Mr. Schrader. Last question is Al-Qaeda. Are they primarily
in Afghanistan or Iraq, or what is the current theology here?
Mr. Lynn. Well, Al-Qaeda is in numerous countries around
the world. I think that the general intelligence would tell you
that the leadership locus would be in the ungovernable areas on
the Pakistan/Afghan border.
Mr. Schrader. That goes to my concern a little bit. It
seems like we are fighting this land war in Afghanistan,
finally getting out of Iraq. And yet Al-Qaeda is more on the
periphery, perhaps as you say in the Pakistan/Afghan border,
maybe in Yemen.
I am not sure why we are devoting so much of our resources
in an area where Al-Qaeda itself is not present. And we should
be spending a little more time, perhaps with the drone systems
that seems to be working very well, and Special Forces units in
the hotbed areas where Al-Qaeda really is. Why are we not
pursuing that?
Mr. Lynn. Well, I think we are. I think we are pursuing
with our partners in Pakistan and in Yemen I think we are
pursuing aggressive campaigns against Al-Qaeda as well as the
operations in Afghanistan. I don't think it is an either/or
proposition.
Take the border, you are trying to put pressure on that
border area from both sides. The Pakistanis have taken
important steps with some assistance from us. And on the Afghan
side we are trying to put pressure on the other side. The hope
is to stabilize the situation with a holistic approach.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Chairman Spratt. Let me tell you where we are. We have a
vote in one minute on the House floor. Mr. Scott has called and
said as soon as he votes he would like to come and ask some
questions.
I can go ahead and recognize at least Mr. Garrett, maybe
Mrs. Lummis. But we have got two votes following this. Would
you prefer to come back? Would you prefer to proceed at this
point?
Mr. Garrett. I would prefer to proceed. I only have one
point that I want to raise. And I will submit the rest of my
questions in writing.
Chairman Spratt. Okay. Mr. Garrett.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you. And as I said, I will be submitting
some additional numbers questions and what have you to you
afterwards.
But right now I just want to get to one personal matter
back in the District. I was not familiar with a program that
was out there until a couple of years ago. It is a program. It
is called the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command or JPAC and all
the extensive work that they actually do.
I will just give you the one example that we have been
dealing with now. It is dealing with folks from the Lessing
family. This is a gentleman, Army Captain Warren Lessing, who
was killed way back in World War II when his aircraft crashed
off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada.
Now JPAC has been involved. As you know, they are involved
with excavations and underwater excavations and the like to try
to recover our fallen heroes to bring back their remains when
they are identified.
Now these were identified some time ago. And the family has
actually been--his granddaughter has been working on it now for
over a decade. Our office became involved about two years ago.
I am trying to do it.
And I do want to say clearly that JPAC has been very
responsive to our office with this over the time and has filled
us in on what they are doing and has looked out to see
everything that they can do.
But the problem apparently is that there is a cue out there
or a list out there of about a dozen other--a little less than
a dozen other excavations that they can--need to do. And the
type of work that they do is limited, because the folks that
they can get involved with it because it is highly dangerous
and underwater and what have you. And there are only so many
divers that they actually have experts, only a couple I think.
Are you all familiar with this program? I assume you are.
Mr. Lynn. At a general level, yes.
Mr. Garrett. Yes. I just appreciate maybe if not here
whether you can bring back to us as to what the prospects are
for funding of this program so that we can make sure that when
we do know the whereabouts of our fallen heroes, that they can
come excavate them and bring back their remains to their
families and do it in a timely manner.
His son is now 80 years old and would like closure before
he passes on so they know whatever actually happened to their
father.
Mr. Lynn. We would be happy to get that for the record.
Mr. Garrett. Okay. I thank you.
Chairman Spratt. Ms. Lummis there is zero time left to
vote. We can ride it out if you would like. What is your
preference.
Ms. Lummis. Mr. Chairman, I have a staffer here. And if I
could just leave--plant three seeds of questions with you and
ask you to follow up with him.
Mr. Lynn. Sure.
Ms. Lummis. It will take 30 seconds.
Chairman Spratt. Go ahead.
Ms. Lummis. Okay, thanks, Mr. Chairman.
One is are we making any discernable progress towards a
clean audit?
Number two is you mentioned modest real growth in your
budget, 2012 and forward. We are talking one percent real,
three percent nominal growth. Can you really do it for that,
and I am curious about how with rising fuel costs, et cetera.
And question number three is in Wyoming we have a lot of
new, little national defense oriented research companies that
are doing some really cutting edge work on technology,
biodefense, and other things. What are you doing to help
encourage these small businesses so they can compete with
larger defense contractors for some of these really cutting
edge technologies?
Thank you very much. And my staffer will follow up with
you. Thanks so much for being here. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Spratt. Thank you now, appreciate it.
If you could bear with us. We have got two five-minute
votes after this vote. Mr. Scott at least had some questions.
We will be back as quickly as we possibly can.
In the meantime, if you need to use the telephones or any
other facilities here, they are yours at your request. Thank
you for your patience.
Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess.]
Chairman Spratt. Call the hearing back to order and
recognize Mr. Scott of Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you coming
back.
One question I had was on the BRAC closure of Fort Monroe.
When that was closed there was some speculation about cleaning
up. Do we have the sufficient funds to clean up Fort Monroe, so
that when it is turned over to the Commonwealth of Virginia
that it will be as clean as it was when we gave it to you?
Mr. Hale. I mean, I need to check specifics for you, Mr.
Scott. But we generally budget for environmental cleanup of
BRAC closure sites. So I think the answer is going to be yes.
Mr. Scott. Okay. We said during the consideration that if
you close it, you have got to clean it. So it had to be part of
the calculation.
In terms of changing the home porting of an aircraft
carrier from Norfolk to Mayport, I understand that their--I
haven't seen the risk assessment, which quantifies the hedge
against uncertainty. During the Cold War there didn't seem to
be much of a problem, because there was no other East Coast
nuclear facility. And the question I have is the--just the
dredging or otherwise making Mayport available just in case
something unusual happened, would that--why would that not be
sufficient in the outside chance that something did happen
rather than move--changing the home porting?
Mr. Lynn. We looked at that, Mr. Scott. And we came to the
conclusion that strategically the country was better protected
if we continued the policy of having two carrier ports on each
coast.
That would require putting a nuclear facility at Mayport
since we no longer have any conventional carriers. In the Cold
War that you referred to, we had a mix of conventional and
nuclear----
Mr. Scott. No. It is just--one of the uncertainties you are
hedging yourself against would that be hurricanes? Would that
be one of the uncertainties?
Mr. Lynn. You would be hedging both against manmade and
natural disasters.
Mr. Scott. So we would be moving a carrier to Florida from
Norfolk to hedge against hurricanes?
Mr. Lynn. It would be a broader calculation than that. It
would be against all forms of natural disasters and terrorist
attacks.
Mr. Scott. Where could we find the risk assessment?
Mr. Lynn. We provided briefings to the Armed Services
Committee. I will make sure that you get it.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. And once the initial costs--this is
the Budget Committee. So we want to know all the budget
implications. After the initial expenditure, what are the
recurring costs that would be involved?
Mr. Lynn. I mean, I think you are aware the initial costs
were on the order of $700 million. I don't have the recurring
costs. But we can get that for the record.
Mr. Scott. Have you considered the recurring costs? What
would the--what kind of costs would we be talking about?
Mr. Lynn. We have considered it as part of the analysis.
But I don't have the numbers in my head.
Mr. Scott. Have you considered the--if the average age on
these aircraft carriers is about 22 years old, something like
that, they need to be constantly trained. Where would that
training take place? For a carrier in Mayport, where would the
continual training take place? Would they have to come to
Norfolk to get recurring training?
Mr. Lynn. I guess I am not certain.
Mr. Scott. You don't know. Okay. On maintenance----
Mr. Hale. I think, Mr. Scott, I think they would go to
training ranges in the Caribbean.
Mr. Scott. But if they are--but they--if they were in
Norfolk they could training right there in Norfolk. No
temporary duty?
Mr. Hale. It would depend on the kind of training I think.
Mr. Scott. Okay. As I understand it, the aircraft carrier
will be gone about half the time. What is the shore maintenance
staff doing the 50 percent of the time the ship isn't there?
Mr. Lynn. The same kinds of things that they would be doing
in Norfolk. There is a series of preparations and other
functions. There is a continual work up function for all kinds
of ships.
Mr. Scott. Would they be in Mayport, or would they be in
Norfolk?
Mr. Lynn. There would be a permanent staff in Mayport.
Mr. Scott. Now I understand that the permanent staff would
be about 50. But when the ship shows up you would haul people
from Norfolk, 700 and some people from Norfolk, to be in
Mayport. Is that not true?
Mr. Lynn. You are going to have address that to the Navy. I
am not certain, sir.
Mr. Scott. If that is true, would that cost be considered?
Did you consider that cost?
Mr. Lynn. We did an analysis of the costs and came to the
conclusion that the danger of putting all of your carriers on
one port on the East Coast was not a risk that we wanted to
take.
Mr. Scott. But we haven't seen that assessment. I
understand that according to the Navy, the expected level of
resources over the near and mid-term will not sustain every
program objective, warranting a willingness to consider
tradeoffs in even our most deeply held priorities.
What kind of tradeoffs are we talking about in terms of
ship acquisition, aircraft procurement, ship repair and
maintenance, and shore infrastructure? What kind of tradeoffs
are we talking about? What would this do to our ability to
achieve a 313 ship fleet if we spend a billion dollars in this
operation?
Mr. Lynn. In the shipbuilding plan that we have submitted,
we have a plan that would get over the 300 ship target. And it
includes the costs of the facility in Mayport.
Mr. Scott. Then what other tradeoffs, even in our most
deeply held priorities, that the Navy was talking about?
Mr. Lynn. I am not sure what you are referring to.
Mr. Scott. You said 300. Is that the same as 313?
Mr. Lynn. I think it is a little less. The 313 number is a
number that the CNO laid out. The shipbuilding plan lays out a
range that goes from the 285 we are at now, up over 300, and
stays over 300 for most of the ship.
It is hard to have a point target, because when you have
ship acquisitions and ship retirements, you go up and down in
individual years. So I think it is better to look at it is that
you want to be in the low 300s. And some years that might be
313. And some years it might be a little higher. And in other
years it might be a little bit lower.
Mr. Scott. And is there a deficit in shore infrastructure
and ship repair and maintenance in the Navy budget right now?
Mr. Lynn. We have increased the Navy maintenance budget
this year. And we have tried to budget two to three percent
real growth, which is what we anticipate those kinds of budgets
to have.
Mr. Scott. But is there a backlog? There is no backlog?
Mr. Lynn. I believe there is a backlog.
Mr. Scott. A huge backlog. Is there not a huge backlog in
Navy ship repair and maintenance and shore infrastructure that
the Navy needs to come up with?
Mr. Lynn. There is always a rolling backlog. We will get
you the numbers.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Spratt. What is in the budget this year for the
proposed moving of the carrier from Norfolk to Mayport?
Mr. Lynn. There is very little money in for this year. It
is over the course of the FYDP.
Mr. Hale. There is just two million. In the fiscal 2011
budget, there is two million for planning and design for the
Mayport move.
Chairman Spratt. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for
your testimony here today and the work you are doing on behalf
of the country.
I would like to turn just to a couple of issues, first on
the acquisition side. Obviously, we all have responsibility to
make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. And right now
with the economy in the downturn, our dollars are particularly
being stretched thin.
I want to ask on our acquisition reform issues. Secretary
Lynn, in your testimony you outline some of the steps DoD is
taking right now to continue reforming the acquisition process
and ensure defense dollars are in fact spent wisely.
How will creating 20,000 new positions in the federal
acquisitions workforce lead to greater efficiencies and cost
savings? And next, what additional programs in this year's
budget are being recommended for discontinuation? And in your
opinion, will any of these programs make our defense posture
any weaker or our troops any less safe?
Mr. Lynn. The 20,000 is--about half of those 20,000 are new
positions and about half of them are in-sourcing of functions
that are currently being performed by contractors. When you in-
source the positions, we think that we will get a percentage
savings. That it is cheaper for us to do it in-house, as long
as it is a relatively permanent function, than it is to
outsource the cost of an individual is less. We will get you
some numbers on that for the record.
In terms of the cancellation, there were seven major
programs that were cancelled or curtailed this year. The two
largest were the C-17 where we proposed to end the buy at the
current level of 223, which is what Congress has authorized to
this point.
And the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter,
which we would propose not to go forward. We think in terms of
the first program, we have at this point more lift than the
studies suggest that we need. So we think we can curtail the C-
17 program at this point within the acceptable risk.
And with the alternate engine, there--we think also that we
can contain any risks there. And it will be a more cost-
effective way to proceed with the single engine. We don't think
that the potential savings from competition outweigh the
substantial up-front costs of bringing a second engine to
production.
Mr. Ryan. Any other examples that you can give me?
Mr. Lynn. We stopped work on a next generation infrared
satellite, called 3GIR. We have stopped the next generation
cruiser called CGX. There is Navy electronic warfare aircraft
called EPX. There is a command and control system. I forgot----
Mr. Hale. Net-Enabled Command and Control System.
Mr. Lynn. Net-Enabled Command and Control System. And then
there is a integrated--something called the Defense Integrated
Military Human Resources System, which is called DIMHRS, which
was a large IT project which frankly had just gone way over
budget and schedule and was not working. And we have decided to
take a different approach, tackling each of the services
individually rather than trying to do it on a government-wide
basis. Excuse me, a department-wide basis.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Mr. Langevin. Before my time runs out, on another issue.
First of all, I want to applaud Secretary Gates who recently
testified before Congress that the Pentagon has taken the first
steps toward repealing ``don't ask, don't tell.'' I think it is
an antiquated policy. And I think we ought to be judging people
on their service and not on their sexual orientation. But,
obviously, a thorough review won't be completed until the end
of next year.
Let me ask you, how much money have we spent recruiting and
training new soldiers to replace the thousands discharged under
``don't ask, don't tell''? In other words, how much has this
policy cost the government? And how much will it cost to wait
another year?
Obviously, the military being stretched so thin right now,
you know, we need the best and the brightest that are serving.
And they shouldn't be I don't think disqualified because of
their sexual orientation. So I would like you to answer that
question if you would.
But also, you know, why spend additional time and resources
on further review of this policy at the risk of losing more
distinguished servicemembers? Why not repeal the policy now and
keep our highly-trained soldiers who are already serving with
honor and distinction?
Mr. Lynn. We are trying to strike the appropriate balance.
There are many issues involved in repealing this policy. We
have to institute policies on benefits, on fraternization,
conduct, housing. We have to look at how we are going to move
the force to a new policy in terms of implementation. There is
training. There is leadership issues. And we want to do this in
a very thorough and thoughtful manner. And that is the reason
for the timing.
I understand your concern about discharging individuals as
we look to change this policy. And for that reason we are
taking a look at what kind of flexibility we have within the
current law to tighten up the regulations and to narrow the
basis on which you would see any further discharges under the
current policy.
Mr. Langevin. Does the Secretary have the authority to
suspend the policy for now, pending the outcome of the review?
Mr. Lynn. No. We don't think--I think the best--I yield to
the lawyers. But I don't think--I mean, it is--the ``don't ask,
don't tell'' policy is the law. Congress has passed the law.
We have implementing regulations that, for example, tell
you at what level of seniority an officer--the disposition has
to be made at, because it has to be made--can it be done at a
colonel level or a more senior level?
Those kinds of things are implementing the law. We think we
can make changes in those kinds of things. But can we just
ignore the law, no, we don't think we can.
Mr. Langevin. Okay. I am not saying you ignore it. But did
we have the opportunity to suspend it?
Mr. Lynn. We don't think we have the basis to suspend it I
guess was the word you used.
Mr. Langevin. Okay, thank you.
Chairman Spratt. Secretary Lynn, Secretary Hale, thank you
very much for coming, for your forthright answers. And we will
get you out of here on schedule back to the Pentagon.
We look forward to working with you this year for a
significant defense budget for next year. Thank you again for
your participation.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
<all>