Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services" in: publisher
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Current and Future Worldwide Threats to the National Security of the United States: Hearing before the United States Senate, Committee on Armed Services, One Hundred and Seventh Congress, First Session, March 8, 2001
This testimony compilation is from the March 8, 2001 hearing "Current and Future Worldwide Threats to the National Security of the United States," before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of George J. Tenet: "As I reflect this year on the threats to American security, what strikes me most forcefully is the accelerating pace of change in so many arenas that affect our nation's interests. Numerous examples come to mind: new communications technology that enables the efforts of terrorists and narcotraffickers as surely as it aids law enforcement and intelligence, rapid global population growth that will create new strains in parts of the world least able to cope, the weakening internal bonds in a number of states whose cohesion can no longer be taken for granted, the breaking down of old barriers to change in places like the Koreas and Iran, the accelerating growth in missile capabilities in so many parts of the world--to name just a few. Never in my experience has American intelligence had to deal with such a dynamic set of concerns affecting such a broad range of US interests. Never have we had to deal with such a high quotient of uncertainty. With so many things on our plate, it is important always to establish priorities. For me, the highest priority must invariably be on those things that threaten the lives of Americans or the physical security of the United States. With that in mind, let me turn first to the challenges posed by international terrorism." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: George J. Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence and Thomas R. Wilson, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2001-03-08
-
Testimony on Current and Future Worldwide Threats to the National Security of the United States, hearing before the United States Senate, Committee on Armed Services, One Hundred and Sixth Congress, Second Session, February 3, 2000
This testimony compilation is from the February 3, 2000 hearing, "Testimony on Current and Future Worldwide Threats to the National Security of the United States," U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of George Tenet: "Mr. Chairman, as we face a new century, we face a new world. A world where technology, especially information technology, develops and spreads at lightning speed--and becomes obsolete just as fast. A world of increasing economic integration, where a US company designs a product in Des Moines, makes it in Mumbai, and sells it in Sydney. A world where nation-states remain the most important and powerful players, but where multinational corporations, nongovernment organizations, and even individuals can have a dramatic impact. This new world harbors the residual effects of the Cold War--which had frozen many traditional ethnic hatreds and conflicts within the global competition between two superpowers. Over the past 10 years they began to thaw in Africa, the Caucasus, and the Balkans, and we continue to see the results today. It is against this backdrop that I want to describe the realities of our national security environment in the first year of the 21st century: where technology has enabled, driven, or magnified the threat to us; where age-old resentments threaten to spill-over into open violence; and where a growing perception of our so-called 'hegemony' has become a lightning rod for the disaffected. Moreover, this environment of rapid change makes us even more vulnerable to sudden surprise." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: George J. Tenet, Director, Central Intelligence Agency and Thomas R. Wilson, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2000-02-03
-
Testimony on the Current and Future Worldwide Threats to the National Security of the United States, hearing before the United States Senate, Committee on Armed Services, One Hundred and Sixth Congress, First Session, February 2, 1999
This testimony compilation is from the February 2, 1999 hearing, "Testimony on the Current and Future Worldwide Threats to the National Security of the United States," U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of George Tenet: "US citizens and interests are threatened in many arenas and across a wide spectrum of issues. What is noteworthy is the manner in which so many issues are now intertwined and so many dangers mutually reinforcing. Why is this so? To some degree it involves historic legacies fueled by the continued crumbling of Cold War constraints. We see this in the ongoing turmoil of the Balkans, the increasing violence in Africa, and the renewed volatility of the Subcontinent. But in today's world, these problems fester amidst new dangers--dangers that flow from new factors, such as the increasing availability of sophisticated technology and the ease and speed with which it can be applied by those hostile to the United States. In a very real sense, we live at a moment when the past and the future are colliding. In other words, today we must still deal with terrorists, insurgents, and others who have hundreds of years of history fueling their causes--but chances are they will be using laptop computers, sophisticated encryption, and weaponry their predecessors could not even have imagined." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: George J. Tenet, Director, Central Intelligence Agency and Patrick M. Hughes, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
1999-02-02
-
Archived Webcast and Transcript of the Markup for the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support for FY 2017, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, May 10, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the May 10, 2016 hearing, " Archived Webcast and Transcript of the Markup for the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support for FY 2017," before the Senate Committee on Armed Forces. From the opening statement of Kelly Ayotte: "Today the subcommittee meets to mark up an original bill, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. [...] As many witnesses have testified before our committee, the United States confronts a growing and diverse range of threats, and yet the readiness of our armed forces has declined dangerously. This has occurred because our defense budget is based on artificial budget caps rather than an objective assessment of the threats we confront and a clear-eyed determination of the military we need to protect our national security interests. One of the most significant and important priorities for Congress is to eliminate once and for all the defense sequestration and the artificial budget caps that have increased the gap between the military we have and the military that we need to defend this Nation." There are no statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-05-10
-
Restoring American Power: Recommendations for the FY 2018-FY 2022 Defense Budget
From the Executive Summary: "This paper offers a general blueprint to begin rebuilding and reshaping our military. It is not cheap-roughly $430 billion of new money above the Obama administration's defense budget for the next five years, which is already more than $100 billion above the budget caps in law. The cost of further inaction, however, is worse: We will irreparably damage our military's ability to deter aggression and conflict. Indeed, as General Mark Milley, Chief of Staff of the Army, has said: 'The only thing more expensive than deterrence is actually fighting a war, and the only thing more expensive than fighting a war is fighting one and losing one.'"
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
McCain, John, 1936-
2017-01-16
-
United States European Command Programs and Budget, Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, April 30, 2015
This is a testimony compilation of the April 30, 2015 hearing on "United States European Command Programs and Budget" held before the Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the opening statement of John McCain: "Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policy toward Russia was based on a bipartisan assumption that the Russian government sought to integrate peacefully into the international order in Europe and to forge a constructive relationship with the United States. The events of the past year have overturned that assumption. Russia became the first state in seven decades on the European continent to send its military forces across an internationally recognized border and forcibly annex the sovereign territory of another state. Today, Russia maintains sizable numbers of artillery pieces and multiple rocket launchers on the territory of Ukraine in violation of the February ceasefire agreement. The Russian military has recently deployed additional air defense systems near the front lines in eastern Ukraine -- the highest amount since last August according to the State Department. It's a disturbing sign that another offensive may be imminent." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Philip Breedlove
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2015-04-30
-
Assessing the Department of Defense's Execution of Responsibilities in the U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, May 17, 2016
This is a testimony compilation of the May 17, 2016 hearing on "Assessing the Department of Defense's Execution of Responsibilities in the U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program" held before the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Armed Services. From the opening statement of Vicky Hartzler: "Foreign Military Sales, or FMS, is one component of the partnership-building tools the United States utilizes. It is a vital instrument of US national security policy, and is watched closely by our allies, partner nations, and adversaries alike. This subcommittee understands that FMS is a complex program. It is executed by many federal agencies and policy stakeholders. All are dedicated professions who strive to further US national security. They recognized that building critical relationships and military capacities of our foreign partners and allies strengthens American security." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Claire Grady, Beth McCormick, and Joseph Rixey.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2015-05-17
-
Air Force Modernization, Hearing before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Airland, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, March 8, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the March 8, 2016 hearing on "Air Force Modernization" held before the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the Introduction of the Witness Statement: "Today's demand for Air Force capabilities
continues to grow as Airmen provide America with unmatched Global Vigilance, Global Reach
and Global Power. Airmen are engaged defending US interests around the globe, supporting
Combatant Commander requirements in response to growing challenges from Russia, China,
North Korea and Iran, all in addition to the ever present counter-terrorism mission in the Middle
East and around the world. While our forces have been heavily engaged in deterring or
addressing these operational challenges, our adversaries have taken the opportunity to invest in
and advance their own capabilities. For the first time in decades, our adversaries are closing in
on our capability advantage. Our efforts to address these increasing challenges have been
stymied by reduced and unpredictable appropriations." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Darlene J. Costello, Arnold W. Bunch Jr., James M. Holmes, and John W. Raymond.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-03-08
-
Improving Strategic Integration at the Department of Defense, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, June 28, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the June 28, 2016 hearing on "Improving Strategic Integration at the Department of Defense" before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of James R. Locher III: "I commend Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their bold leadership on Section 941 in the Senate's version of this year's National Defense Authorization Act. If enacted, this provision would initiate a long overdue revolution in defense organization. As with all major change efforts, legislative approval and Pentagon implementation of Section 941 will not be easy, but if successful, resulting improvements in performance would be transformational. Many similarities exist between the Goldwater‐Nichols Act and Section 941. In both case, decades of evidence showed the need for fundamental organizational changes. In 1986, the Pentagon bureaucracy was in denial about its organizational defects and actively resisted congressional efforts. Senior Pentagon officials blasted the Senate Armed Services Committee's draft of the Goldwater‐Nichols Act. The Secretary of the Navy said its proposed strengthening of combatant commanders 'would make hash of our defense structure.' The Commandant of the Marine Corps said, 'I know of no document which has concerned me more in my 36 years of uniformed service to my country.' The Chief of Naval Operations declared that the bill 'was terribly flawed and certainly not in the best interests of national security.' The Army and Air Force Secretaries and Chiefs also criticized the committee's draft. Even after the Senate approved the Goldwater‐Nichols Act by a vote of 95‐0, Pentagon hardliners were urging a presidential veto. Since then, however, history has provided overwhelming evidence of the wisdom of Congress in overruling Pentagon objections and mandating sweeping defense reforms." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: James R. Locher III, Stanley A. McChrystal, and Amy C. Edmondson.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-06-28
-
United States Southern Command and United States Northern Command, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, April 6, 2017
This testimony compilation is from the April 6, 2017 hearing, "United States Southern Command and United States Northern Command" before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. The purpose of this hearing was to provide updates regarding the work of U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command in defending U.S. homeland and regional security and stability. Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Kurt W. Tidd and Lori J. Robinson.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2017-04-06
-
Cyber-enabled Information Operations, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, April 27, 2017
This testimony compilation is from the April 27, 2017 hearing on "Cyber-enabled Information Operations," before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Cybersecurity of the Committee on Armed Services. The purpose of this hearing was to discuss cyber-enable information operations and the gathering and disseminating of information within the cyber domain. Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John C. Inglis, Michael D. Lumpkin, Rand Waltzman, and Clint Watts.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2017-04-27
-
Army Modernization, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, April 5, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the April 5, 2016 hearing on "Army Modernization" held before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of Michael E. Williams: "With today's fiscal constraints, we risk becoming not only a smaller, but also a less-capable force. Budget unpredictability and reductions over the last several years has hampered modernization and threatens our ability to overmatch future enemies in ground combat. Investments today are critical because it is more cost effective to maintain and improve existing capabilities than regenerate lost capabilities rapidly in times of crisis. As the National Commission on the Future of the Army observed, reductions in Army modernization are elevating risk to Joint Force capability and national security. Our testimony aims to provide Congress and the American public with a greater understanding of the global security environment, the growing capabilities of our enemies and adversaries, and the capabilities and capacity the Army requires to protect our citizens and secure our vital national interests." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Michael E. Williams, Herbert R. McMaster, Jr., Joseph Anderson, and John M. Murray.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-04-05
-
Department of Defense Budget Posture, Hearing Before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, March 17, 2016
This is a testimony compilation of the March 17, 2016 hearing, "Department of Defense Budget Posture" held before the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Taken from the submitted statement of Secretary Ash Carter: "The President's budget submission accordingly adheres to that budget deal - requesting a total of $582.7 billion for the Defense Department in FY 2017, for both the base budget and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds combined. How we plan to invest those funds, along with our planned investments for the next five years - as detailed in the customary Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) that's included in the President's budget submission - are critical to DoD's ability to carry out our mission of national defense with the excellence the American people expect of their military, which is today the finest fighting force the world has ever known." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Ashton B. Carter, Michael J. McCord, and Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-03-17
-
Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Programs, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, April 20, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the April 20, 2016 hearing on "Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Programs" held before the Senate Subcommittee on Seapower. From the statement of Paul A. Groslags: "Our ability to respond to the dynamic strategic environment, high operational tempo and Combatant Commander (COCOM) requirements is constrained by the current fiscal realities. The Department is still recovering from reduced funding over Fiscal Years 2013-2016 that collectively provided $30 billion less than the levels requested in our President's Budget submissions. [...] This fiscal context drives difficult choices, but also fosters new thinking in order to best balance between capability, capacity, readiness and a vital industrial base. The Fiscal Year 2017 President's Budget integrates the mission guidance, operational context, and fiscal constraints in making focused investments, hard prioritized choices, and innovative reform to resource and delivers a global sea-based force. The Department's aviation plans are formulated to reach and maintain the required force structure with the right capabilities, while sustaining the initial industrial base required to support this force." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Paul A. Groslags, Jon M. Davis, and Michael C. Manazir.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-04-20
-
Department of the Navy 2017 Operations and Maintenance Budget Request and Readiness Posture, Hearing Before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Readiness, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, March 17, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the March 17, 2016 hearing, "Department of the Navy 2017 Operations and Maintenance Budget Request and Readiness Posture" before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of Vice Admiral John C. Aquilino: "[w]e appreciate the opportunity to testify on the current state of Navy readiness and projected changes to that readiness with the Fiscal Year 2017 budget request. This budget submission provides the resources to deliver sustainable deployed forces and supports our continued readiness recovery efforts. The submission also contains the hard choices and trade-offs we were obligated to make in order to achieve future war-fighting capability." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Vice Admiral John C. Aquilino, Vice Admiral Phillip H. Cullom, and Admiral Michelle J. Howard.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-03-17
-
Ballistic Missile Defense Policies and Programs, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, April 13, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the April 13, 2016 hearing "Ballistic Missile Defense Policies and Programs" before the Senate Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. From the statement of Brian P. McKeon: "Ballistic missiles continue to pose a significant security challenge as nations pursue efforts to make them more survivable, reliable, mobile, and accurate at greater ranges. [...] The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action reached by the P5+1, the EU (European Union) and Iran last summer effectively cuts off all of Iran's potential pathways to developing a nuclear warhead, thereby removing the greatest danger previously posed by Iran's ballistic missile program. At the same time, Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East and today can potentially reach targets throughout the region and into southeastern Europe. Iran is seeking to enhance the lethality and effectiveness of existing systems with improvements in accuracy and warhead designs." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Brian P. McKeon, William E. Gortney, James D. Syring, and David L. Mann.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-04-13
-
Department of Energy Atomic Energy Defense Activities and Programs, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, February 23, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the February 23, 2016 hearing on "Department of Energy Atomic Energy Defense Activities and Programs" before the Senate Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. From the statement of Frank G. Klotz: "The NNSA [National Nuclear Security Administration] has a unique and special responsibility to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile for as long as nuclear weapons exist; to prevent, counter, and respond to evolving and emerging nuclear proliferation and terrorism threats; to provide nuclear propulsion to our Navy as it protects American and Allied interests around the world; and to support our outstanding NNSA federal workforce. By supporting overall growth, this budget request represents a strong endorsement of NNSA's vital and enduring missions, and is indicative of the Administration's unwavering commitment to a strong national defense. [...] We have made some tough decisions and trade offs to meet both military commitments and nuclear security priorities. Without congressional support, modernization of our nuclear enterprise, implementation of our long-term stockpile sustainment strategy, and sustainment of our nonproliferation and prevention and response capabilities could be at risk. The program we have proposed is highly integrated and interdependent across the four accounts." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Frank G. Klotz, Anne M. Harrington, Monica C. Regalbuto, James F. Caldwell Jr., Stephen L. Davis, and David C. Trimble.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-02-23
-
Department of Defense Nuclear Acquisition Programs and the Nuclear Doctrine, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, February 9, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the February 9, 2016 hearing on "Department of Defense Nuclear Acquisition Programs and the Nuclear Doctrine" before the Senate Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. From the statement of Robert Scher: "Russia has undertaken aggressive actions in Crimea and elsewhere in Ukraine, and adopted a pattern of reckless nuclear posturing and coercive threats. Russia remains in violation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and remains unwilling to join us in discussing further reductions in strategic nuclear weapons below the limits of the New START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] Treaty. China continues its rise in the Asia-Pacific, where we continue our rebalance to maintain regional stability. China continues to introduce qualitative advances into its nuclear capabilities. North Korea--a threat to both us and our allies--just conducted its fourth nuclear test and conducted a space launch. As we work to counter Iran's malign influence against our friends and allies in the Middle East, we must also prevent Iran from reversing course on its commitments under the nuclear deal. Finally, denying terrorists access to nuclear weapons and weapon-usable materials is an absolute imperative in the ongoing fight to defeat terrorism." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Robert M. Scher, Arthur T. Hopkins, Terry J. Benedict, and Robin Rand.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-02-09
-
Posture of the Department of the Army, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, April 7, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the April 7, 2016 hearing on "Posture of the Department of the Army" before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of Patrick J. Murphy: "The United States Army is the most formidable ground combat force on earth. America's Army has convincingly demonstrated its competence and effectiveness in diverse missions overseas and in the homeland. Today, these missions include: fighting terrorists around the world; training Afghan and Iraqi Army forces; peacekeeping in the Sinai Peninsula and Kosovo; missile defense in the Persian Gulf; security assistance in Africa and South America; deterrence in Europe, the Republic of Korea, and Kuwait; rapid deployment global contingency forces; and response forces for the homeland. Additionally, we maintain 12,000 miles of U.S. waterways; respond to hurricanes, floods, and severe snowstorms; patrol our Southwest border; and assist with the response to the outbreak of pandemic diseases. In support of these U.S. Geographic Combatant Command missions, the Army has approximately 190,000 Soldiers deployed to 140 countries. Largely due to deliberate investments in Soldier training, equipping, and leader development, today's Army continues to excel at these diverse and enduring missions. However, we cannot become complacent, remain static, and look to the past or present to be a guarantor of future victory. To sustain this high performance and remain prepared for potential contingencies, the Army must make the most of the resources entrusted to us by the American people. This ultimately requires a balance of competing requirements--readiness, end strength, and modernization--to ensure America's Army remains ready to fight and win both today and in the future." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Patrick J. Murphy and Mark A. Milley.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-04-07
-
Posture of the Department of the Navy, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, March 15, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the March 15, 2016 hearing on "Posture of the Department of the Navy" before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of Raymond E. Mabus, Jr: "Every year, as we review our current posture, we must ask ourselves, as a Department, as a military, and as a nation, how to balance our national security demands. We face an increasing array of threats, conflicts and challenges around the globe, even as our fiscal and budgetary situation continues to strain resources. Consistently, when a crisis occurs, the leaders of this country want immediate options, so they ask for the Navy and Marine Corps, for our carrier strike groups and our amphibious ready groups, for our Sailors and Marines, for our presence. With 90 percent of global trade traveling by sea, 95 percent of all voice and data being transferred under the ocean and more than 80 percent of the world's population living within 60 miles of the sea, there is no question that now, more than ever, we are living in a maritime century." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Raymond E. Mabus, Jr., John M. Richardson, and Robert B. Neller.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-03-15
-
Posture of the Department of the Air Force, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, March 3, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the March 3, 2016 hearing on "Posture of the Department of the Air Force" before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of John McCain: "Twenty-five years of continuous deployments, troubled acquisition programs, and frequent aircraft divestments have left us with the oldest and smallest Air Force in history. And the combination of relentless operational tempo and misguided reductions in defense spending in recent years has depleted readiness: Today less than half of Air Force fighter squadrons are fully combat mission ready, and the Air Force does not anticipate a return to full spectrum readiness for another decade. Meanwhile, potential adversaries are developing and fielding fifth-generation fighters, advanced air defense systems, and sophisticated space, cyber and electronic warfare capabilities that are rapidly shrinking America's military technological advantage and holding our aircraft at greater risk over greater distances. Despite temporary relief from the arbitrary spending caps imposed by the Budget Control Act, including through last year's Bipartisan Budget Act, we are still placing an unnecessary and dangerous burden on the backs of our Airmen. Given the obvious needs of our Air Force to restore readiness, recapitalize our combat aircraft fleet, and invest in modernization, the President should have requested a defense budget that reflects the scale and scope of the national security threats we face and the growing demands they impose on our Airmen." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Deborah Lee James and Mark A. Welsh III.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-03-03
-
National Commission on the Future of the United States Army, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, February 11, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the February 11, 2016 hearing on "National Commission on the Future of the United States Army" before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of John McCain: "Through fifteen years of war, our Army has been tested. But time and time again, our soldiers proved their commitment, courage, and determination. It is our duty to our utmost to provide them the support they need and deserve. That starts by recognizing that our Army is still at war. At this moment, 187,000 soldiers are deployed in 140 locations around the globe. They're fighting terrorists and training our partners in Afghanistan and supporting the fight against ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] all while defending South Korea and reassuring our allies in Eastern Europe. Yet as the demands on our Army continue to increase, our support for our soldiers has not kept pace. In short, our Army is confronting growing threats and increasing operational demands with shrinking and less ready forces and aging equipment. By the end of the next fiscal year, the Army will be cut down to 450,000 Active Duty personnel soldiers, down from a wartime peak of 570,000. These budget driven force reductions were decided before the rise of ISIL or Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And as the commission notes, a regular Army of 450,000 is the minimum sufficient force necessary. We must be clear that when we minimize our Army, we maximize the risks to our soldiers. Those risks will only grow worse if mindless sequestration cuts are allowed to return and the Army shrinks to 420,000 soldiers. On the present course, we are running the risk that in a crisis, we will have too few soldiers who will enter a fight without proper training or equipment." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Carter F. Ham, Thomas R. Lamont, James D. Thurman, and Raymond F. Chandler III.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-02-11
-
Aviation Readiness, Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Readiness, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, July 6, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the July 6, 2016 hearing "Aviation Readiness," before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Readiness. From the prepared statement of Lieutenant General Jon M. Davis, Deputy Commandant for Aviation: "We are going through a period of risk for Marine Aviation. Since the end of official combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have thus far been able to fulfill our responsibilities and make our steady state Global Force Management operational commitments by risking the readiness of squadrons remaining in the United States. Squadrons deploy on time with the required training and readiness levels to be safe and meet the minimum for tactical proficiency (T2.0). However, these deploying squadrons, along with those next to deploy, are the 'Fight Tonight' force. In fact, 13 of the last 27 squadrons deployed at a T-rating less than 2.0. Marine Corps aviation is designed as a lean but highly ready force. We don't do tiered readiness. We can't afford to since our squadrons are always ready to deploy. We are designed to do a lot with a little -- and the only way we can do that is to maintain the required levels of flight line inventory, and ensure those aircraft have the spare parts and quality maintenance we need to meet our force in readiness requirements. Today, there are not enough flyable aircraft--our 'Ready Bench'--if our nation were subjected to a crisis." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Lieutenant General Jon M. Davis, Rear Admiral Upper Half Michael C. Manazir, Lieutenant General Kevin W. Mangum, and Major General Scott D. West.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-06-14
-
Missile Defeat Posture and Strategy of the United States: The FY17 President's Budget Request, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, April 14, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the April 14, 2016 hearing on "The Missile Defeat Posture and Strategy of the United States: The FY17 President's Budget Request" before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. From the statement of James Syring: "Our current budget request of $7.5 billion for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 will continue the development of defenses for our Nation, deployed forces, allies, and international partners against increasingly capable ballistic missiles. The FY 2017 missile defense program will continue to support the Warfighter and needs of the Combatant Commanders with the development, testing, deployment, and integration of interceptors, sensors, and the command, control, battle management and communications (C2BMC) system for the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Edward Cashman, Bill Gortney, Brian P. Mckeon, Barry Pike, and James Syring
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-04-14
-
Army Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle and Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft Enterprises, Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, March 16, 2016
This is a testimony compilation of the March 16, 2016 hearing on "Army Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle and Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft Enterprises," held before the Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of David G. Perkins: "Army UAS [Unmanned Aircraft Systems] provide assured, forward based organic support to the maneuver commander from the platoon to division level. On September 11, 2001, the U.S. Army UAS force consisted of only three companies and less than 200 Soldiers. Since then, the Army UAS force has grown to over 600 medium and large UAS, and over 6,500 small UAS operated by more than 7,000 Soldiers. To address this rapid expansion and continued growing demand, the Army is executing a comprehensive strategy to ensure that UAS formations are capable of meeting the challenges now and in the future. Today, I will highlight current Army UAS doctrine, manning, and training, as well as how the Army intends to continue to improve the warfighting capability of its UAS formations." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: David G. Perkins, Herbert J. Carlisle, and Brenda S. Farrell.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-03-16
-
Military Construction, Environmental, Energy, and Base Closure Programs, Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, April 12, 2016
This is a testimony compilation of the April 12, 2016 hearing on "Military Construction, Environmental, Energy, and Base Closure Programs" held before the Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of Pete Potochney: "As you will note, the Administration's budget includes $7.4 billion for Military Construction (including family housing), and $10.2 billion for Facility Sustainment and Recapitalization. These are both decreases from last year, as the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 caps overall defense spending. Although this request allows a reduction in facilities risk due to a slight increase in Sustainment funding by the Services, the Department is still accepting risk in facilities. As this Subcommittee well knows, facilities degrade more slowly than readiness, and in a constrained budget environment, it is responsible to take risk in facilities first." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Peter J. Potochney, Katherine G. Hammack, Dennis V. McGinn, and Miranda A.A. Ballentine.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-04-12
-
Navy Shipbuilding Programs, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, April 6, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the April 6, 2016 hearing "Navy Shipbuilding Programs," before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services. From the prepared statement of Sean J. Stackley: "The Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 President's Budget submission is governed by the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which implements the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) and continues our efforts to ensure our ability to protect the homeland, build security globally, project power and win decisively. As described in the Chief of Naval Operations' 'A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority' and the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps' 'Advance to Contact', today's strategic environment is dramatically more globalized with accelerating change. Global connections continue to multiply, fueled by rapid advances and proliferation in technology, particularly information technology. Our competitors are pursuing advanced weapon systems at levels and a pace of development that we have not seen since the mid-1980s. It is imperative that we fund a force that can fight and win against any of our five major challenges (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Global Counter-Terrorism), investing in advanced capabilities that increase our lethality, for both the current and future force. This budget addresses that imperative by making investments to sustain our ability to fight with decisive capability over the full range of operations-- at sea, from the sea, and across all domains. [...] Our Nation's away team, the Navy and Marine Corps, continues to stand the watch with an operational tempo that keeps nearly half of our Fleet underway every day. We must continually adapt to the emerging security environment to ensure our military's reach, presence, capability, and resolve to maintain this pace of operations remains superior in today's and tomorrow's world." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Sean J. Stackley, Joseph P. Mulloy, and Robert S. Walsh.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-04-06
-
State of Public Shipyards to Meet the Current Mission Needs and Investment Strategies to Support Future National Security Requirements, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, April 5, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the April 5, 2016 hearing, "State of Public Shipyards to Meet the Current Mission Needs and Investiment Strategies to Support Future National Securit Requirements," before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Commiiee on Armed Services. From the statement of Admiral William H. Hilarides: "Chairman Ayotte, Senator Kaine, and distinguished members of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, we appreciate the opportunity to testify about the Naval Shipyards' role in meeting Navy operational requirements. We are here representing the more than 33,000 hardworking, dedicated and patriotic professionals-both civilian and military-who work in the Naval Shipyards. Our Naval Shipyards have been challenged by an increasing workload and the effects of hiring freezes and overtime restrictions that have contributed to some ships being delivered late out of their availabilities. To address this workload-to-workforce imbalance, we increased the size of our workforce and enhanced training and apprenticeship programs to improve productive capacity. Further, we continue to recapitalize our infrastructure to improve workflow and better align the shipyard layout and tooling. The men and women, military and civilian, who work at our Naval Shipyards are right now undertaking these initiatives and tackling these challenges every day." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: William H. Hilarides and Dixon R. Smith.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-04-05
-
F35 Joint Strike Fighter, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, April 26, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the April 26, 2016 hearing "F-35 Joint Strike Fighter," before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the opening statement of Frank Kendall III: "The F-35 Lightning II is the Department of Defense`s largest acquisition program, matched by its importance to our Nation's security. The F-35 will form the backbone of U.S. air combat superiority for decades to come, replacing or complementing the legacy tactical fighter fleets of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps with a dominant, multirole, fifth-generation aircraft, capable of projecting U.S. power and deterring potential adversaries. For our International Partners and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers who are participating in the program, the F-35 will become a linchpin for future coalition operations and will help to close a crucial capability gap that will enhance the strength of our security alliances. Accordingly, delivering this transformational capability to front-line forces as soon as possible remains a top priority. Our overall assessment is that the program is making solid progress across the board and shows improvement each day while continuing to manage emerging issues and mitigate programmatic risks. We are confident the F-35 team can overcome these challenges and deliver on our commitments. In this testimony, we will present a detailed update on the progress that has been made over the past year, providing a balanced assessment of the current status of the program, highlighting both the accomplishments and the setbacks, as well as articulating where we believe risks remain." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Frank Kendall III, J. Michael Gilmore, Christopher C. Bogdan, Michael J. Sullivan.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-04-26
-
Nomination Hearing: James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, January 12, 2017
This is a testimony compilation of the January 12, 2017 hearing on "Nomination Hearing: James Mattis, Secretary of Defense" held before the Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the opening statement of John McCain: "All of us recognize the unique, indeed historic, nature of this nomination. General Mattis enjoyed a long and distinguished career in uniform, but current law would bar him from serving as Secretary of Defense for three more years. While I support retaining that law, I also believe that our nation needs General Mattis's service more than ever. So after this hearing, the Committee will meet to consider special legislation to allow General Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: James N. Mattis.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2017-01-12
