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
-
U.S. Industry Perspectives on the Department of Defense Policies, Roles and Responsibilities for Foreign Military Sales, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, May 11, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the May 11, 2016 hearing, "U.S. Industry Perspectives on the Department of Defense Policies, Roles and Responsibilities for Foreign Military Sales," before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, of the Committee on Armed Services. From the opening statement of M. Thomas Davis: "While today's hearing focuses on the specifics of the Department of Defense's (DoD) involvement in the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process, it is important to recognize that the FMS process itself is merely one component within a broader governance regime over arms transfers, which is a vital component of U.S. security cooperation. Over the past two decades, the FMS process has come under fire from a number of critics including those interested in protecting the vital technological advantage enjoyed by U.S. forces, and those interested in the health of the defense industrial base during a period of budgetary constraint and major market change. Industry shares the concern that FMS delays compromise U.S. national security interests; however, the core problems with FMS are not actually problems with the FMS process, but rather the burdens of associated components within the broader governance regime overseeing arms sales and technology transfers." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Tom Davis and Remy Nathan.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-05-11
-
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
-
United States Cyber Command, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, April 5, 2016
This is a testimony compilation of the April 5, 2016 hearing on "United States Cyber Command" held before the Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of Michael Rogers: "Our Congressionally appropriated budget for Fiscal Year 2016 amounts to $466 million (that's $259 million for our Headquarters and $207 million for Cyber Mission Forces support). We have 963 billets for full-time employees, both military and civilian, working in USCYBERCOM's headquarters, plus another 409 contract employees. Our military contingents represent every one of the Armed Services, both active and Reserve, and they include Coast Guardsmen as well." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Michael Rogers
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-04-05
-
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
-
Current Readiness of U.S. Forces, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, February 8, 2017
This hearing compilation is from the February 8, 2017 hearing on "Current Readiness of U.S. Forces" before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support. From the statement of Daniel Allyn: "This is a challenging time for our Nation and certainly for our Army. The unipolar moment is over, and replacing it is a multi-polar world characterized by competition and uncertainty. Today, the Army is globally engaged with more than 182,000 Soldiers supporting Combatant Commanders in over 140 worldwide locations. To break this down a bit: Over 5,000 Soldiers are in the Middle East supporting the fight against ISIL [Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant], a barbaric enemy intent on destabilizing the region and the globe. Nearly 8,000 more remain in Afghanistan, providing critical enabling support to Afghan National Security forces fighting a persistent insurgent threat. Over 33,000 are assigned or allocated to Europe to assure our Allies and deter a potentially grave threat to freedom. [...] In fact, the strength of the All Volunteer Force truly remains our Soldiers. These young men and women are trained, ready and inspired. We must be similarly inspired to provide for them commensurate with their extraordinary service and sacrifice." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Daniel B. Allyn, William F. Moran, Glenn M. Walters, and Stephen W. Wilson.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2017-02-08
-
Encryption and Cyber Matters, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, September 13, 2016
"The Department supports the use of strong encryption. Commercial encryption technology is vital to U.S. competitiveness and economic security and the Department depends upon secure data and strong encryption technology to carry out our national security mission. DoD depends upon our commercial-sector partners to help protect national security systems, research and development data related to our weapons systems, classified and sensitive information, service members' personally identifiable information and health records, just to name a few examples. The National Security Agency (NSA), which is responsible for setting encryption standards within the Department of Defense, depends upon strong and voluntary commercial industry partnerships to protect these systems and to develop best practices on the implementation and integration of encryption. If our adversaries are able to gain access to our networks, weapons systems, and other critical infrastructure, they could manipulate information, destroy data, and harm our national security systems. We must stay ahead of our adversaries' capabilities to ensure that our systems remain protected. Strong encryption remains a vital element to do so."
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-09-13
-
Reshaping the U.S. Military, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, February 16, 2017
This testimony compilation is from the February 16 hearing on Reshaping the U.S. Military, held before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss whether the military "can achieve the mission assigned to it-to deter and, if necessary, defeat aggression-and at what cost," and to discuss the reshaping of the military. Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: David A. Ochmanek, James P. Thomas, Thomas M. Donnelly, and Bryan Clark.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2017-02-16
-
United States Strategic Command, United States Northern Command, and United States Southern Command Programs and Budget, Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, March 10, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the March 10, 2016 hearing on "United States Strategic Command, United States Northern Command, and United States Southern Command Programs and Budget" before the Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of Cecil E. D. Haney: "While today, the Nation's strategic nuclear deterrent force remains safe, secure, effective and ready, we are working diligently to improve the resilience, responsiveness, credibility and flexibility of our operational plans and capabilities. USSTRATCOM [United States Strategic Command] is focused on deterring strategic attack, providing assurance to our allies and partners, and providing warfighting solutions to other Combatant Commands and partners across the spectrum of operations. While executing our global responsibilities, we continue to forge enduring partnerships with agencies and organizations across the U.S. government, academia, commercial industry, and Allied nations. [...] Much remains to be done to sustain and modernize the foundational nuclear deterrent force that we need to protect the Nation from existential threats in an increasingly uncertain and unpredictable environment. We must continue to meet critical investment timelines to ensure that aging platforms and weapons systems do not reach the point at which their viability becomes questionable. [...] Maintaining and improving comprehensive strategic deterrence, assurance and escalation control requires a multi-faceted, long-term approach to investing in strategic capabilities and a renewed, multi-generational commitment of intellectual capital. As I look at trends in the security environment, continued long term investment is needed to ensure that current progress transitions into long-term success." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Cecil E. D. Haney, William E. Gortney, and Kurt W. Tidd.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-03-10
-
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
-
U.S. Strategy and Policy in the Middle East, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, January 20, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the January 20, 2016 hearing "U.S. Strategy and Policy in the Middle East" before the Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the statement of Committee Chairman John McCain: "All across the region, we see a dangerous breakdown of state authority and the balance of power. As Henry Kissinger testified before this Committee, 'There is a struggle for power within states, a conflict between states, a conflict between ethnic and religious groups and an assault on the international system.' And as General Petraeus also told us last year, almost every Middle Eastern country is n ow a battleground or a combatant in one or more wars. For the past seven years, the Obama Administration has sought to scale back America's involvement in, and commitment to, the region, assuming that a post-American Middle East would be good for the region and for us, and that regional powers would step up to police the region themselves. [...] Instead of acknowledging its failures and changing course, as previous administrations of both parties have done, the administration has all too often doubled down on its reactive, incremental, and inadequate policies." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John M. Keane, Ryan C. Crocker, and Phillip H. Gordon.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-01-20
-
Future Nuclear Posture of the United States, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, January 27, 2016
This testimony compilation is from the January 27, 2016 hearing "Future Nuclear Posture of the United States" before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. From the statement of John R. Harvey: "First, the actions of Vladimir Putin, in essence to reestablish the Soviet Union, have made it clear to most Americans that optimistic assumptions about the future global security environment are not coming to pass. Recent Russian behavior has also muted the voices of those who sought to hijack, and misrepresent, the President's Prague agenda in calling for unilateral reductions to small numbers now. Perhaps more importantly, is the commitment of this Committee and its staff (both minority and majority) working together, and together with their House counterparts and with colleagues both inside and outside the Obama administration to do what's right for our nation's security. [...] The next few years are critical as we climb the so-called modernization 'bow wave' of needed investment that peaks in the mid-2020's. The greatest challenge, however, is to bolster consensus, and sustain momentum, in the transition over the next year to a new administration. Continued close attention and bipartisan support from Congress will be essential." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: John R. Harvey, Franklin C. Miller, Keith B. Payne, and Brad H. Roberts.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2016-01-27
-
S. Hrg. 114-600: An Independent Perspective of United States Defense Policy in the Asia-Pacific Region, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, February 3, 2016
This is the February 3, 2016 hearing "Independent Perspective of U.S. Defense Policy in the Asia-Pacific Region" before the Senate Committee on Armed Services. From the prepared statement of Michael J. Green and Thomas L. Conant: "Congress directed in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 that the Department of Defense solicit an independent organization to assess U.S. strategy and force posture in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as that of U.S. allies and partners. [...] CSIS [Center for Strategic and International Studies] built on a previous Congressionally-required assessment of U.S. defense posture in the Asia-Pacific. That assessment looked specifically at the realignment of U.S. Marines and their dependents and was concluded in 2012. The current study required us to assess the region more broadly, and to achieve that wider view we assembled CSIS experts on the full range of the Asia-Pacific, as well as on defense capabilities and development. Research included interviews with leading defense and security officials, experts, and military officers throughout the United States government and foreign capitals. [...] The report before you reflects the seriousness with which CSIS undertook this assessment as well as the range of challenges and opportunities facing the United States across the Asia-Pacific region." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Michael J. Green and Thomas L. Conant.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services
2017
-
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
