SASC Hearing on Nominations of Admiral Locklear III, U.S. Navy and Lt. Gen. Bostick, U.S. Army
Thursday, February 9, 2012
This morning the Committee meets to consider military nominations for two critical and challenging command assignments. We welcome Admiral Samuel Locklear, United States Navy, who is nominated to be Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and Lieutenant General Thomas Bostick, United States Army, nominated to be the Army’s Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for both for your many years of service to our nation and for your willingness to continue to serve in these positions of great responsibility.
I’d also like to welcome, and to thank, your family members, some of whom are here this morning. The committee is keenly aware of the importance of our military families to the overall success and well-being of our armed forces and we appreciate greatly their unwavering support and their many sacrifices, particularly during the course of long military careers. In this regard, and as is the tradition of this Committee, I invite each of our witnesses, during your opening remarks, to introduce the family members or others who are here with you this morning.
One of the main components of the President’s recently announced Defense Strategic Guidance is to rebalance force structure and investments toward the Asia-Pacific. So the nomination of Admiral Locklear to be the senior-most U.S. military commander in the Asia-Pacific region is most timely.
Stability and security in the Asia-Pacific is indeed in the United States’ national interest and we must maintain and support a strategy that recognizes and protects that interest and works with allies and partners to address regional challenges:
- The abrupt leadership change in North Korea, occasioned by the recent death of long-time dictator Kim Jong-il, opens new questions about possible future threats from a regime that has shown little interest in cooperating with the international community and little concern for the well-being of its people;
- China’s continued rise as a regional and global power, coupled with its pursuit of military technology and capability and its increasing propensity for challenging the territorial and maritime claims of other countries, particularly in the South China Sea and East China Sea, has had an unsettling effect in the region and increased the prospects for miscalculation; and
- Other parts of the region continue to struggle with transnational violent extremism, insurgent groups, illegal narcotics, and humanitarian crises.
These challenges and others, underscore the need for the United States to remain engaged and active in this vital region. But, as we renew our commit to the Asia-Pacific, we must also look for creative and new ways of thinking about U.S. military presence overseas, particularly in a constrained budget environment. For example, realignment plans for U.S. forces in Korea, Okinawa and Guam rely on the old paradigm of large, elaborate overseas bases to accommodate permanent force structure for long periods of time.
While these plans might have fulfilled some specific needs and purposes when originally designed, it now appears that regional strategic requirements may be better served by looking at these realignments in the context of the needs of the broader Asia-Pacific, and by rebalancing the U.S. military presence throughout the region. Senators McCain, Webb and I have advocated for changes to these plans in ways that support the strategic goals of U.S. military posture and presence throughout the region while avoiding excessive and unsustainable costs associated with large and elaborate new bases.
The current Okinawa/Guam realignment plan is unworkable, unrealistic and unaffordable. Our alliance with Japan is important for many reasons and we need to get this right. The United States and Japan have recently announced that they are considering adjustments to the plan. It is important that there be changes and that they be jointly agreed upon and jointly announced and that a more viable and sustainable U.S. presence in Japan and on Guam results.
Admiral, we look forward to learning more about how you would approach these various challenges and how the United States military can best remain present and active in this important region during the upcoming period of budget constraints.
Also before the committee today is Lieutenant General Bostick, a career Army engineer who has been nominated to be the Army’s next Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the Army Corps of Engineers. Flooding in Louisiana caused by Hurricane Katrina and the relentless floodwaters that poured over the banks of the Mississippi River last year vividly dramatized the importance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But these high profile events are by no means the only challenges that confront the Army Corps.
The Army’s Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for both military and civilian programs and the associated planning, engineering, construction, and maintenance of a wide-range of infrastructure requirements. The responsibilities also include projects dealing with navigable waterways, flood control, environmental restoration, and disaster response.
Under its broad national charter, the Army Corps deals with difficult and important issues in virtually every State in the union, including my state of Michigan, which is inextricably tied to the vast navigable water systems of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes shoreline is the nation’s longest. The federal components of the Great Lakes Navigation System include 610 miles of channels, 139 harbors, three lock facilities including the Soo Locks in Michigan, 22 active confined disposal facilities and 107 miles of breakwaters, piers, and jetties. This system connects the manufacturing facilities and agricultural markets of the Midwest with trading partners throughout the world and provides the most efficient means of transportation, which is vital to our economic competitiveness. Yet our harbors need dredging. Some are threatened with closure to commercial shipping or require ships to lighten their load in order to enter some ports. The Army Corps of Engineers for far too long has paid inadequate attention to the Great Lakes.
General, we are interested in hearing your views on the various challenges facing the Army Corps and how you would, if confirmed, prioritize efforts to deal with those challenges. And as co-chair with Senator Kirk of the Great Lakes Task Force, I will be particularly interested in your thoughts on the Great Lakes Navigation System.
So, it is against the backdrop of these various challenges – both foreign and domestic – that we, again, welcome both of you today and we look forward to your testimony.