<DOC>
[DOCID: f:85914.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-176
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2658/S. 1382
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Defense
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
_____
85-914 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 deg.
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Defense
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas HARRY REID, Nevada
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
Professional Staff
Sid Ashworth
Jennifer Chartrand
Alycia Farrell
Menda Fife
Tom Hawkins
Robert J. Henke
Lesley Kalan
Mazie R. Mattson
Kraig Siracuse
Brian Wilson
Charles J. Houy (Minority)
Nicole Rutberg Di Resta (Minority)
Betsy Schmid (Minority)
Administrative Support
Nicole Royal
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Page
Department of Defense: Department of the Army.................... 1
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force............... 69
Wednesday, April 2, 2003
Department of Defense: Department of the Navy.................... 123
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
Defense Agencies: Missile Defense Agency......................... 195
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
Department of Defense: Medical Programs.......................... 241
Wednesday, May 7, 2003
Department of Defense:
National Guard............................................... 369
Reserves..................................................... 425
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary................... 487
Thursday, May 15, 2003
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 551
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Domenici, Shelby, Hutchison,
Inouye, Leahy, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
STATEMENTS OF:
HON. THOMAS E. WHITE, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
GENERAL ERIC K. SHINSEKI, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. We just received word that Senator Inouye
is stuck in traffic, as many of us have been this week, and he
asked us to proceed without him, so I am pleased to have a
chance to hear testimony from the Secretary of the Army and the
Army Chief of Staff for the fiscal year 2004 budget request. We
welcome you, General Shinseki.
General Shinseki. Thank you, Sir.
Senator Stevens. I am informed that this may be your last
time to come before us.
General Shinseki. Very likely.
Senator Stevens. Or at least this year will be your last
time.
General Shinseki. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. With what is going down in Iraq we may see
you again, but I do want to tell you it is just such a short
time ago you came for the first time, General, and we have
enjoyed very much, all of us, the chance to be with you and to
have your vision on transformation of the Army, and we have
done our best to pursue that. I am certain that Senator Inouye
will have some statements when he comes, but I want to thank
you on behalf of our committee for all your cooperation with
us.
And Mr. Secretary, nice to have you back with us again.
Mr. White. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. We now find ourselves conducting a global
war on terrorism, and quite close to war in Iraq, and we are
obviously very much in need of a strong, modern, prepared
military. It is important to us today, more important,
probably, than it has been in many, many years to be sure that
you have the resources that you need, and that we support the
President and your men and women as they respond to the
Commander in Chief's directions and commands.
We have people from the Army deployed all over the world
now. I am told that the Army has 262,000 soldiers now deployed
somewhere in the world outside of our country.
General Shinseki. That is correct.
Senator Stevens. The Guard and Reserve now, under the total
force concept, share this burden, with 139,000 Reservists and
Guardsmen mobilized and on active duty. There are many issues
that we face this year, there is no question about it, but we
want to pursue today, if possible, the direction that we should
go on Army Transformation.
I think you have demonstrated to the Congress and the
people of this country that the Transformation concept is not
just simply a new weapons platform, but a new doctrine and
organizational concept for the Army, and it is a whole new way
of life for the Army and new way to fight and win wars. You
have managed to shake up the industry and the military
bureaucracy with your concepts, and Transformation has
shattered the old paradigm of business as usual in the miliary,
so we congratulate you.
I think Congress must continue its commitment to this Army
Transformation and continue the commitment we made to our
soldiers in 1999, when you first brought us this new concept of
Transformation, so it is the intention of this committee, at
least for this chairman and I am certain Senator Inouye, to
urge this committee to give you our full support to make
certain that this goal is totally accomplished. We look forward
to hearing your plans today not only on transformation, but to
further strengthen the entire Army.
I will put the balance of my comments in the record so that
I do not prolong this, but I do thank each of you for visiting
with me and my staff yesterday to make certain we had
coordination of our concepts and our resolve to be certain that
the Army of today and tomorrow will be the best that it can be.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
This morning the subcommittee will receive testimony from
the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff on their
fiscal year 2004 budget request.
General Shinseki, welcome to you. Unfortunately, this will
be your last time testifying before the committee as the Chief
of Staff.
It seems like a very short time ago when you first
testified before this committee and introduced us to your
vision of transformation for the Army.
The Army is well on its way towards the future.
Transformation is a success. You have proven your critics
wrong.
Much has happened since our first meeting. As we find
ourselves conducting a global war on terrorism, preparing for a
possible war to disarm Iraq, America is reminded of the need
for a strong, modern, prepared military.
It is as important today as it ever was to have a military
who has the resources it needs and the support of the President
and the entire country.
The United States Army is deployed all over the globe.
Today, the Army has over 262,000 soldiers deployed or forward
stationed.
The Guard and Reserve are also sharing in this burden with
more than 139,000 reservists and guardsmen mobilized and on
active duty.
While there are many important issues facing the Army, one
of the most critical decisions Congress will make this year
will be the direction we go on Army transformation.
You have demonstrated to the Congress, and the country,
that the transformation concept is not simply a new weapons
platform, but a new doctrine and organizational concept for the
Army. It is a whole new way for the Army to fight and win wars.
You have managed to shake up industry and the military
bureaucracy with your concepts. Transformation has shattered
the old paradigm of ``business as usual''.
Congress must continue its commitment to Army
transformation and continue the commitment we made to our
soldiers in 1999 when you introduced the concept of
transformation.
It is the intention of this committee to give you the
resolve and support to see your goal through.
I look forward to learning of your plans to not only
continue transformation, but to further strengthen it, and the
entire Army.
This committee will continue to adamantly support your plan
to deploy 6 Stryker brigades. In fact, I will seek your insight
momentarily on how this committee can best protect that plan.
In addition, I would welcome any comments you might have on
current funding requirements for the Army for fiscal year 2004,
and your views on the scope and timing of any needed
supplemental appropriations for this fiscal year.
Let me now turn to our mutual friend, and partner, the
distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator
Inouye.
Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy, you are first.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, are we going to questions now,
or are these just----
Senator Stevens. Opening statements, if you have them.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. No. I will put an opening statement in the
record.
I would just tell you, Mr. Chairman, what I had said to
Secretary White and General Shinseki here earlier, right before
this started, that no matter how anybody feels one way or the
other on war, at least we can take comfort in the fact that our
people, our troops in the field are the best-trained, best-
equipped in the world, and as I told both the Secretary and the
General, what I have been saying to families in Vermont who
have either members of their family who are already deployed or
being called up to be deployed, take comfort in the fact that
our people are so well-led, so well-trained, and so well-
equipped.
And as the General pointed out to me, that is not something
you do overnight. It requires years and years of preparation
and Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Inouye and this committee
have done a lot of that to make sure we bought a lot of
equipment we hope we will never have to use, but when we have
to use it, at least it is there, and so I compliment you both.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will put my whole statement in
the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
I would like to welcome back General Shinseki and Secretary
White to the Subcommittee. As U.S. forces are poised to enter
Iraq, it is good to know that they have such competent,
steadfast leadership back at the Pentagon. We face many
challenges in the days and weeks ahead. The men and women of
the U.S. Army and the entire armed forces are ready for any
eventuality. I look forward to the question and answer period.
Senator Stevens. My great friend from Hawaii, do you have
an opening statement, Senator?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. I have
the excuse that half of this city has, the traffic, but before
I proceed, sir, I would like to, as a citizen of the United
States, commend and thank the Secretary and General Shinseki
for the service they have rendered us at this time in our
history by preparing our men and women so that they are in full
readiness upon the command of our Commander in Chief. I think
this is very important, and for that we will be eternally
grateful.
Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement here, but since
time may be of the essence, may I put this in the record, sir?
Senator Stevens. Without objection, it will be put in the
record as though read.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Secretary White, General Shinseki, I would like to welcome
you once again, as we consider the fiscal year 2004 Defense
appropriations request for the Army. General Shinseki, since
this will probably be your last appearance before this
committee as Chief of Staff of the Army, I would like to take
this opportunity to recognize your invaluable contributions to
the U.S. Army.
General Shinseki assumed his duties as the 34th Chief of
Staff of the U.S. Army on June 22, 1999. Just three months
later, he announced his plans to transform the Army into a
force that could better meet future defense requirements to be
both rapidly deployable and lethal.
During your tenure, General, you institutionalized
transformation and with it brought about a fundamental cultural
and technological shift in the U.S. Army--a difficult challenge
for an institution as large, diverse, and steeped in history
and tradition as the United States Army.
Four years after assuming your duties as Chief of Staff of
the Army, the term ``transformation'' not only encompasses
plans and programs for building the Army's future force, but
the term is now synonymous with the efforts of the entire
Department of Defense as it seeks to enhance its capabilities
to fight and win wars in the 21st century.
Congratulations General on a long and decorated career, and
thank you for your service to the Army and to the country.
Although you are retiring this June, this committee hopes and
plans to continue to call on you for your counsel.
Gentlemen, since our last hearing, the Army continues to
play a critical role in the global war on terrorism, while at
the same time transforming its forces for the 21st century.
Our Nation's soldiers are busy--mobilization of the Army
Reserve and Guard has reached 210,000 with forces deployed
around the world to combat terrorism, to honor our commitments
in Bosnia, Kosovo, the Sinai, and Saudi Arabia, and to prepare
for a potential war with Iraq. Gentlemen, we need you to tell
us how long we will be able to sustain these deployments and
mobilizations, and whether you have sufficient forces to meet
these requirements.
I look forward to hearing about these issues and how the
Army's fiscal year 2004 budget request supports the Army's
current and future missions.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this
hearing. Secretary White, I want to commend you for your
service both as a soldier and as a Secretary, and General
Shinseki, we know what you mean to the Army. We know what you
mean to the Nation, and I appreciate that very much. I look
forward to both of your testimony here today, especially on the
eve of the impending conflict.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the Secretary
for being here, and let me thank General Shinseki, and General
Shinseki, I know that you are slated to retire, and let me echo
the words of my colleagues in thanking you for your service.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, and I would ask that
you both turn on your mikes, as I have just turned mine on, and
I am reminded sitting here of the times that Senator Stennis
talked to us about changing the Army and about trying to work
the Guard and Reserve into the total force. I think he would be
delighted if he were here with us today because if there were
any pioneer in, really, modernization of the Army, it was
Senator Stennis.
I do again thank you very much for the hard work you have
put into making this Army as good as it is, and as good as the
world will see it is in the near days. Please proceed with your
statements, whoever wishes to go first. Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY WHITE
Mr. White. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with your
permission I will submit a statement for the record and keep my
opening remarks short.
Senator Inouye, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the
opportunity to talk with you today about the United States
Army. Our priorities remain the same as they were a year ago,
win the global war on terrorism, and transform the Army to
prepare it for future wars.
First and foremost, I wish to thank this committee for your
continued support for the Army. The fiscal year 2003 budget has
allowed us to make significant improvements in many key areas.
We have structured our budget request for fiscal year 2004 in
the same fashion as fiscal year 2003, based on our top
priorities of People, Readiness, and Transformation.
On the people front, thanks to your support we are making
significant strides, and this does include a fully funded pay
raise for all soldiers, targeted pay raises in selective cases,
significantly reduced soldier out-of-pocket expenses for
housing, and an accelerated Residential Communities Initiative
(RCI) to improve on-post quarters for our families.
This year, we are examining options, under an initiative
called personnel transformation, to shift away from our
individual replacement system to a unit manning approach that
will enhance cohesion and combat readiness of our formations
while improving the predictability of assignment patterns for
Army families.
As you know, we have had over 30,000 National Guard and
Reserve soldiers on active duty consistently since September 11
of 2001, some 18 months now, and as of today, we have activated
over 151,000 soldiers for current and potential future Federal
operations in addition to over 2,700 soldiers currently
activated for State service. These Reserve Component soldiers
are performing magnificently on a ``One Army'' basis, and we
appreciate the tremendous support they have received from their
employers as well as the American public. We recognize the
unique sacrifices made by these citizen soldiers as they step
up to do their duty as citizens and patriots.
On the readiness front, the Army is ready for any
additional operations we are ordered to perform in the future,
and our great soldiers are successfully meeting our many
current obligations around the world. With your help in fiscal
year 2003 and again in our fiscal year 2004 budget request, we
gave priority to funding training requirements for the force,
significantly improved our spare parts availability,
accelerated fielding of soldier support systems and unit
communications equipment to make our units as ready as
possible. Having said that, our operations tempo (OPTEMPO) has
never been higher in my nearly 40 years of experience with the
Army. We are indeed an Army that is on the move.
While we have fully funded normal OPTEMPO and training,
including the full complement of pre-9/11 missions such as
Bosnia and Kosovo, the Sinai, and Korea, we have many other
obligations as we pursue the global war on terrorism as part of
the joint force. Post-9/11 missions of the past 18 months
include Operations Noble Eagle here at home, Enduring Freedom
in Afghanistan, as well as operations in the Philippines and
elsewhere. Finally, we have a significant flow of Army forces
into the Persian Gulf in support of potential future operations
to ensure the disarmament of Iraq.
Given this level of activity, it should come as no surprise
that supplemental funding in fiscal year 2003 will be required.
We are working hard to balance our readiness imperative for
realistic training with our obligation to be good stewards of
the environment. That balance is reflected in the Department of
Defense's Range Preservation Initiative that we ask your
support for. It is essential for us to maintain the balance
between the use of military lands for their uniquely military
purposes and the need for environmental protection and species
preservation.
The readiness of our soldiers going into harm's way depends
upon that balance, so we ask for your help with this important
initiative. We are transforming our Army even as we execute
combat operations and prepare for future contingencies. This
simultaneity is not only a necessity, it is an imperative. We
are transforming the business side of the Army as well as the
operational force, and we are transforming within the joint
context, not merely in a service-centric manner.
We have held steady to the azimuth established by the Chief
of the Army, General Shinseki, all the way back in 1999, and in
my personal opinion, one of the reasons we have been successful
in that Transformation is the courage he showed in laying that
marker down and then not deviating from that azimuth, and you
have supported that azimuth consistently since he spoke of it.
In fiscal year 2004, we request funding for our fourth
Stryker Brigade to be fielded at Fort Polk, Louisiana, the
Second Armored Cavalry Regiment, and we remain fully committed
to fielding six Stryker Brigades on our established time line.
We remain focused on the Objective Force with the restructured
Comanche armed reconnaissance helicopter program. We are
postured to successfully meet acquisition Milestone B in May
for the Future Combat System (FCS). FCS includes the non-line
of sight (NLOS) variant and the initial fielding increment
which will meet the cannon requirement previously addressed by
the Crusader program. We remain on a glide path to field the
first Objective Force units in fiscal year 2008 with an initial
operational capability (IOC) in 2010.
On the business side of the Army, we fully solicit your
support for the Department of Defense (DOD) transformation
package, which will greatly streamline our operations and give
us the flexibility to manage the Department in the most
efficient manner. In the same vein, our business transformation
initiatives are designed to achieve greater value for the
taxpayer dollar.
Our Residential Communities Initiative to privatize family
housing continues to be an enormous success. By fiscal year
2007, the Army will have established partnerships to bring
every set of family quarters up to standard. I cannot think of
a better thing to do for a married Army. We are able to do this
because with an investment of $620 million we have attracted
over $7 billion in private capital. This is a tremendous value
for the taxpayer, and we believe a model of how better business
practices can help us with noncore functions such as housing.
We are seeking to apply the same model of public-private
partnership to the challenge of on-base utilities, for example,
by consolidating all installation management under one command,
and by centralizing the Army-wide contracting, for contracts
over $500,000, in our Army Contracting Agency. We are seeking
to regionalize utilities contracting, achieving economies of
scale that were not possible with our previous business
management structures. Private capital will be required to fix
the utilities infrastructure on our bases, and we are setting
the conditions to attract it just as we have with family
housing.
Finally, we are conducting what we call our Third Wave
Initiative, which seeks to eliminate or transfer all noncore
functions currently consuming Army people and dollars. Rest
assured, as we progress this initiative, we will pursue this
business initiative in full consultation with the Congress.
Now, finally the matter of risk. Balancing the risk
associated with near-term modernization and mid-term
transformation has required us to make some tough choices. We
have had to terminate or restructure numerous current force
modernization programs to generate the capital to fund
transformation. In a nutshell, our fiscal year 2004 budget
submission funds people, readiness, and transformation at the
expense of some of our infrastructure accounts and current
force modernization. We made these judgments only after a
careful balancing of both operational risk and the risk of not
transforming to provide the capabilities the Army needs to meet
the obligations of our near-and mid-term strategy.
In conclusion, I wish to return to those who I mentioned
first in my remarks, our soldiers. Their performance in
Afghanistan speaks volumes. In the dead of winter, a landlocked
country, toughest terrain imaginable, the collapse of the
Taliban put Al Qaeda on the run and they are still running. It
has been my privilege to visit them in Afghanistan, see our
soldiers in Kuwait and Bosnia and Kosovo, all around our
country. You could never meet a finer group of young Americans.
They are flat out, in my 40 years, the best soldiers I have
ever seen, and we are all very, very proud of them. Rest
assured they stand ready, along with our sister services, to
accomplish any task ordered by our Commander in Chief.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for the opportunity to
discuss the fiscal year 2004 budget submission. I look forward
to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Honorable Thomas E. White and General Eric K.
Shinseki
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
for this opportunity to report to you today on the Posture of the
United States Army.
America's armed forces are the most powerful in the world. And
America's Army remains the most respected landpower to our friends and
allies and the most feared ground force to those who would threaten the
interests of the United States.
Since before the birth of the Nation, American Soldiers have
instilled hope in a noble dream of liberty. They have remained on point
for the Nation through nine wars, and the intervals of peace in the
years between--defending the Constitution and preserving freedom.
Magnificent in their selfless service, long in their sense of duty, and
deep in their commitment to honor, Soldiers have kept the United States
the land of the free and the home of the brave. This is our legacy. Our
Soldiers who serve today preserve it.
In October 1999, we unveiled our vision for the future--``Soldiers,
on point for the Nation, transforming this, the most respected army in
the world, into a strategically responsive force that is dominant
across the full spectrum of operations.'' The attacks against our
Nation on September 11, 2001, and the ensuing war on terrorism validate
The Army's Vision--People, Readiness, Transformation--and our efforts
to change quickly into a more responsive, deployable, agile, versatile,
lethal, survivable, and sustainable force.
While helping to fight the Global War on Terrorism, The Army is in
the midst of a profound transformation. Readiness remains our constant
imperative--today, tomorrow, and the day after. Transformation,
therefore, advances on three broad axes: perpetuating The Army's legacy
by maintaining today's readiness and dominance; bridging the
operational gap with an Interim Force of Stryker Brigade Combat Teams;
and fielding the Objective Force to fight and win conflicts in the
years beyond this decade.
As they have throughout The Army's 227-year history, Soldiers
remain the centerpiece of our formations. Versatile and decisive across
the full spectrum of joint missions, land forces have demonstrated time
and again the quality of their precision in joint operations. Our
responsibility is to provide Soldiers with the critical capabilities
needed for the tough missions we send them on.
After three and a half years of undiminished support from the
Administration and the Congress, and the incredible dedication of
Soldiers and Department of the Army civilians, we have begun to deliver
The Army Vision. With continued strong support, we will win the war
against global terrorism, meet our obligations to our friends and
allies, remain ready to prevail over the unpredictable, and transform
ourselves for decisive victories on future battlefields.
We have achieved sustainable momentum in Army Transformation; the
framework is in place to see the Objective Force fielded, this decade.
THE ARMY--AT WAR AND TRANSFORMING
The United States is at war, and The Army serves the Nation by
defending the Constitution and our way of life. It is our nonnegotiable
contract with the American people--to fight and win our Nation's wars,
decisively.
In the weeks immediately following the attacks of September 11,
2001, Special Operations Forces (SOF) infiltrated Afghanistan,
penetrated Al Qaida and Taliban strongholds, and leveraged all
available long-range, joint fires, enabling the Northern Alliance to
begin dismantling the Taliban. By January 2002, U.S. and Allied
conventional force reinforcements began to set the stage for Operation
Anaconda, where Soldiers, demonstrating courage and determination under
the most challenging conditions, defeated Al Qaida at altitude on the
escarpments overlooking the Shah-e-kot Valley.
Today, more than 198,000 Soldiers remain deployed and forward
stationed in 120 countries around the globe, conducting operations and
training with our friends and allies. Decisively engaged in the joint
and combined fight against global terrorism, Soldiers are serving with
distinction--at home and abroad. Soldiers from both the Active and the
Reserve Component have remained ``on point'' for the Nation in the
Balkans for seven years, in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for 12 years, in
the Sinai for 21 years, and in Korea and Europe for over 50 years. At
the publication of the Army Posture Statement, there were more than
110,000 Reserve Component Soldiers mobilized for active federal service
in support of Operation Noble Eagle and Operation Enduring Freedom.
Even as we transform, Soldiers will remain ready to answer the calls of
the Nation to defeat well-trained, determined, and dangerous
adversaries who miscalculate in taking on the best led, the best-
equipped, and the best-trained army in the world.
At war and transforming, The Army is accelerating change to harness
the power of new technologies, different organizations, and revitalized
leader development initiatives to remain at the head of the line. To
accomplish this, Army Transformation advances along three major axes
towards attainment of the Objective Force. We selectively recapitalize
and modernize today's capabilities to extend our overmatch in staying
ready to defend our homeland, keep the peace in areas important to the
Nation, and win the war against global terrorism. Stryker Brigade
Combat Teams--our Interim Force--will bridge the current operational
gap between our rapidly-deployable light forces and our later-arriving
heavy forces, paving the way for the arrival of the Objective Force. By
2010, The Army's Objective Force--organized, equipped, and trained for
ground dominance, cyber-warfare, and space exploitation--will provide
the Nation the capabilities it must have to remain the global leader,
the strongest economy in the world, and the most respected and feared
military force, by our friends and allies and our enemies,
respectively.
The surprise attacks against our Nation and Operation Enduring
Freedom, in response to those attacks, validated The Army Vision and
provided momentum to our efforts to transform ourselves into an
instrument of national power that provides full spectrum operational
capabilities that are strategically responsive and capable of decisive
victory. In a little over three years, we have begun to realize The
Army Vision--People, Readiness, and Transformation.
The transforming Army is enriching as a profession and nurturing to
families whose sacrifice has borne the readiness of the force for the
past 10 years. Our Well-Being initiatives are our commitment to reverse
this trend by giving our people the opportunity to become self-reliant;
setting them up for personal growth and success; aggressively investing
in family housing; and revitalizing Single-Soldier living space in our
barracks. Our manning initiatives have filled our line divisions and
other early deploying units to dampen the internal turbulence of
partially filled formations and help put a measure of predictability
back into the lives of our families.
The Army has carefully balanced the risk between remaining ready
for today's challenges and preparing for future crises. With unwavering
support from the Administration, the Congress, our Soldiers, and
Department of the Army Civilians, The Army has made unprecedented
progress in its efforts to transform.
We will achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for the first
Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) this summer and demonstrate the
increased responsiveness, deployability, agility, versatility,
lethality, survivability, and sustainability that SBCTs provide to
Combatant Commanders. In a little over three years from initial concept
to fielded capability, the SBCTs will allow us to glimpse the potential
for acquisition reform in paving the way for delivery of the Objective
Force.
We have constructed the framework for achieving the Objective Force
this decade: a Transformation Campaign Plan with Roadmap; the Objective
Force White Paper; the Operational and Organizational plans for the
Objective Force Unit of Action; and the Operational Requirements
Document for the Future Combat System of Systems.
Additionally, The Army is poised to fill ground maneuver's most
critical battlefield deficiency--armed aerial reconnaissance--with
Comanche, a capable, survivable, and sustainable aircraft that is a
cornerstone of the Objective Force.
All along the way, we have tested our concepts in wargames and
experiments, checked and rechecked our azimuth to the Objective Force
weekly and monthly, and look forward to a successful Future Combat
System Milestone B Defense Acquisition Board decision in May of this
year.
However, we cannot accelerate Army Transformation without
transforming the way The Army does business--from transformation of
logistics and acquisition to personnel and installation transformation.
Revolutionizing Army business management practices achieves the best
value for taxpayers' dollars; conserves limited resources for
investment in People, Readiness, and Transformation; enhances
management of personnel systems, installations and contracting; and
augments our potential to accelerate arrival of the Objective Force.
Changing The Army is first about changing the way we think, and better
business practices represent practical application of common sense
initiatives that best serve The Army and our Nation.
We are proud of our progress. We are grateful for the strong
Congressional support that has helped put The Army on its approach
march to the Objective Force. The Army 2003 Posture Statement describes
our tremendous progress in Transformation--an orchestrated campaign,
synchronized with OSD and Joint Transformation, to achieve the
Objective Force and keep America's Army the dominant landpower in the
world.
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT--THE REQUIREMENT TO TRANSFORM
During the last two decades of the 20th Century, information-age
technologies dramatically changed the political, economic, and military
landscapes. Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and operations in Kuwait,
Bosnia, and Kosovo illustrated the requirement for transforming our
forces to meet the evolving, strategic requirements of our Nation.
Survivable and extremely lethal, our heavy forces effectively met the
requirements for which they were designed; yet, they were slow to
deploy and difficult to sustain. Conversely, our light forces were
rapidly deployable, but they lacked the protection, lethality, and
tactical mobility that we seek across the spectrum of military
operations. We were successful in winning the Cold War and, as a
result, smaller than we had been in 40 years. The Army no longer had
the luxury of specialized forces built to confront a single and
narrowly defined threat like the Warsaw Pact countries.
Today's challenges are more complex; threats are elusive and
unpredictable. The fight against international terrorism has
overshadowed, but not eliminated, other potential crises. Tension
between India and Pakistan persists; stability between China and Taiwan
is tenuous; and concern over North Korea escalates. Threats of
transnational terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD)--often financed by organized crime, illicit drug
transactions, trafficking in women and children, and the sale of arms--
further complicate the security environment. Geopolitical trends such
as scarce resources, youth population-spike in underdeveloped
countries, aging populations in developed countries, and the growth of
mega-cities, among others, presage a future strategic environment of
diverse and widely distributed threats.
Fully appreciating the internal and external difficulties that
profound change engenders, we assessed the operational challenges of
the new century against the capabilities of our Cold War Army,
recognized the opportunity to leverage the inherent combat power of the
technological revolution, and set a clear path ahead--The Army Vision.
The 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) reaffirms our military's
highest priority--defending the United States. To do this effectively,
we assure our allies and friends; dissuade future military competition;
deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and
decisively defeat any adversary, if deterrence fails. The NSS directs
the military to transform to a capabilities-based force ready to
respond to unpredictable adversaries and security crises. The Objective
Force meets these NSS requirements, and Army Transformation will
enhance our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations, achieve
decisive results at the time and place of our choosing, and safeguard
the Nation's ability to exercise our right of self-defense through
preemption, when required.
The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review describes a capabilities-based
approach to defense planning that provides broader military options
across the operational spectrum, from pre- to post-conflict operations.
The force-sizing construct--1-4-2-1--takes into account the number,
scope and simultaneity of tasks assigned the military: it sizes the
force for defense of the U.S. homeland (1), forward deterrence in four
critical regions (4), the conduct of simultaneous warfighting missions
in two regions (2)--while preserving the President's option to call for
decisive victory in one of those conflicts (1)--and participation in
multiple, smaller contingency operations.
THE ARMY--SERVING TODAY, BALANCING RISK, MANAGING TRANSFORMATION
Soldiers are the most precise and responsive means to strike and
then control enemy centers of gravity on the ground--where people live,
work, and govern. American Soldiers are disciplined, professional, and
trained for success in diverse missions; they are the foundation of a
flexible force that accomplishes its missions in the non-linear
battlespace by integrating new, innovative technologies and techniques
with current systems and doctrine. Our people adapt under the harshest
conditions, whether in the deserts of Kuwait and the Sinai, the
mountains and rice paddies of Korea, or the tropics of the Democratic
Republic of Timor-Leste.
These demanding commitments mean we must nurture a balance between
current and near-term readiness and our Transformation to meet future
challenges. The Army has accepted reasonable operational risk in the
mid-term in order to fund our Transformation to the Objective Force. To
avoid unacceptable risk, we are monitoring closely the current
operational situation as we support the Combatant Commanders in the war
against terror, conduct homeland defense, and prosecute the long-term
effort to defeat transnational threats. We have designed and
implemented the Strategic Readiness System (SRS) to provide a
precision, predictive tool with which to monitor The Army and make
appropriate adjustments to preserve current readiness. Our surge
capacity in the industrial base further reduces current risk by keeping
production lines warm and responsive. And our first Stryker Brigade
Combat Team will provide the Combatant Commanders with a new capability
to further mitigate operational risk--even as we transform to the
Objective Force.
REALIZING THE ARMY VISION--PEOPLE, READINESS, AND TRANSFORMATION
In 1999, The Army announced its vision to transform into a more
strategically responsive force, dominant across the full spectrum of
military operations. The Army Vision addresses three essential
components: People, Readiness, and Transformation. Soldiers are the
heart of The Army, the centerpiece of our formations, and the
foundation of our combat power. Readiness remains our overarching
imperative; it is the means by which we execute our nonnegotiable
contract with the American people--to fight and win our Nation's wars,
decisively. To preserve readiness while rapidly changing,
Transformation advances on three major axes: preserving our Army legacy
by maintaining readiness and dominance today; bridging the operational
gap with Stryker Brigades--the Interim Force; and fielding the
Objective Force this decade to keep The Army dominant in the years
beyond this decade.
Realizing The Army Vision requires the concerted effort of the
entire Army, across all components--from warfighting to institutional
support organizations. The Army published its Transformation Campaign
Plan in April 2001 to synchronize and guide this complex undertaking.
The November 2001 Objective Force White Paper describes the advanced
capabilities and core technologies needed to build the Objective Force.
The Army's June 2002 Army Transformation Roadmap defines Transformation
as a continuous process--with specific waypoints--that increases our
contributions to the Joint Force while achieving the six Department of
Defense (DOD) critical operational goals. The result will be a more
strategically responsive and full spectrum dominant force capable of
prompt and sustained land combat operations as a member of the joint
force.
In support of the emerging joint operational concepts and
architectures, The Army--as the major landpower component--continues to
develop ground concepts for a full spectrum, and multidimensional
force. These concepts are producing a Joint Force that presents
potential enemies with multiple dilemmas across the operational
dimensions--complicating their plans, dividing their focus, and
increasing their chances of miscalculation.
In future joint operations, Objective Force units will be capable
of directing major operations and decisive land campaigns with Army
headquarters. Objective Force headquarters at all levels will provide
the Joint Force Commander (JFC) with seamless, joint battle command and
decision superiority. The modularity and scalability of our Objective
Force formations will provide an unprecedented degree of flexibility
and adaptability to the Combatant Commander--providing the right force
at the right time for decisive outcomes.
PEOPLE--OUR MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE
The Army Vision begins and ends talking about people. People are
central to everything else we do in The Army. Platforms and
organizations do not defend this Nation; people do. Units do not train,
stay ready, grow and develop leadership--they do not sacrifice and take
risks on behalf of the Nation. People do. Institutions do not
transform; people do. People remain the engine behind all of our
magnificent moments as an Army, and the well-being of our people--the
human dimension of our Transformation--is inextricably linked to Army
readiness.
In our Vision, we recommitted ourselves to doing two things well
each and every day--training Soldiers and civilians and growing them
into competent, confident, disciplined, and adaptive leaders who
succeed in situations of great uncertainty. We are dedicated to
preparing our Soldiers to lead joint formations, to enabling our
headquarters to command and control joint forces, and to providing to
those joint formations the capabilities only The Army can bring to the
fight: the ability to control terrain and populations.
Manning the Force
The objective of our manning strategy is to ensure we have the
right people in the right places to fully capitalize on their
warfighting expertise--this is The Army's commitment to the Nation,
Army leaders, Soldiers, and our families. Correctly manning our units
is vital to assuring that we fulfill our missions as a strategic
element of national policy; it enhances predictability for our people;
and it ensures that leaders have the people necessary to perform their
assigned tasks. In fiscal year 2000, we implemented a strategy to man
our forces to 100 percent of authorized strength, starting with
divisional combat units. The program expanded in fiscal year 2001 and
fiscal year 2002 to include early deploying units. In fiscal year 2002,
we maintained our manning goals and continued to fill our Divisions,
Armored Cavalry Regiments, and selected Early Deploying Units to 100
percent in the aggregate, with a 93 to 95 percent skill and grade-band
match. We remain on target to accomplish our long-term goal of filling
all Army units to 100 percent of authorized strength.
Recruiting and Retaining the Force
In 1999, The Army missed its recruiting goals for the Active
Component (AC) by about 6,300 inductees, and for the Reserve Component
by some 10,000. Our recruiting situation was simply unacceptable, and
we committed ourselves to decisive steps and reversed that trend.
In fiscal year 2002, The Active Component achieved 100 percent of
its goal in recruiting and retention--for the third consecutive year.
The Army exceeded its AC 79,500 enlisted accession target in fiscal
year 2002 and exceeded our aggregate fiscal year 2002 retention
objective of 56,800 Soldiers in all three categories by 1,437. We are
poised to make the fiscal year 2003 accession target of 73,800, and we
expect to meet our Active Component fiscal year 2003 retention target
of 57,000. The fiscal year 2004 accession target is set at 71,500.
The Army Reserve has met mission for the last two years, and its
recruiting force is well structured to meet fiscal year 2004
challenges. The Army Reserve continues to maintain a strong Selected
Reserve strength posture at 205,484 as of January 17, 2003--over 100.2
percent of the fiscal year 2003 End Strength Objective. Overcoming many
recruiting and retention challenges in fiscal year 2002, the Army
National Guard (ARNG) exceeded endstrength mission, accessions were
104.5 percent of goal, and we exceeded reenlistment objectives.
To ensure that we continue to recruit and retain sufficient
numbers, we are monitoring the current environment--the global war on
terrorism (GWOT) and frequent deployments--to determine impact on
morale, unit cohesiveness, combat effectiveness, and support of Well-
Being programs that draw quality people to The Army. We continue to
examine innovative recruiting and retention initiatives. The challenges
we face in fiscal year 2003 and 2004 are two-fold: increase recruiter
productivity and recruiting resources necessary to maintain recruiting
momentum when the economy becomes more robust. Resourcing recruiting
pays dividends well beyond accessions in the year of execution. For
example, Army advertising in fiscal year 2002 influenced not only
fiscal year 2002 accessions, but also potential recruits who will be
faced with enlistment decisions in fiscal year 2003 and beyond.
RESERVE COMPONENT FULL-TIME SUPPORT (FTS)
Today, more than 50 percent of our Soldiers are in the Reserve
Component (RC). The GWOT and Homeland Defense are significant
undertakings that demand a high level of resourcing. The RC has been
key to our success in these operations. To ensure The Army's RC
continues to meet ever-increasing demands with trained and ready units,
The Army plans to increase Full-Time Support authorizations 2 percent
each year through fiscal year 2012, increasing the FTS from the current
level of 69,915 to a level of 83,046. The Army recognizes additional
Full-Time Support authorizations as the number one priority of the Army
National Guard and Army Reserve leadership.
CIVILIAN COMPONENT
As a comprehensive effort to consolidate, streamline, and more
effectively manage the force, The Army has begun an initiative to
transform our civilian personnel system. High quality, well-trained
civilians are absolutely essential to the readiness of our force and
our ability to sustain operations today and in the future. Recruiting,
training, and retaining a highly skilled, dedicated civilian workforce
is critical in meeting our obligations to the Combatant Commanders and
the Nation. Aggressive transformation of our civilian force--in which
projections through fiscal year 2005 indicate a 16 percent annual
turnover due to retirements and other losses--will ensure we continue
to meet those obligations.
As of fiscal year 2002, The Army employed 277,786 civilian
personnel. To forecast future civilian workforce needs with precision,
we developed the Civilian Forecasting System, a sophisticated
projection model that predicts future civilian personnel requirements
under various scenarios. The Army is working closely with the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and other federal agencies to
demonstrate the power of this system so they can fully leverage its
capabilities, as well.
The Civilian Personnel Management System XXI (CPMS XXI) has
identified the reforms necessary to hire, train, and grow a civilian
component that supports the transforming Army. To achieve this, we have
redefined the way civilians are hired, retained, and managed. Mandatory
experiential assignments will become the vehicle by which we develop
future leaders. CPMS XXI fully responds to current mandates in the
President's Management Agenda and incorporates the results of the Army
Training and Leader Development Panels. For example, two initiatives
for recruiting well-trained civilians are:
--The Army Civilian Training, Education, and Development System--a
centrally managed program that accesses and trains civilian
interns and grows a resource pool of personnel who can accede
to senior professional positions.
--The DOD Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year
2003 provided Direct Hire Authority for critical, hard-to-fill
medical health care occupations and enabled the reduction in
average fill-time for these positions to 29 days.
ARMY WELL-BEING
The readiness of The Army is inextricably linked to the well-being
of our people, and Army Well-Being is the human dimension of our
Transformation. Well-Being responds to the physical, material, mental,
and spiritual needs of all Army people--Soldiers, civilians, retirees,
veterans, and their families. We recognize the fundamental relationship
between Well-Being programs and institutional outcomes such as
readiness, retention, and recruiting. To support mission preparedness
as well as individual aspirations, Well-Being integrates policies,
programs, and human resource issues into a holistic, systematic
framework that provides a path to personal growth and success and gives
our people the opportunity to become self-reliant. We recruit Soldiers,
but we retain families--Well-Being programs help make The Army the
right place to raise a family. And when our families are cared for,
Soldiers can better focus on their mission--training, fighting, and
winning our Nation's wars, decisively.
Soldiers appreciate the Nation's devotion to them, and they are
grateful for the country's recognition of their service and sacrifices.
Recent improvements to the Montgomery GI Bill, Tricare for Life,
Tricare Reform, Retired Pay Reform, the 4.1 percent general pay
increase, and additional pay increases in 2003, are all important to
Soldiers and their families. These initiatives have helped The Army
respond to the well-being needs of our people. Army voluntary education
programs improve our combat readiness by expanding Soldier skills,
knowledge, and aptitudes to produce confident, competent leaders. Other
Well-Being initiatives include:
--Spouse Employment Summit.--The Army is developing partnerships with
the private sector to enhance employment opportunities for Army
spouses and provide improved job portability for them.
--Spouse Orientation and Leader Development (SOLD).--SOLD connects
Army spouses and enhances their opportunity to serve as valued
leaders who contribute to the readiness and future of The Army
and our Nation.
--Army University Access Online.--Army offers Soldiers access to a
variety of on-line, post-secondary programs and related
educational services. www.Army.com is a comprehensive web-
portal widely accessible to Soldiers, including those in
Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kuwait.
--In-State Tuition.--To level the playing field for access to
education opportunities, The Army is working to encourage
states to grant in-state status for military personnel and
families at public colleges and universities in their Soldier's
state of legal residence and state of assignment.
--High School Senior Stabilization.--This policy enhances
predictability by allowing families to request stabilization at
their sponsor's current duty location if they have a child who
will graduate from high school during that year.
--Secondary Education Transition Study (SETS) Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA).--Facilitated by The Army, this agreement among
participating school superintendents is their commitment to
partner and improve high school transitions for DOD children.
Currently, over 110 school superintendents have signed the SETS
MOA.
LEADER DEVELOPMENT--TRAINING SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS, AND GROWING
LEADERS
The Army is a profession--the Profession of Arms. Conducting
decisive ground combat operations in defense of the United States and
its interests is a core competency of this profession. The development
of each member of The Army is the foundation of lifelong devotion to
duty--while in uniform and upon returning to the civilian sector.
By its nature, our profession is extraordinarily complex and
dangerous. The American people entrust The Army with the sacred
responsibility to apply lethal force in defense of U.S interests. As
such, the Profession of Arms must remain firmly grounded in
constitutional values and must constantly change and grow to preserve
its competitive advantage in an evolving strategic environment. At all
levels, our leaders--military and civilian--must apply their
professional knowledge in increasingly varied and unique situations
that are characteristic of today's strategic environment. Ultimately,
we must grow professional Army leaders who provide wise and discerning
military judgments founded on long experience and proven professional
expertise. This capacity is developed only through a lifetime of
education and dedicated service--in peace and in war.
Soldiers serve the Nation with the full realization that their duty
may require them to make the supreme sacrifice for others among their
ranks. Soldiers fighting the war on terrorism today, those who will
fight our future wars, and those who have fought in our past wars are
professional warfighters and a precious national asset. To ensure we
remain the greatest landpower in the world defending the greatest
country in the world, The Army and the Nation rely upon their unique
and hard-earned experiences and skills. To develop the operational
skills required to defend the Nation, training must remain our number
one priority.
The evolving strategic environment, the gravity of our
responsibilities, and the broad range of tasks The Army performs
require us to review and periodically update the way we educate, train,
and grow professional warfighters. The Army's strategic
responsibilities to the Nation and Combatant Commanders now embrace a
wider range of missions. Those missions present our leaders with even
greater challenges than previously experienced. Therefore, leader
development is the lifeblood of the profession. It is the deliberate,
progressive, and continuous process that trains and grows Soldiers and
civilians into competent, confident, self-aware, and decisive leaders
prepared for the challenges of the 21st Century in combined arms,
joint, multinational, and interagency operations.
In June 2000, we convened the Army Training and Leader Development
Panel (ATLDP). The ATLDP's purpose is to identify skill sets required
of Objective Force Soldier and civilian leaders. Further, ATLDP
assesses the ability of current training and leader development systems
and policies to enhance these required skills. In May 2001, The Army
Training and Leader Development Panel Phase I (Officer Study)
identified seven strategic imperatives and generated 89
recommendations. With those, we validated the requirement to transform
our Officer Education System (OES)--from the Officer Basic Course
through the Command and General Staff Officer Course. Additionally, the
panel reconfirmed the value of Joint Professional Military Education II
(JPME II) in preparing our leaders for joint assignments. The most
significant product of the officer ATLDP is our OES Transformation.
ATLDP Phase I (Officer Study) identified three high-payoff
institutional training and education initiatives for lieutenants,
captains, and majors. The first of these is the Basic Officer Leader
Course (BOLC). BOLC will provide a tough, standardized, graduate-level,
small-unit leadership experience for newly commissioned officers. The
second of these initiatives is the Combined Arms Staff Course for staff
officers, and the Combined Arms Battle Command Course for company
commanders. Both courses will capitalize on advanced distributed
learning and intensive resident training methods. The third initiative,
Intermediate Level Education (ILE), will provide all majors with the
same common core of operational instruction, and it will provide
additional educational opportunities that are tailored to the officer's
specific career field, branch, or functional area. Beyond ILE, Army
officers continue to attend Joint or Senior Service Colleges to develop
leader skills and knowledge appropriate to the operational and
strategic levels of the profession.
Completed in May 2002, the ATLDP Phase II (NCO Study) resulted in
78 findings and recommendations extending across six imperatives--Army
culture, NCO Education Systems (NCOES), training, systems approach to
training, training and leader development model, and lifelong learning.
Among others, the ATLDP Phase II recommended building new training and
leader development tools for NCOs to replace current methods, as
required. The ATLDP Phase III (Warrant Officer Study) culminated with
63 recommendations extending across four crucial imperatives.
Recommendations included clarifying the warrant officer's unique role
in The Army and improving the Warrant Officer Education System to
ensure timely training and promotion. The Civilian Training and Leader
Development Panel (Phase IV) study results are complete, and we are
forming the Implementation Process Action Team (I-PAT). I-PAT will
identify actions The Army must take to increase the professional
development of our civilian workforce. At the senior leader level, The
Army initiated the Army Strategic Leadership Course (ASLC). The program
is aimed at teaching principles of strategic leadership, with emphasis
on visioning, campaign planning, leading change, and Transformation. To
date, we have completed twelve of the foundation courses and three
alumni courses, training the majority of The Army's general officers.
READINESS--WINNING OUR NATION'S WARS
Homeland Security (HLS)
Defending our Nation--abroad and at home--against foreign and
domestic threats is fundamental to The Army's legacy, and our
warfighting focus provides capabilities relevant to HLS requirements.
HLS missions range from traditional warfighting competencies that
defeat external threats to the non-combat tasks associated with
supporting civil authorities in domestic contingencies. Operation Noble
Eagle mobilized over 16,000 Army National Guard Soldiers to protect
critical infrastructure. These Soldiers assisted the Department of
Transportation in securing our Nation's airports while also playing a
vital role in securing our Nation's borders. The Army is moving forward
to provide one Civil Support Team to each state, as required by the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. The Civil
Support Teams support Incident Commanders and identify Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) agents and
substances, assess current and projected consequences, advise on
response measures, and assist with appropriate requests for additional
support. To date, OSD has certified 30 of 32 teams, and The Army is
working to establish additional teams. Collectively, the certified
teams have performed 890 operational missions since September 11, 2001.
The Army remains committed to HLS, dedicating Active Component (AC) and
Reserve Component (RC) staffs to focus on training, doctrine, planning,
and execution of DOD missions in support of civil authorities.
Missile Defense
Robust Missile Defense is a vital warfighting requirement that
protects both our homeland and our deployed forces. Missile Defense
includes far more than a reactive capability to shoot down missiles in
their reentry phase. Missile Defense requires a coherent system of
sensors; battle command; weapons systems; and active, passive,
proactive, and reactive operational concepts, all aimed at destroying
enemy missiles--not only during their reentry phases. Missile Defense
must also be able to destroy enemy missiles on the ground, before they
launch or during their boost phase once launched. Missile Defense is
inherently a joint capability to which The Army is a major contributor.
The Army is deploying and employing Ground Mobile Defense assets to
contribute to this warfighting capability, accelerating the fielding of
the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC3) system, and developing
directed energy weapons that will bring new defense measures to The
Army and the Nation. We are postured to assume control of the Medium
Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program in fiscal year 2003 and
intend to begin fielding by fiscal year 2012.
MEADS is a transformational program of Objective Force quality and
a significant improvement on Patriot's capabilities. It will be more
mobile and more deployable (C-130 capable) than Patriot and cover a
360-degree radius to Patriot's 120 degrees. It will be effective
against low radar, cross section cruise missile targets; and require
only 30 percent of Patriot's manpower. And MEADS will be more accurate
and more sustainable than Patriot.
Chemical Demilitarization
In Section 1412 of Public Law 99-145, Congress directed the DOD to
destroy the United States' chemical weapons stockpile. In turn, the
Secretary of Defense delegated management of all chemical munitions
disposal to the Department of the Army. On November 29, 2000, the
Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System, using incineration-based
technology, completely destroyed the last stockpiles stored at the
Atoll, and closure operations began in January 2001. The Tooele
Chemical Agent Disposal Facility has incinerated 44 percent of the
chemical agents and 81 percent of the munitions stored there. Disposal
operations at these two sites destroyed 30 percent of the total U.S.
chemical weapons stockpiles. Construction of incineration facilities at
Anniston, Alabama; Umatilla, Oregon; and Pine Bluff, Arkansas, is
complete. Systemization activities are on-going at Aberdeen, Anniston,
Umatilla, and Pine Bluff. The plan to accelerate the disposal of bulk
agents using a neutralization process at Aberdeen, Maryland, and
Newport, Indiana, has been approved. Anniston and Aberdeen are
scheduled to start destruction in second quarter fiscal year 2003, and
Newport is scheduled to begin in first quarter fiscal year 2004.
To comply with treaty agreements and the Congressional mandate, we
must complete the destruction of these weapons by 2007. The treaty
allows for a one time, five-year extension to this deadline. With
continued funding and minimal schedule changes, we will safely destroy
the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions at eight
existing CONUS sites.
Training the Force
In October 2002, The Army released Field Manual (FM) 7-0, Training
the Force. Synchronized with other field manuals and publications being
updated to respond to changes in Army, joint, multinational, and
interagency operations, FM 7-0 is the capstone doctrinal manual for
Army training and leader development. It provides the developmental
methodology for training and growing competent, confident Soldiers, and
it addresses both current and future Objective Force training
requirements.
We are transforming the way we fight future wars, and The Army is
participating fully in a DOD-sponsored program to transform how forces
train to fight. This effort involves four major initiatives: building
upon existing service interoperability training; linking component and
joint command staff planning and execution; enhancing existing joint
training exercises to address joint interoperability; and studying the
requirement for dedicated joint training environments for functional
warfighting and complex joint tasks. The Army is scheduled to host the
first joint National Training Center (NTC) event at Fort Irwin,
California, in May 2003. During June 2003, the U.S. Army Forces Command
will execute the second joint NTC event--JCS exercise Roving Sands.
During the late 1990s, funding for the recapitalization and
modernization of The Army's Combat Training Centers was reduced,
eroding their capability to support their critical missions.
Additionally, the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System equipment
and current force instrumentation systems have become difficult to
maintain. The Army's Combat Training Center modernization program will
ensure that our premier training areas (NTC at Fort Irwin, Combat
Maneuver Training Center in Germany, the Joint Readiness Training
Center (JRTC) at Fort Polk, and the Deep Attack Center of Excellence
near Gila Bend, Arizona) are modernized to provide high quality,
realistic, full-spectrum joint training. To address these problems, The
Army will invest nearly $700 million over the next six years to
modernize these training centers.
OPTEMPO
In accordance with Congressional directives, The Army developed a
new methodology to prepare budget requests that accurately reflect
Operations and Maintenance requirements. In the report submitted in
July 2002, The Army outlined updated processes that ensure consistency
in reporting of tank miles and reflect requirements and execution with
more precision. Management controls initiated in fiscal year 2001 to
prevent migration of OPTEMPO funds to other areas were highly
successful and remain in effect.
The Army's combined arms training strategy determines the
resourcing requirements to maintain the combat readiness of our forces.
For the Active Component, The Army requires 800 ground OPTEMPO miles
per year for the M1 Abrams tank and corresponding training support; the
Active Component flying hour program requires an average of 14.5 live
flying hours per aircrew each month. Both Army National Guard and the
Army Reserve aircrew training strategies require 9.0 hours per crew
each month. The ARNG ground OPTEMPO requirement is a composite average
of 174 miles in fiscal year 2004, and the Army Reserve (USAR) ground
OPTEMPO requirement is 200 tank-equivalent miles in fiscal year 2004.
While this describes The Army's training strategy, actual execution
levels from unit to unit have varied depending upon factors such as on-
going operations, safety of flight messages, and adequate manning of
combat formations. To this end, The Army has fully funded its AC ground
OPTEMPO requirement, while its AC flying program is funded to its
historical execution level of 13.1 flying hours. The RC air and ground
OPTEMPO are similarly funded to their execution levels, rather than
their requirement. Although The Army has not always been able to
execute the training strategy, we have taken steps to have all units
execute the prescribed training strategy in fiscal year 2003, fiscal
year 2004, and beyond.
Force Protection and Anti-terrorism
Force protection consists of those actions to prevent or mitigate
hostile actions against Department of Defense personnel and includes
family members, resources, facilities, and critical information. In the
war on terrorism, the area of operations extends from Afghanistan to
the East Coast and across the United States. Naturally, Force
Protection and Antiterrorism measures have increased across Army
installations in the Continental United States (CONUS) and overseas.
Findings from the Cole Commission, the Downing Report on the Khobar
Towers bombing, and Army directives to restrict access to installations
have all led to thorough assessments by the Department of the Army
Inspector General, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, and
commanders. Our efforts focus on improved force protection policy and
doctrine; more rigorous training and exercises; improved threat
reporting and coordination with national intelligence and law
enforcement agencies; enhanced detection and deterrence capabilities
for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE)
threats; increased capabilities and protection for access control; and
expanded assessments of Major Commands (MACOM) and installation force
protection programs. Both operational and installation environments
rely upon secure, networked information infrastructure to execute daily
enterprise-wide processes and decision-making, so the parameters of
force protection include contemporary and evolving cyber threats, as
well.
The Army's Information Systems Security Program (ISSP) secures The
Army's portion of the Global Information Grid, secures the digitized
force, and supports information superiority and network security
defense-in-depth initiatives. ISSP provides the capability to detect
system intrusions and alterations and react to information warfare
attacks in a measured and coordinated manner. To the greatest extent
possible, it protects warfighters' secure communications--from the
sustaining base to the foxhole.
Soldiers, Active and Reserve, are heavily engaged in force
protection and anti-terrorism missions. Soldiers guard military
installations, nuclear power plants, dams and power generation
facilities; tunnels, bridges, and rail stations; and emergency
operations centers. During the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City,
Utah, nearly 1,500 ARNG Soldiers provided security, and Soldiers
guarded key infrastructure sites during Super Bowl XXXVII in January
2003. Over 12,500 Reserve Component Soldiers are currently mobilized
for Operation Noble Eagle to fulfill Force Protection requirements, and
in February 2003, over 8,000 Army National Guard Soldiers will support
Air Force security requirements--a requirement that could reach 9,500
Soldiers. Security of detention facilities and detainees at Guantanamo
Bay Detention--a long-term detainee mission--requires approximately
1,500 Army personnel, 50 percent of whom are Military Police. Army
Reserve Internment and Resettlement battalions on 6-month rotations
impact military police availability to CONUS Force Protection
requirements.
Sustainment
The Army is revolutionizing its logistics process. One initiative,
the Single Stock Fund (SSF), redirected more than $540 million worth of
secondary items from stocks to satisfy customer demands between May
2000--SSF inception--and November 2002. During that same period, we
redistributed more than $218 million worth of secondary items from the
authorized stockage levels to meet higher priority readiness
requirements. By extending national visibility of stockage locations
and capitalizing inventories into the Army Working Capital Fund, we
reduced customer wait time by an average of 18.5 percent. The SSF will
continue to reduce inventory requirements and generate even more
savings for The Army by creating greater flexibility for the management
of inventories.
Another initiative, the National Maintenance Program (NMP),
enhances weapon system readiness, reliability, and availability rates
by bringing Army Class IX repair parts to a single national standard.
Ultimately, increased reliability will reduce overall weapon system
Operating and Support cost. Additionally, the NMP centralizes the
management and control of Army maintenance activities for components
and end items. NMP will produce appropriately sized Army maintenance
capacity that still meets total maintenance requirements.
Strategic Readiness Reporting
The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999
requires the Secretary of Defense to implement a comprehensive
readiness reporting system that objectively measures readiness to
support the NSS. The Army's Strategic Readiness System (SRS) responds
to and provides a baseline in achieving this critical initiative.
SRS is a precision readiness measurement tool that provides Army
leadership with accurate, objective, predictive, and actionable
readiness information to dramatically enhance resource management
toward one end--strategic readiness to defend the United States. The
Army Scorecard--a product of SRS--will integrate readiness data from
the business arena and the operating, generating, and sustaining forces
of both the Active and Reserve Component. Army Scorecard methodology
focuses on four critical areas: People--investing in Soldiers and their
families; Readiness--maintaining the support capability to the
Combatant Commanders' operational requirements; Transformation--
transforming The Army into the Objective Force; and application of
sound business practices.
SRS markedly improves how we measure readiness. It gathers timely
information with precision and expands the scope of the data
considered. We are further developing this system to leverage leading
indicators and predict trends--solving problems that affect readiness
before they become problems, from well-being to weapons platforms. SRS
will help enable The Army preserve readiness to support Combatant
Commanders, invest in Soldiers and their families, identify and adopt
sound business practices, and transform The Army to the Objective
Force.
Installations
Army installations are our Nation's power projection platforms, and
they provide critical training support to The Army and other members of
the joint team. Additionally, Soldiers, families, and civilians live
and work on Army installations. The quality of our infrastructure
directly affects the readiness of The Army and the well-being of our
Soldiers, families, and civilians.
The Army has traditionally accepted substantial risk in
infrastructure to maintain its current warfighting readiness. However,
a decade of chronic under funding has led to a condition in which over
50 percent of our facilities and infrastructure are in such poor
condition that commanders rated them as ``adversely affecting mission
requirements.'' Our facilities maintenance must improve. Over the past
two years, with the help of the Administration and Congress, The Army
has begun to rectify this situation with significant increases in
funding and innovative business practices. These efforts have been
dramatically successful as we continue to correct a problem that was 10
years in the making. Thus, in an effort to prevent future degradation
of our facilities, The Army has increased its funding for facilities
sustainment to 93 percent of requirement beginning in fiscal year 2004.
Transformation of Installation Management (TIM)
Recognizing the requirement to enhance support to commanders, the
Secretary of the Army directed the reorganization of The Army's
management structure. On October 1, 2002, The Army placed the
management of Army installations under the Installation Management
Agency (IMA). IMA is a new field-operating agency of the Assistant
Chief of Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM). Its mission is to
provide equitable, efficient, and effective management of Army
installations worldwide to support readiness; enable the well-being of
Soldiers, civilians and family members; improve infrastructure; and
preserve the environment. This new management approach eliminates the
migration of base operations funds to other operational accounts below
the HQDA level. It also enables the development of multi-functional
installations to support evolving force structure and Army
Transformation needs. The Army is poised to capitalize on opportunities
TIM gives us to provide excellence in installations.
Two programs that significantly increase the well-being of our
Soldiers and their families are the Barracks and the Family Housing
programs. The Army established the Barracks Upgrade Program (BUP) in
the late 1990's to improve single Soldiers' housing conditions. Through
2002, we have upgraded or funded-for-upgrade 70 percent of our
permanent party barracks to Soldier suites that consist of two single
bedrooms with a shared bath and common area. The Army will continue the
BUP until all permanent party barracks achieve this standard.
With the strong support of Congress, The Army established the
Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) for our families. This program
capitalizes on commercial expertise and private capital to perform a
non-core function for The Army--family housing management. The program
provides greater value to The Army by eliminating the housing deficit
at our first eleven sites, while leveraging a $209 million Army
investment into $4.1 billion of initial private development. The Army's
privatization program began with four pilot projects and will expand to
18 active projects by the end of fiscal year 2003. Pending OSD and
Congressional approval, 28 projects are planned through 2006 that will
impact over 72,000 housing units or 80 percent of Army Family Housing
in the United States. By the end of 2007, we will have the programs and
projects in place to meet the OSD goal of eliminating inadequate family
housing. We will accomplish this goal through RCI and increased Army
investment in family housing Military Construction (MILCON) at non-
privatized installations. The Reserve Component (RC) enhances RCI
through real property exchange authority that is only available to the
RC. This legislative authority allows the exchange of RC owned property
with public or private entities and has a tremendous potential to
improve future Reserve Component infrastructure at no governmental
cost.
The Army has also aggressively reduced its financial burden and
physical footprint by disposing of 34 percent of its facilities from a
1990 high of 116 billion square feet. The Army anticipates that the
Congressional fiscal year 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
authority will permit additional appropriate reductions. BRAC will
enable The Army to dispose of excess infrastructure and realign the
remaining facilities with the requirements of the transforming Army and
the Objective Force. BRAC will also allow The Army to re-allocate
resources from closed or realigned installations to other high priority
requirements.
The Army continues to improve its utilities infrastructure by
divesting itself of non-core utility systems' operation and maintenance
through privatization. As of December 2002, we had privatized 64 of the
351 systems in the program, and we have an additional 104 presently
under negotiation.
As part of our Army Knowledge Management (AKM)--described later in
more detail--we are modernizing our Installation Information
Infrastructure--infostructure--to support a network centric, knowledge-
based Army. The Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization
Program (I\3\MP) executes a multi-year, $3.2 billion program for
upgrades to optical fiber and copper cable, installation of advanced
digital equipment, and upgrades to Defense Global Information Grid
gateways. This program will ensure worldwide, high-speed data
connectivity at Army installations. To date, we have completed 22 of 95
CONUS installations and initiated upgrades at four installations
outside of the continental United States (OCONUS). We plan to complete
I\3\MP in 2009.
Transformation--Changing the Way we Fight
The Army is fundamentally changing the way we fight and creating a
force more responsive to the strategic requirements of the Nation. We
are building a joint precision maneuver capability that can enter a
theater at the time and place of our choosing, maneuver at will to gain
positional advantage, deliver precise joint fires and, if necessary,
close with and destroy the enemy.
The Objective Force is an army designed from the bottom up around a
single, networked, integrated C\4\ISR architecture that will link us to
joint, interagency, and multi-national forces. It will be a rapidly
deployable, mounted formation, seamlessly integrated into the joint
force and capable of delivering decisive victory across the spectrum of
military operations. Consolidated, streamlined branches and military
operational specialties comprised of professional warfighters will be
poised to transition rapidly from disaster relief to high-end
warfighting operations.
The Objective Force and its Future Combat System of Systems will
leverage and deliver with precision the combat power of joint and
strategic assets. It is a capabilities-based force that rapidly
responds to the requirements of the strategic environment in which our
Soldiers will be the most strategically relevant and decisively capable
landpower--no matter the mission, no matter the threats, no matter the
risks.
In the final analysis, The Army's combat power does not wear tracks
or wheels--it wears boots. No platform or weapon system can match a
Soldier's situational curiosity and awareness. It is the Soldiers'
ability to discern and to think, their ingenuity and resourcefulness,
their endurance and perseverance, and their plain grit that make them
the most reliable precision weapon in our inventory. Soldiers remain
the centerpiece of our formations.
To help guide our Transformation efforts, The Army leverages
lessons-learned from extensive experimentation and wargaming. We are
working to harness the power of knowledge, the benefits of science and
technology, and innovative business solutions to transform both the
Operational and Institutional Army into the Objective Force. The Army's
annual Title 10 Wargames provide critical insights for developing the
Objective Force. Likewise, results from joint experiments--Millennium
Challenge 2002 and other service Title 10 Wargames like Global
Engagement, Navy Global, and Expeditionary Warrior, to name a few--also
inform these efforts.
The Army is fully committed to joint experimentation as a means to
examine and assess Objective Force contributions to the strategic,
operational, and tactical levels of joint warfare. The Army has
established a joint/Army Concept Development and Experimentation (CD&E)
Task Force to ensure that Army CD&E efforts are synchronized with joint
CD&E. This task force makes certain that joint experiment lessons-
learned inform the design and development of the Objective Force. This
year, The Army's Title 10 Wargame--co-hosted by Commander, Joint Forces
Command--will focus on the Joint Force that will fight the next battle.
Linked to Joint Forces Command's Pinnacle Impact 03 experiment, it will
be conducted within the context of a future 1-4-2-1 global scenario and
the emerging Joint Operations Concept. The Army is committed to these
efforts, and in this budget we have nearly doubled last year's funding
of these exercises.
Joint, interagency, multinational, and Army warfighting experiments
provide invaluable opportunities for The Army to experiment with
innovative approaches to warfighting and to test new tactics,
techniques, procedures, organizations, processes, and technology. In
Millennium Challenge 2002, the largest joint experiment in U.S.
history, The Army demonstrated four vital capabilities it brings to the
joint fight: the ability to attain and maintain information superiority
(knowledge); the ability to conduct decisive maneuver to enable
dominant joint maneuver; the ability to defeat the opposition in an
anti-access environment through rapid entry and employment
capabilities; and the ability to support and sustain rapid combat power
efficiently by reducing the operational and tactical logistics
footprint
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team
(SBCT) concepts for battalion and company operations in a Joint Force,
The Army employed a SBCT unit during Millennium Challenge. Less than
four weeks after Stryker vehicles were delivered to the first unit at
Fort Lewis, the unit demonstrated rapid air and sealift deployability
and integrated into the exercise well. Additionally, when given a
mission on short notice to support a Marine Corps unit in ground
operations, the SBCT unit demonstrated its agility and versatility.
Balancing Risk as we Manage Change
Balancing risk is integral to Army Transformation. To maintain
current readiness while we transform, we are managing operational risk:
risk in current readiness for near-term conflicts with future risk--the
ability to develop new capabilities and operational concepts that will
dissuade or defeat mid- to long-term military challenges. The Army has
accepted risk in selective modernization and recapitalization, and we
continue to assess these risks as we balance current readiness, the
well-being of our people, Transformation, the war on terrorism, and new
operational commitments. Since 1999, The Army has terminated 29
programs and restructured 20 others for a total savings of $12.8
billion. These funds were reallocated to resource the Stryker Brigades
and essential Objective Force research and development.
In Program Budget 2004 and its associated Five-Year Defense Plan
(FYDP), The Army has generated an additional $22 billion of savings by
terminating 24 additional systems and reducing or restructuring 24
other systems. To accelerate achieving the Objective Force capabilities
and mitigating operational risk, The Army reinvested these savings in
the development of transformational capabilities in these and other
programs:
--Future Combat System--$13.5 billion
--Precision Munitions--$3.2 billion
--Sensors and Communications--$2.3 billion
--Science and Technology--$1.1 billion
--Missile and Air Defense--$1.1 billion.
The operational risk associated with the decreased funding for
certain current programs is acceptable as long as we field Stryker
Brigades on schedule and accelerate the fielding of the Objective Force
for arrival, this decade. We will continue to reassess the risk
associated with system reductions and related organizational changes
against operational requirements and the strategic environment.
An Information Enabled Army
Achieving the full spectrum dominance of the Objective Force
requires changing the way we fight. Changing the way we fight requires
a holistic transformation of Logistics, Personnel, Installation
Management, Acquisition, Aviation, business practices--every aspect of
The Army must transform. The Objective Force requires innovative
changes and out-of-the-box ingenuity in the way we take care of our
people and manage the information and material that enhances their
readiness and answers their needs--both personal and professional, at
home and in the short sword warfight at foxhole level. Simply put, we
cannot achieve the Objective Force capabilities without leveraging the
full potential of the technological advances that our Nation's
industrial base and science and technology communities are developing.
The Army has consolidated management of Information Technologies (IT)
into a single effort--Army Knowledge Management (AKM). AKM capitalizes
on IT resources unique to our Nation and harnesses them for
Transformation, for The Army, and for the Combatant Commanders.
Information management is critical to achieving The Army Vision,
and Army Knowledge Management supports Transformation through the
development and implementation of a network-centric, knowledge-based
Army architecture interoperable with the joint system. AKM will
accelerate the Detect-Decide-Deliver planning processes and enable
warfighters to see the adversary first--before our forces are detected;
understand the Common Relevant Operating Picture first; act against
adversaries first; and finish the warfight with decisive victories--see
first, understand first, act first, finish decisively. AKM will provide
knowledge at the point of decision for all leaders--from the factory to
the foxhole.
Enabling collaborative mission planning and execution among widely
dispersed locations around the globe, Army Knowledge Management will
provide a rapid and seamless flow and exchange of actionable
information and knowledge. The Network-centric operations that AKM
enables will decrease our logistic footprint and enhance sustainability
of the Objective Force through multi-nodal distribution networks--
reaching forward to the theater and back to installations. Advanced
information technologies will dramatically enhance Battle Command.
Command, Control, Communications, and Computer (C\4\) decision tools
seamlessly linked to Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(ISR) assets produce a radically improved Common Relevant Operating
Picture (CROP) and enable Battle Command.
AKM will dramatically enhance the warfighter's ability to
distribute, process, fuse, and correlate unprecedented amounts of
actionable data into information--securely, reliably, and quickly
enough to enable leaders to synchronize and mass effects for decisive
results. Network-centric operations enable information awareness,
information access, and information delivery.
The Army Knowledge Enterprise (AKE) construct describes The Army's
process to enable improved strategic and tactical information
distribution and collaboration. In short, AKE leverages the ingenuity
and resourcefulness of our people in shaping the environment to achieve
dominance and helps leaders achieve decision superiority and mission
efficiencies.
Integration and refinement of existing Army networks is the first
step in achieving a network-centric, information-enabled force that
creates efficiencies and provides secure, reliable, actionable
information communications. To this end, The Army activated the Network
Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM). NETCOM is The Army's single
authority assigned to operate, manage, and defend The Army's
information infrastructure. NETCOM has assumed technical control of all
Army networks--Active, Guard, and Reserve. This new policy allows
NETCOM to evaluate any system, application, or piece of equipment that
touches The Army Networks. NETCOM will improve the capacity,
performance, and security of our networks at every level.
Among others, one tangible product of NETCOM is the consolidation
and removal of redundant servers across The Army. This example of
better business practice will harvest significant savings in
resources--both dollars and managers--while increasing the
effectiveness of the network. Since the first quarter fiscal year 2002,
we have reduced the number of servers Army-wide by 16 percent--311 in
the National Capitol Region alone.
Army Knowledge Online (AKO) begins to allow The Army to
decentralize the management of information. AKO is The Army's secure,
web-based, internet service that leverages The Army's intellectual
capital to better organize, train, equip, and maintain our force. It
gives our people a means to collaborate, to improve their situational
awareness, and to access their personnel data. Already, hard-copy
processes that formerly took days and weeks can now be accomplished
almost instantly--from pay to personnel actions to assignments, to name
a few. And AKO is just an early glimpse of the potential capabilities
of a Network-centric, knowledge based organization that harnesses the
potential of the global infostructure.
OPERATIONAL ARMY
The Objective Force
The Army is actively engaged in global operations supporting
Combatant Commanders today, but it is our obligation to prepare for the
future, as well. The Objective Force is The Army's future full-spectrum
force that will be organized, manned, equipped and trained to be more
strategically responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal,
survivable and sustainable than we are today--across the full spectrum
of military operations as an integral member of a cohesive joint team.
The Nation will continue to face adaptive, asymmetric threats that
capitalize on the power of information. To dominate and maintain
superiority over these emerging challenges, The Army is changing the
way we fight--a paradigm shift more significant than the 20th Century's
introduction of the tank and the helicopter. The Army is changing from
sequential and linear operations to distributed and simultaneous
operations. The Objective Force--characterized by networks of people
enabled with systems that provide actionable information and decision
superiority--will dissuade, deter or decisively defeat our adversaries
anytime, anyplace, and anywhere.
The Objective Force will consist of command structures scaled to
meet Joint Force Commander requirements and modular combined-arms units
tailored according to each situation. Objective Force integrated,
mobile, air-ground teams will conduct mounted and dismounted operations
and employ both manned and unmanned platforms to achieve decisive
victories. Capable of forcible entry and operations in austere
environments to address the spectrum of military operations--from
humanitarian assistance to warfighting--the Objective Force will
conduct simultaneous combat and stability operations and master
transitions between phases of operations. It will be an offensively
oriented, multi-dimensional force enabled by advanced information
technologies that give Soldiers real-time intelligence and actionable
information.
The Objective Force will arrive in theater combat capable--
deployment will be synonymous with employment. The Objective Force will
be strategically responsive and rapidly deployable on the U.S Air Force
family of inter-theater and intra-theater aircraft. An Objective Force
Unit of Action (UA) will deploy on approximately one-third the number
of aircraft required to deploy a heavy brigade combat team today. It
will be operationally deployable and capable of operational maneuver
over strategic distances by air, land, or sea. Soldiers will overcome
anti-access and area denial strategies and environments through
precision maneuver and decision superiority.
Equipped with new systems designed to meet the needs of The Army's
future fighting formations, the Objective Force will be a networked
system of systems. This system of systems includes Soldiers equipped
with the Land Warrior system; a family of 18 integrated, synchronized,
manned and unmanned Future Combat Systems (FCS); and critical
complementary systems such as the Comanche and the Future Tactical
Truck System. The components of the FCS are being synchronously
developed and fielded as a complete family to achieve the warfighting
capabilities the Nation requires to defeat adaptive, asymmetric
conventional and unconventional adversaries.
Soldiers are the centerpiece of The Army's formation--not
equipment. And Soldiers of the Objective Force will leverage dominant
knowledge to gain decision superiority over any adversary. They will
seamlessly integrate Objective Force capabilities with the capabilities
of joint forces, Special Operations Forces, other federal agencies, and
multinational forces. The Objective Force Soldiers will enable the
United States to achieve its national security goals in a crisis,
rather than simply inflict punitive strikes on an adversary. Employing
FCS capabilities in formations called Units of Action (UA) and Units of
Employment (UE), Objective Force Soldiers will provide campaign quality
staying power--that means precision fire and maneuver to control
terrain, people, and resources, without having to resort to
indiscriminate collateral damage. The Land Warrior system will
integrate individual Soldiers in the network while providing them
increased protection and lethality. And FCS will give Soldiers the
capability to destroy any adversary in any weather and environment with
smaller calibers, greater precision, more devastating target effects,
and at longer-ranges than available today.
Joint C\4\ISR--a network-centric information architecture nested
within the Global Information Grid--will connect the Objective Force's
system of systems. Capitalizing on the synergistic power of the
information network enterprise, every Objective Force Soldier and
platform will be capable of sensing and engaging the enemy while
maintaining situational awareness of friendly forces. Advanced
information technologies and C\4\ISR decision tools and assets will
enhance the Common Relevant Operating Picture (CROP). The Objective
Force will identify, locate, and engage critical targets with lethal or
non-lethal affects and assess battle damage on those targets. The joint
C\4\ISR linkages will enable the attack of targets with whatever joint
or Army assets are available for immediate employment, whether the
force is in contact or out of contact. Similarly, enhanced situational
awareness will facilitate multi-layered active and passive defense
measures--including both offensive and defensive counter air against
air and non-air breathing, manned and unmanned aerial vehicles.
The CROP and Network centric operations will enhance sustainability
of the Objective Force through multi-nodal distribution networks that
reach forward to the area of operations or reach back to the Home
Station Operations Center. Increased reliability through equipment
design and commonality among the FCS family of systems will enhance
sustainability while reducing logistics demands. Advanced technologies
will enable robust Objective Force operations while shrinking the
logistics footprint and lift requirements of deployed forces.
The FCS is a transformational approach to meeting this Nation's
requirements for the Objective Force. We designed and will field the
FCS family in a carefully balanced manner to avoid optimizing a
component at the expense of sub-optimizing the overarching capabilities
of Objective and joint forces. The acquisition and requirements
development processes are being updated to accommodate the Department
of Defense's (DOD) direction to field a networked system of systems
rapidly through spiral development and an open architecture that allows
maturing technological insertions as they occur.
The Army embraces the ongoing DOD and Joint Staff Capabilities and
Acquisition processes reform efforts to achieve revolutionary
capabilities in the fielding of a new generation of equipment. This
collaborative DOD and JCS effort enables The Army to design new
information-age capable organizations holistically, use evolutionary
acquisition strategies to equip those organizations, and see the
Objective Force fielded before the end of this decade.
Science and Technology--Moving Toward the Transformed Army
Preempting our adversaries' technological surprises over the past
three years, Army Science and Technology investments are already
providing America's Army with sustained overmatch in all materiel
systems. And The Army has increased and focused its Science and
Technology (S&T) investments. We are demonstrating the enabling joint
interoperable technologies essential for Objective Force capabilities
and accelerating their arrival. Our S&T program is pursuing a wide
spectrum of technologies for unmanned air and ground systems that will
expand the range of joint warfighting capabilities, reduce risk to
Soldiers, and reduce the logistics footprint of the force. Realizing
the full potential of unmanned systems requires technological
development in sensors that improve navigation and mission performance,
in intelligent systems for semi-autonomous or autonomous operation, in
networked communications for manned-unmanned teaming, and in human-
robotic interfaces, among many others.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Army
partnership contracted for a Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) to
accelerate the transition of FCS to the System Development and
Demonstration (SDD) Phase, with a Milestone B decision in May 2003. The
Army is on track to achieve first unit equipped in 2008 and an initial
operating capability of one Objective Force Unit of Action (UA) in
2010. To accelerate development and in partnership DARPA, the focus on
key transformation technologies for the FCS has been narrowed to the
systems with the most promise. Our highest priority S&T efforts remain
technological advances for the Future Combat System (FCS).
The Army will field FCS as a family of systems built on information
age technologies embedded in manned and unmanned air and ground
platforms. Integral to joint fires, the family of systems will
integrate long-range air- and ground-based sensors with long-range
cannon and missile precision munitions. The family of systems will also
provide increased joint capabilities to conduct battle command,
reconnaissance, mounted combat operations, dismounted combat
operations, medical treatment and evacuation, and maintenance and
recovery. To provide decisive lethality, FCS will employ networked,
precision and loitering attack munitions fired from modular, easily
transportable containers. Finally, FCS will leverage embedded, real-
time interactive, virtual, distributed, collaborative, joint
simulations for training and mission rehearsal.
Enabling the Objective Force Soldier
Eighteen systems, both manned and unmanned; the Objective Force
Soldier; and C\4\ISR, together, comprise the Future Combat System.
Manned and unmanned reconnaissance capabilities are part of the FCS
Family of Systems' interdependent networked air- and ground-based
maneuver, maneuver support, and sustainment systems.
There are 10 Unmanned Systems: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)
Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4; Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV)--the
Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE), the Armed Robotic
Vehicle (ARV), and the Small (manpackable) Unmanned Ground Vehicle
(MUGV); Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS); and Unattended Munitions--the
Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Launch System (LS) and Intelligent Munitions
Systems (IMS).
There are eight manned systems: the Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV);
Command and Control Vehicle (C\2\V); Reconnaissance and Surveillance
Vehicle (RSV); Line-of-Sight, Beyond-Line-of-Sight Mounted Combat
System (LOS/BLOS MCS); NLOS-Mortar; Medical Vehicle (MV); the FCS
Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle (FRMV); and the Non-Line-of-Sight
(NLOS) Cannon.
Decisive warfighting is about fires and maneuver: fires enable
maneuver, and maneuver enables fires. Joint and organic close,
supporting, indirect fires destroy the enemy, suppress the enemy's
capabilities, protect our forces and enable ground units to maneuver.
The ICV, the Unattended Munitions NLOS-LS, IMS, C\2\V, MCS, NLOS-
Mortar, and NLOS Cannon are important elements of the FCS that will
enable the Objective Force to conduct distributed and simultaneous
joint combat operations. With joint fires, the NLOS cannon is critical
to support and protect our land forces in hostile environments. NLOS-LS
NetFires is a platform-independent family of missiles with precision
attack and loitering capability. Both Precision Guided Mortar Munitions
and Excalibur precision cannon munitions will enhance organic maneuver
fires. A new, joint fire support, battle command and fire support
architecture will allow rapid engagement of targets by any Army or
joint asset.
For over 227 years, Soldiers have remained the centerpiece of our
formations. The Land Warrior program--another key S&T initiative--
responds to this legacy and enhances our Soldiers combat power
generation capability. The Land Warrior program will develop a
lightweight, low observable, enhanced-armor protection, fighting
ensemble for the individual Objective Force Soldier. Through networked
connectivity to the FCS-equipped, maneuver Unit of Action, Land Warrior
Soldiers will enable revolutionary lethality, mobility, survivability,
and sustainability for the individual warfighter while reducing
logistics demands.
Future Combat Systems are networked in the joint C\4\ISR
architecture--including networked communications, networked options,
sensors, battle command systems, training, and both manned and unmanned
reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities. These networked systems
will dramatically enhance situational awareness and understanding and
operational level synchronization well beyond today's standards.
Improved C\4\ISR capabilities will enable network-centric Objective
Force operations. The results of the investments will allow leaders to
capitalize on sensor and processing technology to see, understand, and
shape the battlespace before the enemy can react--increasing combat
force effectiveness and survivability. The S&T program will develop and
demonstrate real-time, continuous situational understanding by
integrating data from manned and unmanned air- and ground-based
sensors.
S&T investments in military logistics are an important enabler for
the Objective Force. We are placing our emphasis on sustainment's big
drivers--fuel, ammunition, maintenance, and water--to dramatically
reduce our logistics footprint and lift requirements in these areas.
Key technologies include on-board water generation, real-time logistics
command and control processes and distribution management, enhanced
multi-purpose munitions and packaging, efficient propulsion and power
technologies, real-time diagnostics and prognostics, and Micro-Electro
Mechanical Systems (MEMS).
Transformational Systems
Several transformational systems were under development prior to
announcement of The Army Vision in October 1999. The Army has completed
an extensive analysis to identify those systems that complement FCS and
the Objective Force system of systems.
The Comanche Helicopter is the centerpiece of the Aviation
Modernization Plan (AMP) and represents the first new system to reach
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) within The Army's Objective Force.
Comanche is our armed reconnaissance platform with attack capabilities.
It will leverage the situational awareness and situational curiosity of
a scout augmented with revolutionary, state-of-the-art Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) technologies. Comanche supports
vertical and horizontal maneuver as an integral part of network centric
operations and extends human eyes and decision-making beyond the ground
maneuver force. Utilizing stealth technologies, it will network with
all joint C\4\ISR and joint weapons systems. Comanche will leverage
maximum effect of future standoff precision weapon systems such as the
Common Missile and allow us to maneuver ground formations based upon
full knowledge of the situation. Augmented with armed or unarmed
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Comanche will fill ground maneuver's
most critical battlefield deficiency--armed aerial reconnaissance--with
a capable, survivable, and sustainable aircraft. The Comanche program
is already well on its way to giving The Army a capability pivotal to
transforming the way we will fight.
Several other transformational systems will empower the Objective
Force with the knowledge dominance and battle command to provide
decision superiority across the spectrum of operations. The Warfighter
Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) System, Medium Extended Air
Defense System (MEADS), the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), and The
Army Airborne Command and Control System (A\2\C\2\S) will enable
Objective Force joint C\4\ISR capabilities. These programs will provide
the tactical enterprise level networks that will ensure seamless,
secure, digital connectivity between the Objective, Interim, and
today's forces. The Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A)
architecture provides Army network-centric ISR connectivity from
national agencies to joint systems to Objective Force Units of Action
as part of the integrated Department of Defense DCGS architecture.
DCGS-A will enable interoperable tasking, processing, and exploitation
capabilities. The Aerial Common Sensor brings improved signal
intelligence collection and precision geolocation capabilities, as well
as imagery intelligence (IMINT) and measurement and signals (MASINT)
sensor packages. Another system, Prophet, uses communications
intelligence to depict the battlespace and further enhance situational
awareness. These C\4\ISR systems greatly enhance the Objective Force's
ability to gain actionable information superiority and decision
dominance over all adversaries and expand the range of options for the
joint force Combatant Commanders.
Transformational systems will provide the Objective Force with
strategic and tactical maneuver capabilities. The Theater Support
Vessel will support rapid intra-theater lift requirements, provide the
capability to conduct operational maneuver and repositioning, and
enable units to conduct enroute mission planning and rehearsal. The
Future Tactical Truck System will have commonality with FCS and will
support the Objective Force by enabling command, control, and
transportation of cargo, equipment, and personnel. And the Tactical
Electric Power (TEP) generators will provide power to Objective Force
units where fixed power grids are not available.
Transformational systems provide the Objective Force with other
important capabilities, as well. Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE) effects systems support the Objective
Force across the spectrum of military operations and improve
capabilities to conduct Homeland Security activities. Engineer, civil
affairs, and psychological operations vehicles will enable mobility and
enhance civil affairs and PSYOPs capabilities. The Up-Armored High
Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) will improve Objective
Force Soldier survivability and lethality. The Multi-Mission Radar will
provide the capability to detect and track aircraft, artillery, and
other projectiles, then queue appropriate weapons systems and airspace
synchronization systems. The High Mobility Artillery Rocket System
(HIMARS) is a lighter weight, more deployable multiple rocket launcher
capability that will integrate into the joint fires network.
Bridging the Capabilities Gap--Stryker Brigade Combat Teams
Announcing our intent to field an Interim Force in October 1999,
The Army responded to a capabilities gap between its lethal,
survivable, but slow-to-deploy heavy forces and its rapidly deployable
light forces that lack the protection, lethality, and tactical mobility
that we seek. Just two-and-a-half years later in 2002, The Army began
fielding the first Stryker Brigade Combat Team to bridge that gap. In
2003--less than four years after the announcement--we are on track to
achieve IOC with the first SBCT at Fort Lewis, Washington. Stryker
Brigades will provide the Combatant Commander vastly increased
operational and tactical flexibility to execute fast-paced,
distributed, non-contiguous operations.
Stryker Brigade Combat Teams respond to Combatant Commander
requirements across the spectrum of military operations. Optimized for
combat in complex and urban terrain, the Stryker Brigades will be
decisive in other major combat operations, as well. The SBCT
Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition (RSTA) Squadron
provides both organic human intelligence capabilities and UAVs embedded
at the brigade level. Its military intelligence and signal companies--
working through a digitally enabled battle command bridge--leverage
theater and national assets to create an information-enabled force.
SBCTs will use this enhanced joint C\4\ISR capability to revolutionize
combat paradigms from ``make contact, develop the situation, maneuver
the forces'' to ``understand the situation, maneuver the forces, make
contact at the time and place of your own choosing, and finish
decisively.''
Moreover, leveraging platform commonality, enhancing logistics
practices and enablers, and reorganizing logistics formations, the SBCT
is vastly more deployable and sustainable than our heavy forces, while
significantly increasing combat power generating capabilities.
Augmented for sustained operations, the SBCT requires 37 percent fewer
CSS personnel than a digitized heavy brigade. While capitalizing on
these advantages, developing and available technologies allow us to
mass effects--rather than massing formations--and create a robust,
reliable capability to conduct operational maneuver over strategic
distances.
Finally, SBCTs provide an invaluable means of spearheading
Transformation. The SBCT trains junior officers and noncommissioned
officers--tomorrow's commanders and command sergeants major--in the
tactics, techniques, and procedures that will inform employment of the
Objective Force.
The Army has resourced six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams to
contribute to fulfilling the 1-4-2-1 defense construct and national
security requirements; however, at this time, the Secretary of Defense
has only authorized the procurement of the first four brigades. The
Army will provide the Secretary of Defense with a plan for Stryker
Brigades 5 and 6.
Fielding of the SBCTs affects the entire Army: Active and Reserve
Components; heavy and light forces; CONUS and OCONUS. And current
fielding timelines will enhance the Nation's ability to fight and win
the GWOT and conduct major combat operations. The transformation of
four Active Component brigades to SBCTs provides a rotational base with
three of the SBCTs focused on the Pacific theater. One of the two SBCTs
fielded at Fort Lewis will be forward-based in Europe not later than
2007. The Stryker Cavalry Regiment will support the XVIII Airborne
Corps' critical need for robust, armed reconnaissance. The conversion
of a Reserve Component brigade to an SBCT will enhance our strategic
reserve and support the GWOT, Smaller Scale Contingencies, and Homeland
Defense missions. Additionally, SBCT stationing provides rapid,
strategic responsiveness through power projection platforms capable of
supporting four critical regions described in the 1-4-2-1 defense
construct. The first SBCT will attain Initial Operational Capability in
the summer of 2003.
Preserving The Army's Legacy
Today's force guarantees The Army's near-term warfighting readiness
to fight and win our Nation's wars, decisively. Because The Army
bypassed a procurement generation, The Army's Combat Support and Combat
Service Support systems now exceed their 20-year expected life cycle,
and 75 percent of our critical combat systems exceed their expected
half-life cycle. To maintain operational readiness while preserving
resources for Transformation, The Army is recapitalizing and
selectively modernizing a portion of the current force. The
modernization program addresses the critical issue of AC and RC
interoperability and serves as a bridge to mesh these two components
seamlessly. In general, The Army increased funding for programs that
are clearly transformational and support the Defense transformation
goals, sustained funding for high priority systems that will transition
to the Objective Force, and reduced funding for systems not essential
to Army Transformation. The Army remains committed to its 17-system
recapitalization program, but we have reduced the prioritized
recapitalization program from three-and-one-third divisions to two
divisions.
Army Special Operations Forces are an indispensable part of The
Army and will continue to provide unique capabilities to the Joint
Force and Land Component Commanders. In response to the increasing
requirement for Special Operations Forces in support of joint campaign
plans, The Army has validated and resourced growth in its SOF
structure. The recent initiatives will transfer 1,788 manpower spaces
to Major Force Program-11 beginning in fiscal year 2003. Since the
commencement of Army Special Operations Forces operations in support of
the GWOT, the U.S. Army has provided over $1.4 billion in new equipment
to enhance Special Operations Forces firepower, communications, and
ground and air mobility.
The Army will remain the largest user of space-based capabilities
among the Services. Army space assets are providing tangible support to
the war on terrorism and Operation Enduring Freedom--they ensure Army
and Joint Force Commanders optimize communications, satellite
intelligence, global positioning system, imagery, weather, missile
warning, and other space-based capabilities in every aspect of planning
and operations. We are working diligently with the joint and
interagency space community to ensure that Army and joint space systems
continue to provide their essential capabilities now and for the
Objective Force.
Aviation Transformation and Restructuring
Aviation Transformation further demonstrates The Army's hard
choices in balancing risk to resource Transformation. Our interim
plan--now in progress--lowers operating and sustainment costs while
posturing aviation for arrival of the Objective Force by 2010. Apache
modernization is an integral part of the Army Aviation Transformation
Plan. The AH-64D Longbow heavy attack team will enhance domination of
the maneuver battlespace and provide the ground commander with a
versatile, long-range weapon system against a range of fixed and moving
targets. The UH-60 Blackhawk continues to be the assault workhorse of
Army Aviation, executing over 40 percent of The Army's annual flying
hours. We are extending the life of the UH-60 while providing it with
capabilities required of the future battlespace. Similarly, The Army is
fully committed to the CH-47F Chinook program. Its heavy-lift
capability is invaluable to transforming The Army. As we restructure
and standardize attack and lift formations across the force, we will
also adjust the stationing and alignment of Reserve Component aviation
units to mitigate the near-term risk.
Army National Guard Aviation comprises almost 50 percent of The
Army's aviation force and is one of the Nation's most valuable assets
both for wartime and for peacetime missions. Essential for successful
execution of the Nation's military strategy, the ARNG currently has
aviation units deployed in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bosnia, Europe, and
Saudi Arabia, as well as Central and South America.
Army National Guard Restructuring Initiative (ARNGRI)
ARNGRI seeks to transform a sizeable portion of ARNG combat
structure into more deployable, flexible fighting forces to support
Army requirements at home and abroad. ARNGRI will introduce two new
organizations into the force structure: Mobile Light Brigades and
Multi-Functional Divisions. These organizations will provide full
spectrum capabilities in support of Combatant Commanders. The Mobile
Light Brigades will operate as a subordinate unit to the Multi-
Functional Divisions, which will also contain two combat support/combat
service support brigades and be capable of supporting either major
combat or homeland security operations.
Army Reserve Transformation Initiatives
By providing responsive force generating capability and technically
trained individuals, the USAR facilitates our capability to conduct
extended campaigns in multiple theaters and to sustain joint
operations. Army Reserve initiatives ensure the USAR is missioned,
organized, and equipped to provide interoperability across the full
spectrum of military operations. Transformational organizations include
experimentation forces and information operations, joint augmentation,
network security, and interagency units.
The Readiness Command Restructuring initiative and Federal Reserve
Restructuring Initiative will help the USAR fulfill these new mission
requirements. These initiatives lend greater flexibility to efforts
that enhance responsiveness to America's foreign and domestic
protection needs. Regional Readiness Commands will focus on individual
and unit readiness, leader development, training and growth which will
demand a new personnel system that achieves holistic life-cycle
management for Army Reserve Soldiers.
INSTITUTIONAL ARMY
Transforming the Way we do Business
We have made great strides in revolutionizing our business
management practices by starting at the very top. Last year, we
realigned our headquarters by reorganizing and realigning
responsibilities of the Secretariat and the Army Staff--streamlining
coordination, tasking, and decision-making--resulting in a more
responsive and efficient organization. This initiative allowed us to
eliminate unnecessary functions and redistribute 585 manpower spaces to
accomplish core competencies.
As previously discussed, The Army has addressed the management of
its installations, personnel systems, and contracting in its
Transformation of Installation Management (TIM). We are aggressively
pursuing efforts to outsource non-core functions. The Army will reap
substantial dividends in efficiency and effectiveness through these
strategic realignments of human and physical capital.
Personnel Transformation
The Secretary of the Army's key management initiative is personnel
transformation. Its goal is to modernize and integrate human resource
programs, policies, processes, and systems into a multi-component force
that includes civilians and contractors. We will evaluate our processes
and implement the most efficient program, policies, and organizations
to support the Objective Force.
The centerpiece of Personnel Transformation is a comprehensive
effort focused on a potential Army-wide implementation of unit manning
and unit rotation. We are aggressively examining the feasibility of a
unit manning and rotation system that would better support the new
national defense strategy, improve cohesion and combat readiness within
the operational Army, provide highly cohesive well-trained units to
Combatant Commanders, and improve well-being for families by providing
greater stability and predictability in assignments. The Army currently
uses unit rotations in support of operational missions in the Balkans,
Sinai, and Afghanistan. The Army is studying the use of unit rotations
for other locations and in the war on terrorism. Units would know of
these rotations well in advance, providing families with greater
predictability and enabling focused preparation, both of which
contribute to increased combat readiness of the unit.
Unit manning seeks to synchronize the life cycle of a unit with the
life cycle of the Soldier within that unit. All Soldiers and leaders
would be stabilized, resulting in a significant increase in cohesion
and combat readiness over our present individual replacement system.
Such a system has significant second and third order effects across the
force--training and leader development, recruiting and retention, unit
readiness levels, and total Army endstrength, among others. All of
these are being studied intensively, and we anticipate senior Army
leadership decisions on unit manning and unit rotation in July 2003.
Third Wave
Because we operate in an environment in which there are increasing
demands for military capabilities--the Secretary of the Army's Third
Wave initiative seeks to ensure that we are achieving the best value
possible for our taxpayers' dollars.
There are three phases to the Third Wave process. First, we
determined what activities were core or non-core to The Army's mission.
In the second phase, we are validating the breakout between core and
non-core functions by determining if any non-core functions should be
exempted. This phase has an anticipated completion date of mid- to late
February 2003. Upon completion, The Army leadership will notify
Congress of the results of this phase. In the third phase, key Army
leaders will assess appropriate plans to execute non-core functions,
select the best means to proceed, and develop implementation plans. At
this time, we do not know how many of the 214,000 jobs identified as
potentially non-core functions in Phase I will be included in
implementation plans. Although implementation plans will target
execution in fiscal years 2005-2009, some implementation plans may be
delayed beyond that period.
The implementation of competitive sourcing of non-core functions
will adhere to OMB Circular A-76 and related statutory provisions.
Exceptions to the requirement for public-private competition are
limited, such as where 10 or fewer civilian employees perform the
function or where legal restrictions against using the A-76 process
apply to the function. To lower costs for taxpayers and improve program
performance to citizens, OMB has undertaken major revisions to the
processes and practices in OMB Circular A-76 to improve the public-
private competition process.
Acquisition Transformation
The Army is leading the way in acquisition reform within DOD's
broad transformation of defense acquisition policies and procedures.
The Army's FCS program may prove to be the largest DOD acquisition
effort that fully embraces the concepts of evolutionary acquisition and
spiral development--leveraging the potential of rapid advancement
within individual technologies by allowing for changes within programs
as technologies mature.
The FCS program is evolutionary in its design and incorporates
periodic blocked improvements within its 19 systems--the Objective
Force Soldier and 18 manned and unmanned systems. Within these 19
systems are 540 spirally developing technologies. The Army's use of a
Lead System Integrator (LSI) enables a ``best of the best'' approach to
selection from competing industry efforts. Our unprecedented
partnership with DARPA ensures the FCS effort leverages that agency's
DOD-wide perspective and resources to produce the best capability and
value for the Joint Force.
The Army continues to revise its acquisition policies and
applicable regulatory guidance. On October 3, 2001, The Army approved
an acquisition reorganization that transferred control of all
acquisition program management to the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE)
and eliminated duplication of effort in two major Army commands.
Effective October 2002, twelve Program Executive Officers (PEO) report
to the Army Acquisition Executive, and their subordinate PEOs assumed
management of all Army acquisition programs, regardless of Acquisition
Category. The plan ensures that there is only one chain of authority
for acquisition programs within The Army. In addition, the plan clearly
holds Program Managers responsible and accountable for the life cycle
management of their assigned programs.
We have also transformed the way we conduct business through the
organization of the Army Contracting Agency (ACA) that realigns our
previously decentralized installation and information technology
contracting processes into one organization. Responsible for all
contracts over $500,000 and tasked to eliminate redundant contracts,
ACA leverages Army-wide requirements to achieve economies of scale. ACA
supports Army Transformation efforts by aligning all base support
contracting into a single organization that best supports installation
management transformation. All of these initiatives use information
technology to leverage enterprise-wide buying capabilities.
Additionally, ACA will act as the single coordinating element and form
the base from which to deploy contingency-contracting, operational
support to the warfighting commands. The Army Contracting Agency and
other contracting activities will continue to support small business
awards in the outstanding manner it did in fiscal year 2002.
Logistics Transformation
We cannot transform The Army without a transformation in logistics.
We must incorporate the logistician's view into the design of our
systems even before we begin to build platforms. Collaboration between
the acquisition and logistics communities will give the Objective Force
the rapid deployability and sustainability we demand--by design--
without compromising warfighting capability.
Designing the right logistics architecture--systems, business
processes, enterprise, for example--is fundamental to success. The
Army's Logistics Transformation will focus on creating an overarching
corporate logistics enterprise that employs industries' best business
practices. Within this enterprise, The Army established three principal
goals for Logistics Transformation: enhance strategic mobility and
deployability; optimize the logistics footprint; and reduce the cost of
logistics support without reducing readiness or warfighting capability.
The Army's mobility and deployability goals for the Objective Force
are to deploy a combat brigade within 96 hours after lift off, a
division on the ground in 120 hours, and a five-division corps in
theater in 30 days. To achieve this strategic responsiveness, the Army
Strategic Mobility Program (ASMP) serves as a catalyst to bring about
force projection changes both in The Army's and in our Sister Services'
lift programs. Platforms like the Intra-Theater Support Vessel (TSV)
and Inter-Theater Shallow Draft High Speed Sealift (SDHSS) provide
transformational capabilities for operational and strategic maneuver
and sustainment of Army formations.
Because strategic air and sealift cannot meet deployment
requirements, Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS) ashore and afloat
continue to be a critical component of Army power projection. The Army
is currently participating in a joint-led Worldwide Prepositioning
Study to determine if location, mix, and capabilities in existing
stocks of combat, combat support, and combat service support require
adjustments to meet the Defense Strategy more effectively.
The Objective Force requires The Army to optimize its logistics
footprint to produce a smaller, more agile, responsive, and flexible
sustainment organization. To achieve this goal, we will leverage
technology and innovative sustainment concepts. The Army is already
developing and integrating key enablers to provide a transformed,
corporate logistics enterprise. Some of these enablers include embedded
diagnostics and prognostics, tactical logistics data digitization
(TLDD), serial number tracking, and the Global Combat Service Support--
Army (GCSS-A) system that utilizes a commercial Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) solution. The ERP approach changes The Army's logistics
automation systems strategy from one of custom code development for
unique Army requirements to adoption of a commercial off-the-shelf
(COTS) product.
The selective use of the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program
(LOGCAP) to augment military logistics force structure provides
commanders with the flexibility to reallocate manpower, resources, and
materiel by adding contractors to the equation of logistics support. In
addition to providing services and some supply support, these
contractors can quickly deploy to establish base camps, receive and
process Soldiers as they begin arriving in theater, and reverse the
process when Soldiers go home.
Current initiatives that help reduce costs without reducing
readiness or warfighting capability include the National Maintenance
Program and the Single Stock Fund (SSF). As previously discussed,
programs provide two basic building blocks for a revolutionary change
in logistics business practices.
Advanced Medical Technology
Congress designated The Army as the lead agent for DOD vaccine,
drug, and development programs for medical countermeasures to
battlefield threats. This includes vaccines against naturally occurring
infectious diseases of military significance, combat casualty care,
military operational medicine, and telemedicine research. The program
also funds Food and Drug Administration requirements for technology
transition to advanced development.
The medical force provides the requisite medical intervention and
care for the Joint Force deployed around the globe. With its Medical
Reengineering Initiative (MRI), The Army Medical Department has
transformed 28 percent of its Corps, and echelon above Corps, force
structure to an organizational structure that promotes scalability
through easily tailored, capabilities-based packages. These packages
result in improved tactical mobility, reduced footprint, and increased
modularity for flexible task organization. MRI supports both the
current forces and the Stryker Brigades, and is the bridge to the
Objective Medical Force. We have implemented innovative strategies make
the most efficient use of our budget. Medical modernization, which
includes the acquisition of current medical equipment and technology,
is partially funded within MRI units.
Business Initiatives Council
In June 2001, the Secretary of Defense established the Department
of Defense Business Initiatives Council (DOD BIC). The DOD BIC's goal
is to improve business operations and processes by identifying and
implementing initiatives that expand capabilities, improve efficiency
and effectiveness, and create resource savings in time, money, or
manpower.
The Army has aggressively explored ways to improve its internal
business practices, and has established The Army BIC, under the
leadership of the Secretary and the G-8. Effective November 13, 2002,
the Secretary of the Army has approved a total of 35 initiatives under
The Army BIC. Subsequently, The Army submitted a number of the
initiatives through the formal DOD BIC process for implementation
across the Services and other DOD activities. The BIC process has
helped to create a culture of innovation and inter-service cooperation.
The superb level of cooperation across the military departments, the
Joint Staff and OSD has made this possible.
A COMMITMENT TO THE FUTURE
With the continued strong support of the Administration, the
Congress, our Soldiers, and our Department of the Army civilians, and
the greatest industrial base and science and technology communities in
the world, The Army will field the Objective Force--this decade.
By 2010, we will have fielded the first operationally capable
Objective Force unit equipped with the Future Combat Systems. Our
Stryker Brigade Combat Teams will be providing to Combatant Commanders
capabilities not currently available--enhanced strategic responsiveness
and the ability to operate in a distributed, non-linear battlespace.
Through selective recapitalization and modernization of systems that
enable our Soldiers to preserve our legacy today, we will have
sustained a decisive-win capability at a high state of readiness as an
integral part of the Joint Force. And we will have significantly
improved the well-being of our people and sustainment of Army
infrastructure.
We remain committed to our legacy--preserving America's freedoms.
In peace and in war, The Army's Soldiers serve the Nation with
unmatched courage, indomitable will, pride, and plain grit--as they
have for over 227 years. Soldiers will continue to fight and win the
Nation's wars, decisively--it is our sacred duty and our non-negotiable
contract with the American people.
[Clerk's Note.--The United States Army Posture Statement, 2003, can
be found on the world wide web at: www.army.mil.]
Senator Stevens. General, do you have any statements to
make?
STATEMENT OF GENERAL ERIC K. SHINSEKI
General Shinseki. Just a short opening statement if you do
not mind, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, distinguished members of the
committee, it is an honor to be back here before the committee
and, along with Secretary White, to report to you on the
posture and the readiness of the Army and in many ways what we
will report on this morning is what we have been about for the
last 3\1/2\ years. It is your support, and the generosity of
your time and attention and the generosity of your support that
has put us in the situation we are in today.
It is also a great privilege for me to sit here with
Secretary Tom White. In a very short period of time Secretary
White has provided us tremendous focus, leadership, and
guidance and gotten momentum in achieving what we described
3\1/2\ years ago as the Army Vision, and he and I have served
side-by-side in other lives, so it is great to be sitting here
together in final testimony with him.
As the Secretary has indicated and as the chairman has
noted, soldiers are serving magnificently today as members of
the joint team and, you know, just the Army alone, as remarked
by the chairman, 262,000 of our soldiers are forward-stationed,
forward-deployed in operations today, 151,000 of our Reserve
Component mobilized in support of operations. They are fighting
this war against terrorism. They are honing and fine-tuning
their combat skills as they await orders for potentially
another major operation, and they are poised to respond to
still other contingencies in regions of the world that our
country has declared important.
The Army is ready. That is the purpose of the Secretary's
and my appearance here today. We are the best Army in the world
because of our soldiers, not the biggest, but the best. Their
determination and their commitment are as firm as I have seen
in all my years of service. They are immensely proud to serve
this Nation. They will take any objective, and they will
accomplish any mission we assign them.
We would like to project the same kind of confidence in
their competence, and the same statement of readiness not just
today, but into the future, and to do so, we declared 3\1/2\
years ago that we would field a more responsive, a more
deployable, a more agile and versatile, certainly more lethal
force than we have today in survivable formation, but a lot
more sustainable than even the Army that we have today.
We knew then that there was a war in our future, and we
said so. We just did not know when, where, or against whom.
Though we did not anticipate exactly this scenario, where we
are fighting a global war on terrorism in Afghanistan, standing
by for another major operation, and looking with a little bit
of concern at Northeast Asia, the relative predictability of
the Cold War had already, even 3\1/2\ years ago, given way to a
continuing chaos of unpredictability, and voices inside and
outside the Army and voices in this committee encouraged us to
be bold, to take some steps and begin the process of change,
and with your support we have come a long way towards
transforming our formations to be more capable of handling
future crises.
As the Secretary has indicated, there is always inherent
risk any time any institution undertakes not just change, but
fundamental and comprehensive change, as the Army declared it
would 3\1/2\ years ago. To mitigate that risk, the Army
structured its transformation on three broad, mutually
supporting axes, and I will describe then as near-term, mid-
term, and long-term responsibilities.
In the near term, we preserved the readiness of today's
legacy fighting force. In the mid-term, we are fielding six
Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT) to give us much-needed
operational capabilities, even as we design our future
Objective Force, and it is on that third and final long-term
axes that we are developing future concepts and technologies
that will provide consistent capability overmatched throughout
the middle of the next century, and that is the intent of the
Army.
Our Future Combat System Milestone B Defense Acquisition
Board decision, the first acquisition milestone for the Future
Combat System that is scheduled for May of 2003, just a few
months from now, puts us on a path to begin fielding our future
Objective Force by fiscal year 2008. That is a significant and
an important milestone.
As Secretary White notes, balancing these requirements
between all three priorities, near-term, mid-term, and long-
term requires some difficult choices, and the Army has had to
make them, carefully weighing the operational demands of
today's missions while preparing for the future. Your support
remains vital to our continued success in managing that risk,
and the Army's fiscal year 2004 budget strikes that essential
balance to maintain readiness throughout the Program Objective
Memorandum (POM) and the years beyond.
We are already seeing dividends from our investments in
future readiness, technologies that are coming online early
because we invested aggressively early. Superior body armor
today, robots in caves and antitank warheads on unmanned aerial
vehicles today, unprecedented Blue Force tracking capabilities
today, and last summer, during the largest joint exercise in
our history, Millennium Challenge 2002, with the help of the
Air Force we air-delivered a Stryker platoon onto a dirt strip
out in the National Training Center in California. Just 3 years
after the Army described that requirement for an interim force,
we demonstrated the increased strategic, operational, and
tactical versatility that Stryker Brigade Combat Teams will
provide to combatant commanders.
This summer, the first SBCT, the first Stryker unit will
join us in the war on terrorism, so it is not just about
capabilities that we intend to begin fielding in fiscal year
2008. It is about better capabilities that we are fielding even
today for our soldiers.
People remain the centerpiece of our formations. The
Secretary has said it in his proud statement about our
soldiers, and I echo it here. They are the centerpiece of our
formations, and their well-being is inextricably linked to Army
readiness. Your help with pay raises, health care, retirement
benefits, housing, and other well-being programs allow us to
take better care of our people. Soldiers, our civilians, our
retirees, and our veterans and their families all appreciate
the support more than I can say, that they have received out of
the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, for almost 4 years now I have had the
privilege of working with members of this committee. You have
supported the Army and helped us do what was best for the
national security. I am grateful for your steady and bipartisan
leadership, and most importantly for your unwavering devotion
to our soldiers. You have kept us the most respected land force
in the world today, and that will continue into the future.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to make those
remarks, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General. I am going
to defer my questions until later to allow other Members to ask
questions, but I do have one statement to start off with.
FIFTH AND SIXTH STRYKER BRIGADES
I joined, or rather my good friend and cochairman here
joined me in sending a letter to Secretary Wolfowitz about the
way the Department plans to handle the fifth and sixth Stryker
Brigades. The fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act
directed the Army and the Department of Defense to fund six
Stryker Brigades, and we felt that was the direction. The
President signed that bill, and now I understand that there is
some indication that the Office of the Secretary of Defense
would terminate, or change the deployment of the fifth and
sixth Stryker Brigades. Can you tell us, Mr. Secretary, what is
the situation with regard to those two brigades?
Mr. White. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary has directed us to
conduct a study of brigades five and six that is aimed at
determining whether the structure as it is currently proposed
for those brigades is optimal, whether there are other things
that we could add, other capabilities that would be appropriate
to add like, say, aviation.
In addition to that, he has asked us to study the
stationing of brigades five and six, which as you pointed out
are currently in Hawaii, and then the Pennsylvania Army
National Guard. We will complete the study in the near future.
In the meantime, the money for brigades five and six has stayed
in the program. It is where we programmed it, and it is where
the Secretary has agreed to leave it, and we will get the study
done as quickly as we can.
Senator Stevens. Well, I hope our letter is responded to
sometime soon, and it is my judgment that if the Army wants
more Stryker Brigades, they should request more funds. We
funded those on the basis that they would be deployed to Hawaii
and the Pennsylvania National Guard, and unless that law is
changed, we expect that direction to be complied with.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
glad you brought up the question of the Stryker Brigade.
GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM
I would like to ask a general question on the budget. If my
calculation is correct, the Army is spending approximately $700
million per month to fight the global war on terrorism, is that
correct?
Mr. White. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator Inouye. Now, where does this money come from,
because there is no item for fighting global terrorism.
Mr. White. Right now, Senator, we are cash-flowing, as we
call it, principally in the military personnel accounts for the
additional mobilization and in the operations and maintenance
account's third and fourth quarter money to pay these
additional costs above the budget in the early part of the
fiscal year.
Senator Inouye. So we are using monies that were intended
for some other purpose?
Mr. White. That is correct.
Senator Inouye. In addition, there is not anything in the
budget that I can see that faces reality, which all of us have
assumed that sometime in this fiscal year we would be in Iraq.
How are we going to cope with that?
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION
Mr. White. Senator, I believe it is the intent of the
Department or the President to request a supplemental to cover
the funds for the war on terrorism.
Senator Inouye. The next question is, when will the
supplemental reach us?
Mr. White. Sir, to use an expression by the Secretary of
Defense, it is above my pay grade. We have had our discussions
with the Office of Secretary of Defense. I know they have had
deliberations with the Office of Management and Budget, but as
we discussed yesterday, the supplemental has not yet been
submitted.
Senator Inouye. I can assure you, sir, that we are looking
forward to receiving that, because in a situation of this
nature, it would be an understatement to say that to keep the
troops ready is an urgency.
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. And with the funds as they come in, in
driblets, it will not help the situation.
Senator Stevens. Would the Senator yield?
Senator Inouye. Yes. I would be very happy to.
Senator Stevens. I might state to the Senator and the
committee that I had a discussion last night with Mitch
Daniels, an informal conversation, and I am informed we should
get that supplemental early next week, and it will contain not
only monies for defense, but homeland defense, and some moneys
to start planning for the post-conflict era in Iraq.
Senator Inouye. Well, I thank you very much. His pay level
is higher than mine.
Senator Stevens. Not so.
END STRENGTH
Senator Inouye. General Shinseki, you have been quoted many
times saying that the Army does not have the required end
strength to meet current and future military obligations. Can
you elaborate on this?
General Shinseki. Yes, sir. I have testified, Senator, for
3\1/2\ years now that the mission profile that the Army was
carrying even 3 years ago was larger than the inventory of
formations we had, and I suggested that end strength was a
concern. 3\1/2\ years ago we were not recruiting as well as we
wanted, and so we had to go fix that first. The last 3 years we
have made our recruiting targets. Our retention has always been
very good.
The missions in the last 3 years have gone up. End strength
continues to be a concern, and it is revealed, I think, in the
amount of routine mobilization of the Reserve Component that we
see day to day. Many of those missions used to be carried by
Active Component formations, so these are some of the
manifestations of what my concerns were.
Secretary White has asked us--even as we made our concerns
public--has asked that the Army take a look at itself, and this
is what is sort of caught up in the Third Wave discussions, to
make sure that even as we talked about end strength, that the
Army had done the right things about ensuring that soldiers
were in soldiers' positions, and so we are doing that, and the
results of that study are forthcoming.
I will review them and provide my advice to the Secretary,
but I think all things considered, when this operation, this
crisis is over, we need to take a good hard look at right-
sizing the Army, right-mixing the Army between Active and
Reserve Component, and even as some of the combatant commanders
are already beginning to describe, right-stationing the Army,
and I think all of this is important to take up now.
RECRUITING
Senator Inouye. That leads me to the next question. How are
we doing in recruiting?
General Shinseki. Our recruiting for the last 3 years has
just continued to get better. In the Active Component, last
year I could have told you very early in the recruiting year
that we would make our recruiting targets. We were doing that
well.
I can do the same thing again this year in active
recruiting, but for the first time here this month, in the
Reserve Component recruiting, both the National Guard and the
Army Reserve missed their monthly targets. That happens from
time to time. We look at a year-long objective that we go
after, but our attention was caught by the fact here last month
that both Reserve Components missed by a margin their monthly
targets.
Some of that is driven by the fact that our Active
Component soldiers who normally leave the Active Component and
are available to transition into Reserve Component formations,
right now, because of the standby for potential operations in
Southwest Asia, we have stop-loss personnel decisions in place,
so the flow of Active Component soldiers out of active units
available for Reserve Component units, that has very much
diminished, and that is part of what is at work here, but
recruiting for the last 3 years, Senator, has been very, very
strong, retention even better.
SOLDIER DEPLOYMENT
Senator Inouye. To give the citizens who may read the
transcript a better idea of personnel problems, how many
troops, men and women, Reserve and Active, are now overseas in
places like Bosnia, Afghanistan, Korea, et cetera, and Kuwait?
General Shinseki. Well, overseas, both forward stationed
and forward-deployed, the number is 262,000 today. That number
changes day to day as we begin to look at potential operations
in Southwest Asia.
Senator Inouye. That leaves how many here?
General Shinseki. Well, that 262,000 is a combination of
Active and Reserve Component. The Active Component formations,
I can give you a more finite number, but the Active Component
formations are not totally deployed, but much of the Active
Component is on standby, prepared for deployment, so if those
orders are executed, a good portion of the active force will be
overseas.
Senator Inouye. I have always maintained what some would
consider a rather naive concept, that the best way to avoid war
would be to be prepared for war. In order to be prepared for
war, we need proper personnel and proper equipment. It is no
secret that the Navy has 12 carrier battle groups. One carrier
is always for training purposes. One carrier is always in
transit. That leaves 10. Six are now in the gulf area, in the
Mediterranean, the Red Sea, or the Persian Gulf itself, and one
more is in transit. That is nine, and I believe one more
carrier group is going to go to that area. That leaves two for
the rest of the world.
I recall it was not too long ago when we were sitting here
and we were told that we were ready for two-and-a-half wars. Is
that concept still being discussed?
General Shinseki. Senator, I think the two-and-a-half major
combat operation discussion, it has now been translated into a
strategy that talks about homeland defense, four critical areas
of the world that we have to continue to focus on, two
potential major combat operations, one of which can be a major
operation that requires decisive force. That is the sizing
construct around which we organize our discussions, and like
the Navy, we have a good portion of our Active Component force
focused on this major operation.
Senator Inouye. I will wait for my second round, but before
I do, I would like to thank you, sir, for the service you have
rendered to this country throughout your youth and at the
present time. It has been a magnificent service record, and
personally I hate to see you go, but such is the nature of this
business.
General Shinseki. Sir, it is.
Senator Inouye. And I am always grateful to you and to the
Secretary for having prepared our men and women so that they
can carry out the missions they are ordered to carry out.
General Shinseki. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
General Shinseki, your statement a few minutes ago was
rather profound and reassuring. You said, the Army is ready,
and I believe you. I believe the Army is ready.
SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND
Having said that, I want to focus just for a minute on the
Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) and the missions there
of space, missile defense, computer network operations for the
Army, additionally SMDC is the Army component to STRATCOM with
emerging missions including space, global strike, global
C<SUP>4</SUP>ISR, global integrated missile defense, global
information operations.
You mentioned the important work the Army is doing to
develop directed energy programs in your testimony. Would you
discuss the success of the tactical high-energy laser program,
the challenges that remain in developing and fielding a mobile
tactical high energy laser (MTHEL) program system and the
funding the Army plans to commit to MTHEL in fiscal year 2004?
Do you want to tackle--which one of you?
Mr. White. Let me start out, and then the Chief can add----
Senator Shelby. That is a mouthful, I know.
Mr. White. Oh, I think it is a tremendously successful
program.
Senator Shelby. It is.
Mr. White. We have had successful engagements of both
rockets----
Senator Shelby. That is right.
Mr. White [continuing]. And now artillery shells----
Senator Shelby. That is right.
Mr. White [continuing]. Which is extraordinary. This is a
joint program with Israel, as you know, progressing forward,
and we have provided over $500 million of funding in our 2004-
2009 POM to support this, so we will continue to push the
development of it. All of us think it has tremendous potential.
Senator Stevens. Will the Senator yield for just a second?
Senator Shelby. I will be glad to yield, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici has to go to the floor.
He has been called to the floor. Would you mind yielding just a
moment to him?
Senator Shelby. I will yield to the Senator, absolutely.
Senator Domenici. I gave my questions to the chairman to
ask, Senator Shelby, so he will do that, he will ask my
questions. Before I left I wanted to join, Chief, in telling
you that it has been a great pleasure to get to know you and to
know of your record, and obviously to know of your record is to
know you. That is the way it seems to me, and I congratulate
you for what you have done for our country. It is a marvelous
record. It is too bad that all great things come to an end, but
that is the way it is.
I also want to thank you, because of the special help you
have given me at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. It has been
rather wonderful care for some of the problems I have had. I
personally want to thank you for asking about those illnesses
as I had them, and thank you for your assistance.
General Shinseki. You are quite welcome, sir.
Senator Domenici. And good luck.
General Shinseki. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby, thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Both of you, I believe, are aware that I have expressed
concern about the Army's support for the Space and Missile
Defense Command. I am pleased that the response, Mr.
Secretary--from you and the General--I have received from the
Army, has been so strongly supportive.
Despite SMDC's current space, missile defense, and computer
network operations missions, and its emerging missions as the
Army component of STRATCOM in the area of global strike, global
integrated missile defense, and global information operations,
some of us are concerned that the Army has not made sufficient
investments in technology development.
We realize, Mr. Secretary, you tried a lot to support some
of these missions in recent years. I have heard some say that
the Army has lost its focus, but I told them I am not sure
about that, because I am aware of what you are doing, and we do
need more institutional support and funding for the core
technology program. How would you respond to this, the budget
request in this area?
Mr. White. Well, I think it reflects the fact that our
component command, SMDC, is tremendously important not only to
the Army, but to the country. The work with the Ballistic
Missile Defense Agency, where we do a whole bunch of different
tasks, the mid-course capability that is being established at
Fort Greely, Kwajalein, all the rest of it that you are very
familiar with, the component of the Strategic Command, we have
fundamental interest in space operations as an Army. They are
tremendously important to us.
So I think that the contribution that SMDC makes across, as
you pointed out, a significant range of important aspects to us
is very, very important, and so I am an avid supporter of the
Space and Missile Defense Command.
General Shinseki. May I just add, Senator, that both the
Secretary and I take a very keen interest in Space and Missile
Defense Command's contributions here, but you know, the Army
has a longstanding history in missile work, I mean, one that
goes beyond most recollections.
What we have suggested to General Cosumano and the rest of
the Army that deals in the doctrine and conceptual thinking is
that if we talk about missile defense as a series of catchers'
mitts trying to deal with someone else's initiative, it is
essentially a defensive-oriented strategy, and we needed to
think more holistically, more broadly about this, as we do with
all of our other war-fighting concepts, that you have to have
an offensive as well as a defensive piece.
This is important, but we needed to think about all the
capabilities that allow us to deal with threats on someone
else's soil that can project capabilities against the homeland,
and when you do that, of course, you get into the mid-course
business and the boost phase, but you also talk about
capabilities to forcibly enter someone else's territory and, in
fact, take down those capabilities, as opposed to continuously
react to someone else's actions, so we have included Space and
Missile Defense Command into this larger discussion of
capabilities.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will wait another round.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will join
with my colleagues, General, in wishing you the very best in
your next career. You can certainly look with pride on this
career.
AGING HELICOPTER INVENTORY
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an article on the
military's aging helicopter inventory, and Mr. Chairman, if I
could submit that Wall Street Journal article for the record.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Pardon me?
Senator Leahy. If I could submit that Wall Street Article
for the record, please?
Senator Stevens. Yes.
[The information follows:]
[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 18, 2003]
Fresh Troops . . . Old Choppers
U.S. MILITARY LABORS TO KEEP AGING HELICOPTERS AIRWORTHY; HAZARDS OF
DESERT LANDINGS
(By Anne Marie Squeo, J. Lynn Lunsford and Nicholas Kulish)
ON A RECENT episode of the television show ``The West Wing,'' the
Pentagon's top military commander ordered two Comanche reconnaissance
helicopters dispatched to rescue three Marines taken hostage.
When he heard about the fictional deployment, Maj. Gen. John
Caldwell, head of the Army's acquisition programs, burst out laughing.
``Those would be the only two we have,'' he said.
For more than a decade, ambitious plans to replace the U.S.
military's aging helicopter fleet have been sidelined by funding
constraints and developmental problems. The imposing-looking Comanche,
which is supposed to have the ability to fly sideways and backward at
more than 85 miles an hour, is the fruit of a $48 billion program that
began in 1983 but isn't expected to become part of the U.S. arsenal
until 2009 at the earliest. And the V-22 Osprey, a hybrid aircraft that
takes off and lands like a helicopter but cruises like an airplane at
more than twice the speed of a conventional helicopter, has been
grounded for much of the past two years after a string of fatal
crashes. The V-22 was recently grounded again because of hydraulic-
system problems, and top Pentagon officials say they are prepared to
finally end the $46 billion program if it doesn't get on track soon.
So as they assemble for a potential conflict with Iraq, U.S. forces
are relying on helicopters that in some cases are older than the troops
they will carry. For example, massive twin-rotored CH-47 Chinook
helicopters, which can carry dozens of servicemen or hoist heavy loads
beneath them, remain the workhorse heavy-lifter for the Army, even
though they were originally delivered before 1975. Most of them have
been remanufactured by Boeing Co. and are scheduled for further updates
that could enable them to keep flying for another 35 years, military
planners say.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Around the Rotor
The helicopters the U.S. military plans to use during a war with
Iraq are showing their age. A sampling:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helicopter Primary task Avg. age
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CH-47D Chinook................................. Carrying troops; hoisting loads..................... \1\ 15
OH-58D Kiowa Warrior........................... Light scout/reconnaissance.......................... 12
Black Hawk..................................... Troop carrier....................................... 15
Cobra \2\...................................... Attack, primarily during Vietnam.................... 10
UH-1N Huey..................................... Carrying troops..................................... 27
AH-64 A/D Apache............................... Attack.............................................. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Average age after refurbishment. Nearly all of the 300 CH-47D Chinooks in use by the military were
originally delivered before 1975.
\2\ Now retired by Army; Marines using newer versions.
Source: WSJ reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------
For the most part, the Vietnam-era Bell Huey helicopters, which
flew en masse to drop troops into the jungles, have been replaced with
larger and more capable Black Hawks. But two-thirds of the Black Hawk
fleet now exceeds 15 years of age. Apache attack helicopters, developed
in the 1980s, are the Army's newest choppers, but they haven't
altogether replaced their Vietnam War predecessor, the Cobra.
The average life span of a military helicopter is 20 years,
compared with about 30 years for a commercial one. But the
circumstances these aircraft fly in, including brutal weather and
difficult terrain such as the deserts of Iraq and the jagged mountains
of Afghanistan, take a severe toll.
Because of the lack of funds to buy new helicopters, an ambitious
remanufacturing program is under way aimed at improving performance and
staving off safety problems, military officials say. The aircraft are
stripped down, then their metal airframes are treated for corrosion,
engines and rotors are rebuilt, and their cockpits are loaded with new
digital electronics and radar.
Manufacturers such as United Technologies Corp.'s Sikorsky Aircraft
unit, which builds and refurbishes about 65 Black Hawks a year, have
scrambled since the Gulf War in 1991 to upgrade and modify their craft
to withstand tough desert conditions.
All told, the U.S. military is spending billions of dollars to
update its older copters. But military officials say they are still
concerned on the eve of a potential conflict about the relative health
of the fleet. There remains ``a severe aircraft-aging problem in the
helicopter fleet, causing serious safety and readiness issues,'' says
Loren Thompson, executive director of the Washington-based Lexington
Institute, a military think tank.
Maj. Gen. Joseph Bergantz, program executive director for Army
Aviation, says: ``Because of the aging, more things are starting to
fail. Our readiness rates are lower now and are getting lower over the
years.''
Still, Gen. Bergantz and other military officials insist that only
a small percentage of helicopter accidents are attributable to
equipment failures. A recent Black Hawk crash in upstate New York that
killed 11 soldiers is being investigated.
In a war with Iraq, Apaches and Cobras would be expected to take
out Iraqi ground troops that might attempt to head off U.S. forces
moving in from Kuwait. Black Hawks and Hueys would be the main vehicles
to swiftly ferry platoons of soldiers and marines into fighting
position.
The other services often use similar aircraft, outfitted for their
special needs. The Air Force and Navy, for example, plan to use the V-
22, but in a more limited way than the Marines--if the V-22 isn't
scrapped.
For helicopters operating in the desert, one of the most insidious
threats is sand. Not only do sandstorms kick up without notice, but an
improper approach to landing can envelop a chopper in a dust cloud that
can instantly disorient a pilot.
Maintenance crews are working overtime to undo the damage done to
copters by the desert. After a few hours of operation, many of the most
delicate parts of the jet engines that power helicopters can become
coated with glass, from sand ingested into the compressor sections.
Since the Gulf War, the helicopter manufacturers have developed new
intake filters that better strain the air sucked into the engines. They
also have developed a clear tape that is applied to the leading edges
of rotor blades to cut down on the sandblasting damage caused by the
rotors whirling through dust clouds.
For now, to minimize the risk that a combination of aging aircraft
and tough climactic conditions will result in fatal mishaps, Marine
pilots have been drilling at their high-desert base near Twentynine
Palms, Calif., and near their temporary headquarters in the Middle
East. One Cobra pilot with the call sign ``Weasel'' says, ``there's a
lot more emphasis'' at present on repeatedly practicing takeoffs and
landings to get a feel for conditions and how their choppers respond.
At their base near Iraq, the 3rd Marine Airwing of the 1st Marine
Expeditionary Force are reminded daily of the odds. Beneath the flight
schedule hung on the wall in the mess hall, a posting declares, ``In
the Gulf War, 18 aircraft were destroyed. Only 3 were a result of
direct enemy action.'' The squadron's commanding officer made it even
clearer in a briefing last week for his pilots. ``The enemy ain't going
to kill you, probably. It's going to be these landings,'' he said.
The 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing's safety officer, Maj. Bruce Laughlin,
says in the 1991 Gulf War more than a third of Marine helicopter
mishaps--from minor equipment damage to fatalities--were a result of
brownout conditions or other weather-related visibility problems. He
says in Afghanistan--where he flew 75 hours in Cobras made by Textron
Inc.'s Bell Helicopter, of Forth Worth, Texas--the numbers followed a
similar trend.
Senator Leahy. This talked about how our helicopter fleet
is aging. There is one thing I would point out. We added funds
in the budget so that the 101st is slated to equip many of its
Black Hawk helicopters with the Health and Usage Monitoring
System (HUMS), the integrated mechanical diagnostic health and
usage monitoring system. I have to read out the actual words
for it, but this basically does continuous diagnostics on all
of our helicopters. If they are so equipped, they come back,
you can instantly download which helicopters are ready to go,
which ones have problems, and so forth. Does the Army plan to
move forward with this technology, either in the fleet they
have now or in subsequent fleets?
General Shinseki. I think philosophically the answer to the
question is, absolutely yes, that having this ability to
trouble-shoot our equipment without having to do it with purely
manual labor is the way we intend to go, both with our
investments in future systems, and where we can to insert those
capabilities into our current inventory.
Some of that inventory is not conducive to applying----
Senator Leahy. I understand.
General Shinseki [continuing]. The new technologies, but
where we can, that is very much in our interest.
Senator Leahy. I would also think in a wartime situation,
where you do not have a great deal of time to do diagnostics,
when the helicopters come back, for the field commander to at
least be able to say, number 1, 5, and 12 are ready to go, but
this one is not, and be able to know it instantly, would be
awfully helpful to you.
General Shinseki. Right.
Mr. White. Let me add, Senator, if you do not mind----
Senator Leahy. Yes, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. White. We laid out several years ago an aviation
modernization program that will result in a reduction in the
overall size of the fleet by about 1,000 helicopters, but will
wash out of the fleet all the Cobras, the Vietnam-era aircraft,
the Cobras first, which are going now, and Hueys by fiscal year
2004. I think the picture in the Wall Street Journal article
was of a Marine Corps twin-engined Huey.
Senator Leahy. It was.
Mr. White. In the meantime, we are investing in all of our
primary helicopters Apache Longbow, Black Hawk, both newer
aircraft and conversions and then, of course, conversions of
our Chinook fleet. However, even with that modernization,
though, we do not meet our standard of having the average fleet
life of helicopters below the half-life of the aircraft, below
10 years. The only fleet we make that in is Apache, and we are
above that in Black Hawk, and we are above that in Chinook, and
that is why the funding of the modernization lines on all those
aircraft are so important, because obviously we are flying them
right now.
Senator Leahy. I agree with that, but keep an eye on the
HUMS.
Mr. White. I will do that.
Senator Leahy. I have a parochial interest, but I also have
just an interest in thinking it is probably going to save us a
lot of money in the future, and I realize retrofitting is one
issue. As you modernize fleets, it is another.
SOLDIER EQUIPMENT
We also have, when the United States (U.S.) Special Forces
and the 101st and 82nd went to Afghanistan they were given an
advanced combat helmet. I have talked to the troops. I have
actually got E-mails. They said they like the--it is lighter
weight, added protection and so on. One soldier apparently took
a couple of AK-47 rounds in the head during Operation Anaconda
and kept on fighting, so it is pretty impressive, impressive
for the equipment, also pretty impressive for the soldier,
too----
General Shinseki. Absolutely.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. Under a circumstance like that.
Are these going to be done in other--I mean, are we going
to continue to get this helmet out to the troops.
General Shinseki. Yes, sir.
Senator Leahy. Do you need more money? Do you need more
money, General? Here is your chance. Do you need more money in
this budget for that?
General Shinseki. Senator, 2 years ago we did something we
should have done probably a long time ago, and you know, in our
programs we talk about systems, whether they are tank or
aviation. We declared a system for soldier equipment, and
instead of buying individual pieces, we talked about the entire
ensemble a soldier deploys to combat with, whether it is
uniforms, whether it is ballistic protection for the chest and
the head, and by the way, they have ballistic protection for
the body as well, and it works as well as that helmet you
describe.
I ran into a youngster here a few weeks ago who was
carrying around the plate he was wearing and wanted to show me,
this thing had hit about an inch off the margin and I asked him
what he thought. He said, make it a little bit bigger, it will
be fine.
What we have been able to do, because we focused on
equipping the solder as a system--and assume that our
environment is sort of out there in the outdoors. If it is hot,
we wanted equipment that would aerate him or her, if it was
wet, keep them dry, if it was cold, keep them warm, and
whatever we gave them had to give them better protection than
the uniform they wore.
As a result, we are fielding to the units going into
Afghanistan, the 82nd and following that the 101st, but Ranger
Regiment as well, a new kit that does a lot of the things you
describe, and so for about $12 million a brigade formation we
are doing that, and we will continue to do that, and more money
will help us to go faster.
Senator Leahy. Including the helmet?
General Shinseki. The helmet is part of that.
LAND MINES
Senator Leahy. General, let me ask you one question, too.
Last September, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a
report--they did quite an intensive investigation. You and I
have discussed some of this before, and they did their
investigation based on DOD data, the effectiveness of land
mines in the first gulf war.
The GAO found no evidence, none, that our mines, either
antipersonnel or antitank mines, had any positive military
effect. They did say, and I have heard this from commanders in
the field, they impeded the mobility of our own forces. About
2,000 of our self-destruct mines did not self-destruct as
advertised, and the Department, which commented on this report,
did not disagree.
Current U.S. land mine policy calls for the elimination of
antipersonnel mines, including self-destructing mines, outside
of Korea by fiscal year 2003. Do you have any plans to use
antipersonnel mines--I am talking about other than man the
loop. I have no problem with man-the-loop antipersonnel mines,
but do you have plans to use antipersonnel mines in the war
with Iraq?
The reason I ask is, I know that Great Britain, Spain, and
Australia, who are there with us, have banned these from their
own arsenals.
General Shinseki. Senator, when you say, antipersonnel
mines without manning the loop, you are talking about what we
refer to as the dumb mines, once laid they are----
Senator Leahy. Including, apparently, these 2,000 of our
so-called self-destruct mines did not, so they are kind of
dumb, too.
General Shinseki. Yes. Well, the performance of the self-
destruct mines, of course, it is not perfection, but there is a
very high confidence factor in their ability to be destroyed or
to self-destruct.
Senator Leahy. But it is not a man the loop. I mean,
Claymore has man the loop, but these do not.
General Shinseki. Well, the mines that are laid out there
that can be destroyed would have a man in the loop in terms of
setting the amount of time they are there, whether it is 4
hours, 15 hours, or days, or self-destruct on command, as
opposed to the mines that you and I are familiar with, having
been laid in Korea, and they are essentially there until
removed.
I do not know what plans commanders have for the employment
of mines on operations. It is something that commanders reserve
for those situations in which they have to make that decision,
but those decisions are made at a significantly high level on
whether or not the authority to dispose of and employ mines,
but there are a set of circumstances in which a commander's
formations are at risk, and it has to be protected flanks, or
they find a force that is a significant threat that they want
to fix and expose for attack by other service joint fires.
There are situations in which mines are useful, and I am sure
that commanders have that decision set in their consideration.
I am not aware that there are any dumb mines that will be
employed. In fact, I am confident that there are not.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
I have failed to note that we have a new staff director,
gentlemen, Sid Ashworth, a former Army civilian who has a son
in OCS, Officers Candidate School now, and I believe she is the
first woman to ever head a staff of a defense appropriations
subcommittee in the Congress, so we are pleased to have one of
your former members of your Army with us.
General Shinseki. Thank you. Of course, the chairman and I
did not miss the fact that you had a new staff director, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me wish Sid well and
welcome her to her new position.
FUTURE REQUIREMENTS COSTS
General Shinseki, you have used some candor recently in
testimony that turned out to be painful for you and refreshing
for some of us, and I do not want to get you in trouble today,
but I do want to ask some questions about costs.
This subcommittee appropriated about $365 billion for
funding for this fiscal year, and that will increase when we
receive the supplemental, so this subcommittee wants to
appropriate, I think everyone on this subcommittee, we want to
appropriate sufficient money to meet the needs of the men and
women who serve this country. In order to do that, we need to
try to have some understanding of what future requirements are.
Now, this budget that we are having a hearing on today is
for fiscal year 2004, beginning October 1, and the supplemental
that we will receive apparently in a week or so will be to
cover costs for this fiscal year, fiscal year 2003. Is the
budget that we are discussing now a so-called, ``peacetime
budget,'' which does not include the costs of a potential
occupation of Iraq? I guess that is my first question.
General Shinseki. That is correct. It is a budget that does
not carry any funding for the contingencies we are now dealing
with, either Afghanistan or in Iraq.
Senator Dorgan. I understand. Does it carry funding for the
war against terrorism? There was a previous question asked of
the Secretary about the cost of the war against terrorism, and
that apparently is being funded out of other accounts, so we
will make that up in the supplemental, but with respect to
October 1 and beyond, in the coming fiscal year, does the
budget request that we are now considering include money for
the war on terrorism?
General Shinseki. It does not.
Mr. White. No.
Senator Dorgan. So what I am trying to understand is this.
We are having a hearing to try to think through what will our
obligation be beginning October 1, 2003, for fiscal year 2004.
In order to understand that, we need to understand what all of
the costs and obligations will be. We know for a certainty
this, that we will continue the war on terrorism. That is a
certainty.
We know for a near certainty, I suspect, that we will have
some costs and responsibilities with respect to Afghanistan,
and we know for a near certainty that we will have
responsibilities and costs with respect to Iraq, and if what
happens at the end of the week is what we expect will happen,
my guess is that will be some kind of an occupation force for a
period of time.
Those are three areas all of which we have some reason to
want to quantify as a subcommittee in order to evaluate what
our obligation might be for fiscal year 2004, beginning October
1. Can you help us with any three of those areas, not with
respect to the supplemental. I am talking about with respect to
the new fiscal year budget and the appropriation request that
we are going to want to be considering.
General Shinseki. I can only apologize Senator, that when
the fiscal year 2004 budget was put together the data that you
are asking about was not refined enough to be able to be
included in it, and any potential discussion about what the
operation--an operation in Iraq or any follow-on probably is
undefined at this point, and I think once commanders understand
what that mission will require and state then what it will take
to do that, those numbers will become clearer, but I do not
think either the Secretary or I are able to provide any more
clarity on it today, with respect to Iraq.
Senator Dorgan. Well, that is certainly true with respect
to Iraq, but it is not likely true with respect to Afghanistan
and the war on terrorism. Can you address at least those two,
and then let me come back to Iraq?
Mr. White. The Afghanistan operation and the war on
terrorism, because we have been conducting it for 18 months,
assuming that, the rough cut number that--and I think this came
up in front of previous committees--that we asked for for the
non-Iraq tasks was about $6 billion for fiscal year 2003, and
we got a part of that covered in the omnibus spending bill for
fiscal year 2003, which provided, I think, $10 billion, six of
which went to defense and about, a little under $2 billion came
to the Army, so that partially covers that increment, but that
is roughly what that is.
Senator Stevens. Would the Senator yield to me?
Senator Dorgan. I would be happy to yield.
Senator Stevens. Realizing this question would come up, I
asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to give us a
memo to review how the United States has budgeted for wars in
the past, and I have just received that, a copy of that.
Based on an examination of the previous CRS reviews of
funding for wars and other major military operations, it
appears, with one possible exception, that Presidents have not
requested and Congress has not provided funding for wars in
advance of the start of the operations. Rather, administrations
have requested fundings after the operations have begun, and
Congress has subsequently appropriated monies to meet
specifically documented budget requirements.
That one exception was in the case of President Johnson,
but the discussion I had last evening was, we will get a
request once these new operations have commenced.
We do intend to cover the war against terrorism and the
balance of this year as far as the supplemental is concerned in
a document we should receive next week.
Senator Dorgan. Well, you make a fair point, and the point
I was trying to make is that with respect to the war on
terrorism, and Afghanistan, that, the cost of that I assume
will be built in routinely for the coming fiscal year budgets
for the appropriations requirements.
Senator Stevens. To the contrary. They will be built into
supplementals that are associated with it, and we have funded
Afghanistan on a supplemental basis. We are funding now the
ongoing, continued operations of the Department of Defense in
terms of structural requirements of the Army and other
agencies.
Senator Dorgan. I do not understand that, because at least
with respect to those hostilities that are over with respect to
Afghanistan, those are longer-term recurring obligations, and
we just as well plan for them, but I accept the point you make
how it has been done previously, and I accept the point on
Iraq. Hostilities have not yet begun there.
At some point I assume planning has been underway for an
occupying force and we will be alerted to what the costs are.
General Shinseki, you were candid before another committee, and
I will not ask you questions about that now, because I
understand that created quite a furor inside the Department of
Defense, but I would just say, as one member of the Committee,
we are going to fund what is required to be funded to support
our military, but I would also think it would be helpful for us
to be involved in some of those discussions. I do not think it
is detrimental to have those numbers out there as the planning
ensues, but let me ask one additional question.
ACTIVE COMPONENT (AC)/RESERVE COMPONENT (RC) MIX
We have a lot of men and women of the Guard and Reserve who
have been called up, citizen-soldiers. They have left their
jobs and their families, and they are serving this country
admirably. When you talked about end strength earlier, I
believe you were responding to a question from Senator Inouye.
I think one of the questions for this Congress perhaps, and you
especially, is what kind of call-ups and deployments are
required, to the best that you could estimate, in the next
several years as we begin contemplating occupying forces here
and there?
Do you need an increase in end strength? Do you intend to
continue to rely more heavily on call-ups of Guard and Reserve,
because all of that I think plays a role in the longer-term
discussions about what kind of permanent funding is necessary
and what size of an Army do we need? Can you respond to that?
General Shinseki. As I have testified before, Senator, I
think end strength of the Army is an issue, and the fact that
even before the build-up for a potential Iraq, we were carrying
something on the order of 20,000 to 30,000 Reserve Component
soldiers routinely mobilized for Sinai, for Bosnia, and
missions of the sort, and imposing a requirement, intensity of
OPTEMPO on the Reserve Component, and suggesting that there is
an issue here about taking some of those day-to-day missions
off the Reserve Component and sort of preserving them for these
large emergencies that we have to deal with.
That is all part of the discussion, the study that the
Secretary has us focused on, but I do think in the final set of
study outputs, the end strength of the Army is smaller than the
mission set we are asked to carry. Now, you can reduce the
missions, you can increase the Army end strength to be able to
accommodate, but some place in there, adjustments will be
required.
Mr. White. The other dimension of this, if I might,
Senator, the other dimension, as the Chief said, is the Active
Component-Reserve Component mix of units. There are some
Reserve Component units, military police (MP) units, for
example, that have been constantly mobilized and appear to be
in high demand, and so if that is the case, you ask yourself,
why don't you have them in the Active Component if you are
constantly mobilizing Reserve Components, so one of the things
that Dr. Chu is running a study on that we are all actively
participating in is, is the balance between AC and RC correct
not only in the quantity of units, but in types as well.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I think that is a very important
question, and I hope you will keep us informed of this study,
because I am not asking on behalf of people who do not want to
serve. They are members of the Guard and Reserve. They
understand deployments. Many of them have been deployed a
number of times, but I think the longer-term question is,
should in some of these circumstances there be active duty end
strength increases.
Let me make one final point relative to something the
chairman said. It is my belief that the war against terrorism,
unlike other classic wars where we have had battles that occur
and then recede, and there are surrenders and agreements and so
on, the war against terrorism, I think, will be with us for a
long, long time. It is my expectation that 5 and 10 years from
now we will talk about the cost of continuing to pursue the war
against terrorism.
For that reason, I think we would be wise at least to think
through the proposition of that piece being a part of what we
decide and what we plan for the strength of our Armed Services
to be in order to meet those obligations, rather than to do
that on a supplemental basis year after year.
That is the point I was trying to make, Mr. Chairman.
SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND (SOCOM)
Senator Stevens. If the Senator would yield, the committee
just went down to the Special Forces Command and visited them
in Tampa. There has been a reorganization of the military for
that purpose, and we expect to see funding through that
organization for most of the contingencies that relate to the
war on terrorism. That used to be a support command. It is now
an operational command and will have units of its command in
several other commands throughout the country.
You are right, I think we are on that course now, but so
far the war on terrorism has been funded through supplementals,
and I think when we get--this is an overview of the overall
budget of the Army. When we get the individual components here,
you will see how that is starting to work into the projections,
but I do not think we have a full funding yet for the war on
terrorism in the fiscal year 2004 budget.
General Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, may I just add to your
observation here? In the fiscal year 2004 budget, the Army in
support of our Special Operations Forces in SOCOM are adding
something in the order of, I think, 1,800 additional personnel
spaces. We put an additional $1.1 billion out of Army resources
into Special Operations Command.
Our entire fiscal year 2004 CH-47 production line of 16
aircraft are being provided to Special Operations Command to
replace and to augment the capabilities they have, so the
Army's production of CH-47s next year are all going to SOCOM.
We are taking a year sort of a break before we can get----
Senator Dorgan. As a final point, General, if later this
week your soldiers are ordered to military action, you know
that the prayers of all Americans go with them as you and the
Secretary and others issue those orders.
General Shinseki. We certainly know that.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.
Mr. White. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First I want to say that my loss is your gain with Sid
Ashworth, and she did a wonderful job on military construction,
and I love my replacement, but I sure always will miss her, and
I am very pleased that you did promote her.
I also want to say, the first time I met General Shinseki
was on a runway in Bosnia, and you were really overseeing the
beginning of the ramp-up there, and the first time I went into
Bosnia was with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, and we were
in helmets and flak jackets, and they were shooting at us from
the hills, so we very much feel that you have served our
country so well, and I do wish you well, and I want to say I
think you have done a terrific job.
General Shinseki. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hutchison. And I also want to say, Secretary White,
I really enjoyed working with you, and you have been honest and
straight up with me in all of our dealings, and I appreciate
your service very much.
Mr. White. Thank you.
TRAINING CENTERS
Senator Hutchison. As you know, I am chairman of the
Military Construction Subcommittee, and we have talked about
looking at the foreign bases, and as I have visited many
foreign bases with my colleagues here I have found training
constraints, I have found artillery range constraints, air
constraints, and as a matter of fact, in Germany, for instance,
Grafenwoehr, one of the premier training areas in Germany, only
has 18,000 acres.
And yet I look at the capabilities that our own bases in
America provide, I look at the National Training Center in
California, which has almost 500,000 acres, Fort Bliss has a
million acres, and I just want to ask you, are you looking for
new training locations in other places in Europe? Are you
looking at bringing some of the training capabilities home to
America? Are you looking at Fort Bliss in particular as a
reinvigorated maneuver training area? What are you looking at
to try to, in your transformation, make sure that we are not
looking at these continued training constraints?
General Shinseki. Well, Senator, we are doing all of the
above. Even Grafenwoehr today is not the Grafenwoehr Secretary
White and I trained in many years ago, and we have augmented
the capabilities there because of that very small footprint.
We are trying to stay in touch with our combatant
commanders here. They have been asked to take a look at their
regions and decide what Army capabilities they need forward and
where should they be located, and so we are working with
General Jones and General LaPorte and Admiral Fargo.
We have suggested a long-term strategy is helpful. To
answer the questions about where do we see our interests, the
advantage for forward presence has a very remarkable effect
because of our ability to engage other armies, so there is a
return there, but what do the combatant commanders need
forward, and then we will decide.
What is not needed forward we will bring back to the
continental United States and position them where their ability
to do the things that armies have to do--they have to train
wherever they go, and they have to train aggressively. They
have to be able to deploy from wherever they are stationed, and
then do the best that we can to take care of those soldiers and
families in terms of their lifestyle, and we are doing all
those things.
As one of those youngsters that grew up in the Dona Ana
Desert there at Fort Bliss, I know it pretty well. It is a
wonderful training area.
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN BASES
Senator Hutchison. Well, my question is, are you looking at
the timing, not only of our fiscal year 2004 budget so that we
are preparing, but secondly for the fiscal year 2005 Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC)? Are we going to know what the
needs are going to be of our domestic bases in regard to the
foreign bases before we start shutting down or retooling bases
here?
Mr. White. Well, I think you have to. That is why Secretary
Rumsfeld is pushing the combatant commanders hard to bring in
their recommendations on what the posture of the force should
be in their regions, and why we on the Title X side will then,
and in concert with the combatant commanders, will line up the
investments that we intend to make and realign the force, which
is obviously inclusive of the BRAC initiative back here in the
continental United States, and we do not have much time, in my
opinion, to figure that out.
Senator Hutchison. Well, we certainly do not with the
fiscal year 2004 budget, because we do not want to be putting
one dime in an overseas base that is not going to be long term.
Mr. White. Right.
Senator Hutchison. And we do want to be putting our dimes
in our bases here, and I want to say, I appreciate your
emphasis on installation management. I think that is a very
good sign, because particularly as we begin to look at closing
bases we want to make sure that the ones that are going to be
ongoing are well maintained, and we are seeing money go away
from that into operations, and I know there is always a strain
on the budget, but I think your emphasis there is well put, but
I have been pushing now for 2 years to find out what your long-
term strategies are in the foreign bases, and we have a report
that was due April of last year that still has not come in. I
do understand, however, that there is a new emphasis----
General Shinseki. There is.
Mr. White. There is.
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. And that it is being pushed
now, which I think is good.
RESERVE COMPONENT RECRUITING
A second area that I just wanted to talk about, again, in
talking to so many of the Guard and Reserve units, I am
concerned, not in a time of war, because our troops will always
be there giving in a time of war. The cause is there.
But even back when we were not in a war, I was beginning to
see a little fraying at the edges with family problems and
employer problems with our Guard and Reserve because of the
OPTEMPO, so my question is, are you seeing this? You had a
little bit in your written testimony, General Shinseki, but I
would just ask if you are seeing a problem in recruitment of
Guard and Reserves, and with the heavy reliance that we have on
them because of the drawing down of our troop strength, are we
really looking ahead to make sure that we are in the right
configuration?
General Shinseki. We are looking ahead, Senator, and I
think if there is a time when we can get to a good set of
metrics that says here is what happens to you in a large
mobilization, both this mobilization for a potential Iraq, the
mobilization associated with Afghanistan, the global war on
terrorism, we are going to get some pretty good answers out of
this, so yes, we are looking at that.
I, too, have heard anecdotally and in spot cases concerns
about what the tempo has meant to Guard and Reserve soldiers
and families. There is, I think, a double effect here, and we
have worked very hard with employers to suggest to them that
the service of these military members is important, and we
intend to look after them, but I have heard some of these
comments. I am sure there is more out there than I have heard,
and we are paying attention.
As I indicated, for the first time we saw a drop in a
monthly recruiting target, and so we are focused.
Senator Hutchison. I just hope you will anticipate way
ahead of a crisis point. I am not worried about getting through
this this time, but I am talking about 2 years from now.
Mr. White. Right.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby.
AVIATION TRAINING
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be
as quick as I can. The Army Aviation Training Center, General
and Mr. Secretary, has developed, as you know, a new training
aviation strategy called Flight School XXI.
General Shinseki. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. The program regime focuses on increased
training for aviators in their so-called go-to-war aircraft.
Phase 1 of aviation training, the TH-67 training helicopter is
shortened by 20 weeks here. Phase 2 of the training in the
aviators' advanced aircrafts of choice has increased in length,
it is my understanding.
General Shinseki. That is correct.
Senator Shelby. This training includes a significant
increase in time spent in training simulators. Sixty-eight
million dollars in the fiscal year 2003 budget remain unfunded,
seriously unfunded, $68 million in fiscal year 2003, $147
million in unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2004, and
between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2009 the Army faces a
Flight School XXI funding shortfall of approximately $1
billion.
Flight School XXI obviously is of particular concern here.
What are your thoughts on that, General?
Senator Stevens. General, let me interrupt. I have been
called to a meeting on a matter close to my heart and my State,
so Senator Inouye has some additional questions. Do you have
some additional questions, Senator?
Senator Hutchison. No.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye, will you chair the balance
of the hearing?
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Go ahead, General.
What are your thoughts on that? I know it is a shortfall. You
have got an important program.
General Shinseki. In the fiscal year 2003 budget we are
looking at Flight School XXI, and we continue to adjust the
budget to meet the needs here, but as you indicated, we have
taken a 32-week phase 1, two-phase aviation training, taken a
32-week program and shortened it to 20 and given more time in
high-performance aircraft.
Senator Shelby. Where you need it, right?
General Shinseki. Where they are needed, and that means
that aviators are getting to units much better-prepared to
participate in unit-level training.
Senator Shelby. So that is the program the way you have
devised it, is it not?
General Shinseki. That is correct.
Mr. White. Yes.
General Shinseki. That is correct, and that is the way it
is, and as in all new initiatives, you are not able to fully
fund it initially, and so we continue to look at the
adjustments during the budget year. It is in the program as
well.
Senator Shelby. I want to help you fund it everywhere I can
up here with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye.
General Shinseki. Sir, I appreciate the help. It is an
important program for our aviation community.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, do you have any comments on
that?
Mr. White. No. I am a Fort Rucker graduate, and I
absolutely agree with the direction, more hours in go-to-war
aircraft.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. White. Simulation is healthy, produces a better-trained
aviator to go to the force, and I think that is what we all
want.
LOGISTICS TRANSFORMATION
Senator Shelby. Thank you. I have one more concern, Army
logistics transformation. Under the current acquisition
process, as I understand it, the Army provides requirements to
an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) who designs the
system, provides initial provisioning, and hands it off to the
Government for life cycle support. This as-delivered model then
drives the Government's spares, manning, and maintenance
requirements for that system.
Once the hand-off occurs, it is my understanding that no
Government agency conducts a methodical and continued analysis
of the fielded system over time to support what we call an as-
sustained model, the results of which could provide invaluable
information to the customer and could save huge amounts of
operations and maintenance dollars. Better system sustainment
measures--that is, metrics--are needed to improved the Army's
acquisition and logistics systems.
For example, I have been told that the AH-64 transmission
was engineered for 2,500 hours of use, but the actual average
useful life is about 2,000 hours. This difference affects
operations at the lowest levels in terms of budgeting, spares
storage and manning. It affects the institutional Army in terms
of materiel buys and extended depot lines. The program managers
(PM) and program executive officers are affected in that they
now may have a big engineering problem.
Given the focus here, what is the Army's plan to develop a
weapons system sustainment model containing robust metrics to
accurately reflect the true cost of life cycle systems
sustainment and force readiness? I know that is a mouthful, Mr.
Secretary, but both of you understand it well.
Mr. White. Sure.
General Shinseki. Senator, you have described where the
Army has come----
Senator Shelby. Right.
General Shinseki [continuing]. Over the last 3 years. Three
years ago, our logistics community sat here and acquisition
community sat here.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
General Shinseki. Today the Army G-4, our logistics
officer, now sits with the acquisition community, and when we
talk about design of a system, it is the life cycle interest,
it is not just the design up front and the fielding. It is, how
do we think this is going to result in sustainment costs and
retirement costs at the back end of any weapons system, so that
is a first major piece.
General Paul Kern is our logistics war-fighter at Army
Materiel Command, a terrific commander who was missioned to do
this logistics transformation initiative, and he has pulled
that together in rather significant ways.
Senator Shelby. This could save the Army, all of us a lot
of money in the long run.
Mr. White. No question.
General Shinseki. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. I know that is what you are----
General Shinseki. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. But you have got to do the metrics here.
Mr. White. That is right.
General Shinseki. And he is in the process of putting
together the metrics for the whole system. When you look at the
nose cone on an attack helicopter, the Target Acquisition and
Designation Sight (TAD) Pilot Night Vision System (PNVS) nose
cone, probably the most expensive piece on the air frame, and
if you continue, it continues to have problems and you continue
to replace it, well, that is one approach to it.
Another approach is, you take it, you redesign it so you
are not replacing it quite as often, and it reduces the number
of mechanics and number of inventory parts that you have to
hold, so all of this is a broad-gauged, a very refreshing
approach that General Kern is after and I think in the long
run, there are going to be huge dividends to be paid.
Senator Shelby. Well, like the name, life cycle is
important.
General Shinseki. Absolutely.
Mr. White. That is right, and we should as a separate
matter, because you have a strong interest here, get General
Kern in to talk about logistics transformation, because it
affects the research and development (R&D) command, as you and
I have talked about----
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Mr. White [continuing]. How the logistics operators
interface not only with the theater support commands on one
end, but with PMs, Program Management Officer (PMOs), and we
will come and give you a separate discussion on that.
General Shinseki. Tied to the depots.
Senator Shelby. We will follow up on that, but I knew this
was what you are doing. We have got to go another step, I
believe, and maybe you are in that process.
Mr. White. We are.
General Shinseki. We are.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
STATUS OF FORCES
Mr. Secretary, the recently released 2002 active duty
status of forces survey of the Army was issued and showed a
satisfaction rating of 59 percent. Now, this is much better
than what it was 3 years ago. I will not go into detail, but
could you submit to the committee your analysis on whether this
is good or bad?
Mr. White. I will do that.
[The information follows:]
Status of Forces
The Army continually tracks soldier satisfaction with quality of
life and job satisfaction matters. The satisfaction level with the
military way of life--59 percent, as reported by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense July 2002 Status of Forces Survey--is good for
soldiers, their family members, and the Army. The Army's own survey for
Active Component soldiers yields similar results. The level of soldier
satisfaction with the quality of Army life increased from 48 percent in
1999 to 59 percent in 2002.
FORCE PROTECTION
Senator Inouye. General Shinseki, looking over the fiscal
year 2004 budget, it appears that the Army will be called upon
to increase its force protection requirements. For example, you
will be providing force protection for the Air Force.
General Shinseki. That is correct.
Senator Inouye. Now, how will that affect your end strength
requirements?
General Shinseki. We have agreed to provide, and I think
today the number is about 8,500 National Guard soldiers who are
providing security for Air Force bases, because their air
police have deployed overseas. To the degree that that is a
number today, we are prepared to accommodate that, and the
dollars for that are provided for the Air Force.
If the Air Force, following this operation, decides they
are going to increase their air police, whether it is Reserve
Component or Active, their inventory, it may not have an impact
on us, but suffice it to say I think in all of these operations
it is not a precise business, and having capabilities that you
can draw on is important, and I think this is a good
demonstration that the end strength business, when you need it,
you need to have the capability on short notice to stand it up,
because there are no other alternatives.
The Air Force requested, we met on this, and we are very
happy to be able to help them for this short period.
Senator Inouye. With this program will the Guard and
Reserve have their own force protection to meet their own
requirements?
General Shinseki. They do. Under the homeland security, all
of us have raised the force protection levels around all of our
installations to include in the local communities where Guard
and Army Reserve units reside.
AVIATION MODERNIZATION
Senator Inouye. General, your Transformation program relies
very heavily upon aviation modernization, and the centerpiece
is the Comanche. Are you satisfied with its progress?
General Shinseki. It is. I will defer to the Secretary for
some of the policy decisions made, because we have just
recently restructured the program, and I think he is eminently
qualified to describe it, but the Army's requirement for the
Comanche is 819 systems.
As a result of an acquisition board decision we have the
first 650 of that recognized for the armed reconnaissance
helicopter. Yet to be determined is the attack version of the
Comanche, and that will come out in further studies, but we
have certainly sustained the requirement for this, and the
Comanche is a key element of our Future Combat System networked
capabilities.
Mr. White. Senator, we just went through a Defense
Acquisition Board cycle on Comanche. We rebaselined the
aircraft, we focused it squarely on the armed scout version for
its initial three blocks of fielding. That is our most critical
need.
The Kiowa has got to be replaced. We restructured the
arrangement with the contractors, Boeing and Sikorsky in this
case, and we brought in outside consultants to look at it, a
group led by General Larry Watts, former Chief of the Air
Force, so I am confident that the program is focused correctly
and now, after 20 years, we have to deliver this aircraft. We
need it, and so the 2004-2009 POM includes 73 of these
aircraft. I think the first one for test purposes is 2007, but
we need to get on with this thing. We will not rebaseline this
program again.
Senator Inouye. Some have suggested that the fixed wing
would do a better job than these helicopters. Do you have any
response to that?
General Shinseki. Senator, for the kind of requirements
that a land force needs in close combat, an armed
reconnaissance helicopter is important, and just where it has
to go to operate and what it has to accomplish, and in
conjunction with unmanned systems, but there is a requirement
for a manned cockpit some place in the loop here. It is about
situational curiosity and situational judgment that a manned
cockpit makes a difference, and for the kind of operations that
ground forces are involved in, an armed reconnaissance
helicopter and an attack platform is key to our operations. It
gets into the close combat support for ground formations.
OPERATIONS IN IRAQ
Senator Inouye. If I may, I would like to make a
clarification. When I asked the question on volunteerism and
the Iraq war, I did not want to suggest that our military can
predict into the future. After all, in a war, there are at
least two sides. We know what we plan to do and what sort of
responses we will have, but at this moment, for example we do
not know what is going to happen to Saddam Hussein--is he going
to walk, or is he going to do some fighting, and if so, where
will the fighting be?
And we read reports in the last 24 hours of his instruction
to his generals to employ chemical and biological weapons
systems, and so all of this would obviously have an impact upon
the cost of war. I realize that it is not possible for the
military or for anyone here to make any specific requirement or
predictions. What I think my colleague wanted to note was that
it would be helpful to us in looking forward as to what the
costs may be to have some idea of what it would mean in
addition to our daily work, that is all.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
And so I would like to--and I speak for other members of
the committee--submit to both of you questions in writing and
requests for your response.
General Shinseki. Certainly.
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to General Eric K. Shinseki
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
legacy force modernization
Question. General Shinseki, the Army budget proposes to terminate
Abrams and Bradley modernization after fielding of modern versions of
each vehicle to only two divisions. This leaves the 3rd Armored Cavalry
Regiment, part of the Counterattack Corps, with Abrams and Bradley
vehicles that are more than 10 years old. Do you believe the Army is
taking excessive risk in not funding the modernization of the Legacy
Force?
Answer. We continue to examine options for the modernization of the
Counterattack Corps, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment included, in order to
maintain the Corps as a strategic hedge for the future. In the
meantime, we are gaining irreversible momentum towards transformation
to the Objective Force. We continue to evaluate the risk in both the
near term and long term and will propose corrective action if
appropriate.
FCS FIELDING SCHEDULE
Question. General Shinseki, given the risk associated with the
Future Combat Systems (FCS), how confident are you that FCS will remain
on schedule and achieve first unit equipped by 2008, and initial
operating capability by 2010?
Answer. We are very confident that we will achieve FCS Increment I
initial operational capability by 2010 and full operational capability
by 2012. FCS-equipped units of action will provide Army and Joint force
commanders with a significant capability that will grow to full
objective capabilities through spiraling and fielding of subsequent
increments. There will be two increments of significantly different
capabilities between 2010 and 2018. Increment I will be fielded in 2010
to 2018, and in 2018, we begin fielding Increment II. Increment I FCS-
equipped units of action will possess the core capabilities needed to
execute the ``how-to-fight'' operational concept.
FCS/OBJECTIVE FORCE ROLE
Question. General Shinseki, what gaps do you feel FCS, or the
Objective Force could be filling in the current conflict in Iraq, if it
were fielded today?
Answer. The potential conflict in Iraq reinforces our efforts to
provide our soldiers and commanders with the best combination of
equipment, training, leaders, technologies, and organizations that
together will assure that we can apply decisive and overmatching
capabilities against any opponent. I am confident that our current
forces will be quite successful in the event of hostilities in Iraq;
however, there are a number of ways--at the strategic, operational, and
tactical level--that the Army's Objective Force could be even more
effective.
The ability of the Objective Force, employing enhanced lift
capabilities, to deploy using multiple unimproved entry points to
overcome anti-access measures or political boundaries, would have
reduced problems in staging for operations. For instance, the rerouting
of the 4th Infantry Division, caused by the unavailability of friendly
ports near the northern border of Iraq, would have been unnecessary.
The increased deployability and modularity of Objective Force units,
coupled with development of advanced air/sea lift platforms not
dependent on improved air/sea ports will significantly reduce Army
deployment and employment timelines greatly increasing the Joint force
commander's flexibility and options. This will increase the chances of
achieving operational surprise or preemption. Objective Force units
will be able to begin operations immediately on arrival, requiring
minimal reception, staging, onward movement, and integration. Moreover,
projected reductions in sustainment requirements and reliance on
strategic-to-tactical battlefield distribution will eliminate the heavy
logistical infrastructures that could hamper operations and constrain
responsiveness. Overall, these improvements could strengthen the
strategic and operational speed, agility, and power of the Joint force.
The Objective Force will allow our combatant commanders to conduct
operational maneuver from strategic distances.
The Objective Force will conduct simultaneous and distributed
operations across the entire Joint operations area. Commanders will
have the ability to conduct continuous operations with minimal
operational pauses, controlling an operational tempo that overwhelms
the enemy's capability to respond. Finally, the Objective Force will
directly attack enemy decisive points and centers of gravity through
air-ground maneuver and fires to extend the reach of the Joint force
commander and expose any part of the enemy force to destruction,
dislocation, or disintegration.
The Objective Force headquarters above brigade will be organized,
designed, trained, and equipped to fulfill command and control
functions as the Joint task force, Joint force land component
commander, or Army forces headquarters with minimal augmentation,
provided by the standing Joint force headquarters and Joint interagency
coordination group ``plugs.'' These headquarters will possess the
inherent capability to interact effectively with multi-national forces,
other agencies, and non-governmental and private volunteer
organizations. This would be a vast improvement over our current
operations in support of U.S. Central Command, where our headquarters
elements required over 2,100 augmentees.
The Objective Force will also resolve the Army's lack of
standardized hardware and software in its current communications
architecture and systems. The Army's Objective Force design will
integrate seamless Joint command, control, communications, computers,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) systems with
linkages to current forces, Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, other
agencies, and a knowledge-based C\4\ISR architecture as the means for
achieving situational awareness and battle command--the art and science
of applying leadership and decision making to achieve mission success.
This allows for automated spectrum and information dissemination
management, continuous situational awareness, real-time synchronization
of fires and maneuver, and the ability to effectively develop the
situation out of contact. The Objective Force will provide our
commanders with information-enabled forces capable of distributed and
simultaneous operations.
Lessons learned and current operations reinforce that maneuver
forces require a range of fire support that can provide close, all
weather, responsive, and accurate fires. The Objective Force possesses
enhanced lethality through networked fires encompassing Joint fires and
organic capabilities for line-of-sight, beyond line-of-sight, and non-
line-of-sight fires, deliverable in any conditions of terrain, weather,
or time. Joint sensor-to-shooter links can rapidly bring lethal effects
on enemy targets. The Objective Force takes the next step by harnessing
all-source fires, attack aviation, and intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance systems to deny the enemy freedom of action, support
friendly maneuver, and destroy enemy forces and high-value targets.
The Joint interoperability provided by the Army's Objective Force
will better complement and enable the capabilities of each of America's
Armed Services. The Objective Force will provide unparalleled agility
and versatility by conducting operational maneuver from strategic
distances and by allowing the combatant commander to open multiple
fronts. The tailorable command and control headquarters and combined
arms formations of the Objective Force, with their enhanced
deployability and reduced logistical footprint, will leverage America's
strategic reach to address any mission or contingency. In short, the
Army's Objective Force will hasten the achievement of the combatant
commander's joint operational objectives throughout the course of
future campaigns using a combination of speed, power, and knowledge,
ensuring decisive victory.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
RECONSTITUTING DEPLOYED FORCES
Question. General Shinseki, today we have a large number of forces
forward deployed in preparation for a possible war with Iraq, while we
simultaneously pursue elements of terror globally. Do you believe we
will be able to reconstitute our deployed forces in an orderly manner
for a sustained war against terror while meeting our many other
commitments around the globe?
Answer. We are confident that we can balance unit reconstitution
with our global commitments. Army forces will be an integral component
of coalition efforts in post-conflict Iraq to provide a more secure and
stable environment that will enable the Office of Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance to transition the governance of Iraq to an
interim Iraqi administration. Despite these continuing commitments in
Iraq and elsewhere in support of the global war on terrorism and other
directed missions, the Army will undertake a disciplined, orderly
reconstitution of those forces involved in combat. We will use our
experience with reconstitution after returning forces from Operation
Desert Storm, Bosnia, and elsewhere to inform and refine our efforts.
The Army, in coordination with the Office of Secretary of Defense, the
Joint Staff, Central Command, and other regional and functional
combatant commanders will determine the priority and timeline for unit
reconstitution.
RESERVE COMPONENT PAY CONSOLIDATION
Question. I understand the Office of Secretary of Defense would
like to consolidate the Active, National Guard, and Reserve Military
Pay Accounts into one Account that would be managed by the Active
Component. Do you think we can make a significant change like this
without jeopardizing the integrity of the Guard and Reserve Military
Pay Accounts?
Answer. Yes, pending the necessary legislative changes, and
coordination of accounting processes and related systems. The Reserve
and National Guard components will continue to have oversight of their
programs without jeopardizing the integrity of their pay accounts.
ADVANCED ARMY RAPID EMPLACED BRIDGE
Question. Last year, you provided the Subcommittee a response for
the record concerning favorable progress being made on the Advanced
Army Rapidly Emplaced Bridge that is also known as the Composite Army
Bridge. For the record, could you provide an update of your assessment
of this important program?
Answer. The Advanced Army Rapidly Emplaced Bridge program continues
to be a success for the Army. The Rapidly Emplaced Bridging System is
an interim system designed to support the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams
(SBCT), which provides tactical bridge support across gaps of up to 13
meters. Current funding levels in the Program Objective Memorandum will
purchase the Army acquisition objective of 40 bridges to support the
SBCTs and provide an interim solution for the Objective Force.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
WHITE SANDS/MTHEL
Question. The Army and our Israeli partners continue to make
progress on the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL) program. I
was very pleased to see that the Army has given strong support to the
program in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request. And I would
like to take this opportunity to thank the Army for its sound
management of this program.
Now that the Army has committed to pursuing MTHEL as its solution
to rocket and artillery threats, can you update us on the status of
negotiations with Israel over how to define the system's requirements?
Has the Army reached agreement with Israel over how to share funding of
the program?
Answer. The U.S. Army, in conjunction with the Israeli Ministry of
Defense and Israeli Air Force, is working to define Israeli MTHEL
requirements for a combat-effective laser system that can be realized
within the cost, schedule, risk, and disclosure constraints of the
MTHEL program. The Army supports the pre-Milestone B development and
delivery of at least one chemical-based MTHEL prototype for the
knowledge and understanding we will glean from the process as we work
to define the directed energy component of our Objective Force enhanced
area air defense system. However, our long-term focus for directed
energy is on the development of solid-state laser technology. While
this requirement process is iterative in nature and complicated by the
diversity of operational and technical requirements, satisfactory
progress is being made. The common operational requirements document
should be completed and sent to the Israeli Ministry of Defense for
validation and use within their acquisition process within the next
several weeks.
The U.S. Army and the Israeli Ministry of Defense have not entered
into a formal agreement on how to share funding for the MTHEL program.
Since Israel's involvement in MTHEL will be via a foreign military
sales (FMS) agreement, the FMS laws under USC Title 22, prohibit the
MTHEL program from being a formal ``cost-sharing'' or ``cooperative''
program. This is a change from the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL)
advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) memorandum of
agreement (MOA) which was governed by USC Title 10 and allows
cooperative research and development efforts and formal cost-sharing
agreements. However, the Army's intent is to make funding contributions
to the MTHEL FMS case as provided for under Title 22. Furthermore, the
Army's intent is for the contributions to equal the FMS funds provided
by the Government of Israel.
The MTHEL program will be conducted under Amendment 6 to the THEL
ACTD MOA. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency general counsel has
crafted the language in Amendment 6 to ensure it complies with FMS laws
under USC Title 22. Authority to begin formal negotiations on Amendment
6 with the Government of Israel will be granted as soon as the
Department of Defense approves the MTHEL summary statement of intent.
Again, Amendment 6 does not state a cost-sharing arrangement for MTHEL.
In order to comply with USC Title 22, Amendment 6 states that Article 5
(cost-sharing) of the THEL ACTD MOA does not apply, and further states
that costs will be apportioned, not shared, in a manner to be
established in the FMS cases.
WHITE SANDS/HELSTF
Question. The Army continues to do a good job managing the High
Energy Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) at White Sands Missile Range.
HELSTF is the only facility of its kind in the world where state-of-
the-art laser testing and evaluation is conducted. Army, Navy and Air
Force laser programs continue to make significant strides because of
this testing capability. But in order to maintain this progress it is
important that the facility's assets be available for testing as
scheduled.
In the last two appropriations cycles combined, Congress has
designated over $12 million for the Navy to do megawatt laser tests for
cruise missile defense. Unfortunately, the megawatt MIRACL laser has
not been available to meet the Navy's needs.
Can you update us on the status of the MIRACL laser?
Answer. The Mid Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) is
undergoing recertification of its subsystems. This recertification is a
critical part of a site-wide program to enable the HELSTF to continue
to provide world-class support to the directed energy weapons
development programs of all the Services. The MIRACL device itself, its
optical train, and the Sea-Lite beam director are in good condition and
ready for use. The pressure vessels and associated piping systems that
supply reactant gases to the laser are being inspected to insure that
they can be used safely. This inspection will be completed by mid-May.
All activity required to enable the safe and effective operation of the
MIRACL will be completed by July 1, 2003.
Question. Does the Army have a plan to bring this laser back on
line so the Navy can move to its next phase of testing?
Answer. The MIRACL will be exercised on July 1, 2003, in a ``burn-
in'' test to demonstrate that the MIRACL can be operated safely and
effectively. This test will be conducted at a power level in excess of
one megawatt of output power. This power level is adequate to meet the
Navy's test requirements. The test preparations have already started,
and the Army is confident the system will be available to the Navy in
mid July after it is refueled.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
TRAINING RANGES
Question. Given the current state of the Army's existing training
ranges and training centers and the anticipated demands of the Stryker
Brigade Combat Teams and the proposed Objective Force, are you
satisfied those ranges and training centers can meet the needs of the
transformed Army? Does the proposed fiscal year 2004 budget fully fund
the identified needed upgrades?
Answer. The Army has a solid range modernization program in place
that fully supports the training requirements of the Stryker Brigade
Combat Teams (SBCT). Ranges are under construction, in design, or in
the Army program that support the transformation of the six SBCTs. We
have 11 range projects for which the construction contracts will be
awarded in fiscal year 2003. We have an additional 10 projects that are
contained in the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget. Other projects
are programmed for fiscal year 2005. This range modernization effort
includes a significant improvement to our training infrastructure in
Alaska and Hawaii. These locations previously had not been modernized
to the extent of ranges on our installations in the continental United
States. We are correcting that situation.
We do, however, have shortfalls in our ability to operate these and
other ranges Army wide. In fiscal year 2004, our range operations
shortfall to fund our critical requirements is $5.1 million, Operations
and Maintenance, Army (OMA); $1 million, Operations and Maintenance,
Army Reserve (OMAR); and $2.4 million, Operations and Maintenance, Army
National Guard (OMNG).
Our Integrated Training Area Management program, that is an
integral part of range operations, is similarly under-funded in fiscal
year 2004. The shortfalls are $6.9 million, OMA; $0.3 million, OMAR;
and $7.7 million, OMNG.
With regard to our Objective Force ranges, we are still in the
early stages of defining standard range requirements based on the
operational capability of the Future Combat Systems (FCS). Our
definition of those range requirements, combined with stationing plans,
will determine the specific range requirements for the Objective Force.
We intend to capitalize on programmed ranges wherever possible by
adding capability to programmed range modernization projects where
Objective Force units will be stationed.
Question. Are you satisfied with the current locations and manning
of the existing national-level training centers?
Answer. Although we are satisfied with both the current locations
and manning levels at all of our combat training centers (CTCs), we
must continually reevaluate how we replicate and incorporate
operational lessons learned, technological advances, and asymmetric
threats into the training program ensuring that our soldiers and units
are trained to the highest possible standard against emerging threats
and that our CTCs remain as the Army's premier collective training
opportunities.
Based upon lessons learned from previous and current operations,
the Army is pursuing development of a ``deep-attack'' training
capability for Army attack aviation units that would offer the same
degree of realism and standards that the Army provides ground maneuver
units at CTCs. Our intent is to include the deep operations assets of
all Services. For aviation units in United States Army Europe, the Army
conducts an annual deep attack exercise into Poland. For aviation units
in the continental United States, the Army is looking at conducting
exercises at either the National Training Center (NTC) in Fort Irwin,
California, or at the Western Army Aviation Training Site (WAATS) in
Marana, Arizona.
A proof-of-principle exercise was conducted at NTC in April 2002,
and one is planned this year at WAATS. The exercise at WAATS will
integrate live, virtual, and constructive training capabilities. Live
forces will use the multi-service training areas in the greater WAATS
area to include ranges managed by Luke Air Force Base, Marine Corps Air
Station Yuma, and the Yuma Proving Grounds. Simulations will be
generated from Fort Hood, Texas. A corps commander will serve as the
exercise director and will provide the effects coordination cell as a
player at the operational level. Depending upon the availability of
headquarters, options are being explored to establish an Air Force air
operations center to control the air war. Live forces will include an
aviation brigade headquarters, an attack helicopter battalion, a
general support aviation company and a Multiple Launch Rocket System
battalion. Potential Air Force assets include attack aircraft from Luke
Air Force Base. All live assets that are not available will be
incorporated through simulations. Based on the outcome of this exercise
and of the exercise previously conducted at NTC, the permanent training
location in the United States will be determined.
Question. Given the need for joint training opportunities, and
considering the work that the Joint Forces Command is doing in this
area, do you see any major changes to the tactics, techniques, and
procedures at the Army's national training centers? If so, what changes
do you anticipate?
Answer. The overriding principle governing training at Army major
training centers is ``train as we fight.'' To this end, the Army
requires forces participating in training at major training centers to
perform the tasks they will during operations, with the equipment they
must use during operations, under the conditions they will face during
operations, to the standard required for mission success, and with the
other organizations they must operate. We have worked diligently to
replicate these operational requirements at each Army maneuver combat
training center and believe we have been successful for our targeted
training audience--brigade headquarters and battalion-level units. To
the extent that these units operate with and accept services from other
Services, we strive to integrate in training these requirements for
interoperability tactics, techniques, and procedures. For example, each
maneuver combat training center incorporates Air Force and/or Navy or
Marine Corps close air support. When warfighting doctrine evolves, or
when we discover through operational lessons learned that we need
different emphasis in our training on interoperability tasks,
conditions, standards, or participants, the Army aggressively seeks to
update training at our major training centers. A good example is our
initiative to adjust training conditions at centers to better replicate
contemporary operational environments.
The Army welcomes the work being done by the Joint Forces Command
to ensure there are adequate venues for forces to train on joint and
interoperability tasks and that such training offers proper realism.
This emphasis will undoubtedly improve the realism and rigor of
interoperability training conducted at Army major training centers.
______
Questions Submitted to Thomas E. White
Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
INDUSTRIAL BASE
Question. Secretary White, the decision not to modernize the
Counterattack Corps affects not only the Army, but the industrial base
as well. What steps do you plan to take to mitigate the adverse impact
on the industrial base as a result of the lack of modernization funding
in the fiscal year 2004 Army budget?
Answer. Army Transformation required cancellation of certain
programs to fund a variety of transformational initiatives to achieve
greater war fighting capability over the long term. We assessed the
risks to the industrial base from these program cancellations and,
where we judged necessary, we have taken steps to mitigate adverse
impacts. We saw two major risks to the industrial base as a result of
the decision to not modernize the Counterattack Corps. Both of these
risks involved maintaining viable armor system production capabilities
at two production facilities: the Lima Army Tank Plant in Ohio and the
United Defense combat vehicle production facility in York,
Pennsylvania.
The first risk involves the General Dynamics' combat vehicle
fabrication capability at the Lima Army Tank Plant. We judged that risk
as unacceptable since Lima initially had an insufficient workload to
remain viable as a production facility for the fabrication of the
Marine Corps' Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle and the Army's FCS
ground vehicles. To mitigate this risk, the Army has restructured some
programs and now has sufficient work to sustain Lima in active
production until these new programs are brought into production.
The second risk involved maintaining the United Defense's combat
vehicle production facility in Pennsylvania. We recognize that this
facility would also be a likely candidate to manufacture FCS ground
vehicles in the future. We expect that the production facilities in
Pennsylvania will remain viable and open through calendar year 2004
because of a continuation of their current fiscal year 2003 Bradley
upgrade work. With this expectation and acceptance of risk, we did not
program fiscal year 2004 funding for Bradley upgrades to protect that
portion of the industrial base.
While we cannot guarantee additional work from support for fielded
systems, foreign sales, and reprocessing vehicles from operations in
Iraq, the Army is looking hard at workload projections after calendar
year 2004 and identifying fiscal year 2005 options which might be
needed to protect any United Defense combat vehicle fabrication
capability determined essential for future production. Those options
will consider United Defense work on development of manned FCS non-line
of sight gun system, unmanned ground systems, foreign sales, and other
new non-traditional business. All of the other industrial base risks
from not funding the Counterattack Corps are judged acceptable.
We expect fiscal year 2003 funding and other work to keep essential
skills active through the end of calendar year 2004, given that final
vehicle deliveries are scheduled for June 2005. The program funding for
system sustainment and technical support will transition in fiscal year
2006 from procurement to the Operation and Maintenance, Army account.
We believe United Defense's engineering staff and the Army's own in-
house staff will be able to sustain the vehicles made by United
Defense.
The shortage of Bradley upgrade funding is manageable, but there
are two key issues we must address. The first issue is how we will fund
the required technical support to the fielded fleet. For fiscal year
2003, the Army will have to fund the technical support from operations
and maintenance accounts. That will present a problem for us because we
will be addressing not only peacetime requirements but also operational
requirements associated with the global war on terrorism and operations
in Iraq. Obviously, we will finance the highest priority operational
requirements first and defer those which are lower priority. A second
issue is whether key suppliers will abandon the supplier network as we
reduce requirements. This is a continuing problem, and we will do more
tradeoff analysis to support decisions, for example, to either
stockpile components or find alternate suppliers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
Question. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are proving to be extremely
valuable to our operations. Are we moving fast enough to procure UAV
systems that you believe are necessary to perform your missions?
Answer. The Army is proud to achieve the goal of bringing the first
Department of Defense UAV program into full-rate production in fiscal
year 2003 in the Shadow 200 Tactical UAV. The Army is meeting
deliveries associated with the fiscal year 2003 full-rate production
contract and is on schedule to complete the procurement of 41 systems
by fiscal year 2008 to meet the Army acquisition objective. We are
actively fielding the Shadow UAV systems and their soldiers to the
Army's divisions and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. The Army is also
stationing several additional Hunter UAV units at the corps level and
as recently as November 2002, stationed its second Hunter company with
the XVIII Airborne Corps. By the end of this year, a third Hunter
company will be stationed with the V Corps in Germany. We anticipate
that Army UAVs will experience a high operational tempo as a key system
in any operations in Iraq.
Enlisted soldiers trained at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, operate our
UAVs. We approach UAV system acquisition as a total package to include
training, logistics, system design and performance, science and
technology transition, and life-cycle support. The Army budget for UAVs
ranges as part of the DOD UAV budget from about 17 percent in fiscal
year 2003 to an average of about 9 percent in fiscal year 2005-fiscal
year 2009, demonstrating a highly efficient and productive use of DOD
funds for UAVs. Use and demand for UAVs from combatant commanders,
trainers, and soldiers continues to remain high on all counts.
Question. Is the Army taking advantage of UAV work being undertaken
by the other Services, such as the Navy's work on Fire Scout, which is
based on a small, commercially available helicopter?
Answer. The Navy's Fire Scout program is in the research and
development phase of program maturity. Senior Army personnel have
observed the demonstration flights and are encouraged by the system
developments being undertaken this year, such as conversion of the
rotor system. The Army is considering various rotor wing technologies
to fill UAV roles. Programs ranging from the Defense Advanced Research
Programs Agency A-160 Hummingbird and the unmanned combat armed
rotorcraft programs, the Fire Scout, and the U.S. Coast Guard Eagle Eye
tilt rotor system are some of the potential candidates.
To further support inter-Service cooperation, the UAV program
office is developing a cooperative development memorandum of
understanding with the Navy and Air Force to share UAV program
information. The prime contractor for the Fire Scout, Northrop-Grumman,
is also the prime for the Global Hawk and the Army Hunter UAV system.
As the Army is actively converting the Hunter ground control stations
to the Army's standard production one-system ground control station in
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004, a similar conversion for the
Fire Scout should be affordable and feasible. AAI is the prime
contractor for the Army's TUAV Shadow system, which entered full rate
production in fiscal year 2003, and is the prime contractor for the
USMC Pioneer Improvement Program.
OIL CLEANING/FILTERING SYSTEMS
Question. It is my understanding that the Army changes oil in the
engines of tanks, personnel carriers and helicopters at fixed
intervals. There are documented cases of large-scale diesel equipment
with over 1,000,000 miles of use on unchanged, but filtered, oil. Some
state National Guard units and state transportation agencies have
started to adopt this filter technology. Can you comment on the
applications in the Army that might benefit from an oil cleaning and
filtering system by Gulf Coast Filters of Gulfport, Mississippi, that
reduces and may completely eliminate the need for oil changes?
Answer. Gulf Coast Filters, Inc., has briefed the Army on their
bypass filter system, and we are conducting a study at Camp Shelby on
30 five-ton trucks belonging to the Mississippi National Guard. Gulf
Coast has briefed that their system can reduce services by five fold
and reduce maintenance failure by supplementing the primary filter and
using a finer filtration capability. This fine filtration will reduce
larger physical contaminants such as debris and dirt, but does not
detect or reduce other contaminants such as fuel, coolant, and water,
nor will it determine the status of the specified physical property of
the oil such as viscosity and additives.
Bypass filters do not detect the source of contamination or wear
metals caught in the filter. The Army oil change policy eliminates the
requirement for frequent oil changing based on hours/miles/calendar
days as specified by many technical manuals and lubrication orders. The
Army is interested in lubricants and what happens to them in extra
filtration systems such as Gulf Coast Filters. We are monitoring the
test at Camp Shelby to capture field data to continue our analysis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
FCS VEHICLES
Question. Secretary White, the Army's FCS acquisition concept calls
for competitive and complementary production capabilities of the two
U.S. ground vehicle producers--General Dynamics and United Defense.
Both companies are needed to meet the Army's schedule for fielding the
manned ground variants of the Future Combat System (FCS).
Preservation of United Defense to produce these vehicles is
dependent upon whether or not fiscal year 2004 funding is provided to
it. Currently, no production funding is requested for combat vehicles
produced by UDLP. Without such funding, United Defense's production
facilities will shut down two years before FCS low-rate initial
production begins.
According to recent press reports, the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics was quoted as saying, ``We
must be able to protect at least two competent, cost-effective
competitors on every weapon system we have. It's our job to ensure our
industrial base supports that kind of philosophy.''
Given this situation, how does the Army intend to ensure that
United Defense is maintained as a competent, cost-effective competitor
to General Dynamics as well as a co-producer of the FCS manned ground
variants, given that almost none of the fiscal year 2004 budget request
for combat vehicles will go to United Defense and the same is true in
the out years?
Answer. Army Transformation required cancellation of certain
programs to fund a variety of transformational initiatives to achieve
greater war fighting capability over the long term. We assessed the
risks to the industrial base from these program cancellations and,
where we judged necessary, we have taken steps to mitigate adverse
impacts. We saw two major risks to the industrial base as a result of
the decision to not modernize the Counterattack Corps. Both of these
risks involved maintaining viable armor system production capabilities
at two production facilities: the Lima Army Tank Plant at Lima, Ohio,
and the United Defense combat vehicle production facility at York,
Pennsylvania.
The first risk involves the General Dynamics' combat vehicle
fabrication capability at the Lima Army Tank Plant. We judged that risk
as unacceptable since Lima initially had an insufficient workload to
remain viable as a production facility for the fabrication of the
Marine Corps' Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle and the Army's FCS
ground vehicles. To mitigate this risk, the Army has restructured some
programs and now has sufficient work to sustain Lima in active
production until these new programs are brought into production.
The second risk involved maintaining the United Defense's combat
vehicle production facility in Pennsylvania. We recognize that this
facility would also be a likely candidate to manufacture FCS ground
vehicles in the future. We expect that the production facilities in
Pennsylvania will remain viable and open through calendar year 2004
because of a continuation of their current fiscal year 2003 Bradley
upgrade work. With this expectation and acceptance of risk, we did not
program fiscal year 2004 funding for Bradley upgrades to protect that
portion of the industrial base.
While we cannot guarantee additional work from support for fielded
systems, foreign sales, and reprocessing vehicles from operations in
Iraq, the Army is looking hard at workload projections after calendar
year 2004 and identifying fiscal year 2005 options which might be
needed to protect any United Defense combat vehicle fabrication
capability determined essential for future production. Those options
will consider United Defense work on development of manned FCS non-line
of sight gun system, unmanned ground systems, foreign sales, and other
new non-traditional business. All of the other industrial base risks
from not funding the Counterattack Corps are judged acceptable.
Question. If the Army intends to let United Defense shutter its
combat vehicle manufacturing plant, how does it propose to cost-
effectively support/upgrade the many vehicles manufactured by United
Defense--Bradley Fighting Vehicles, tank recovery vehicles, self-
propelled howitzers--that are forecast to be in the inventory for many
years to come?
Answer. We do not expect that United Defense will close its combat
vehicle manufacturing plant. We expect fiscal year 2003 funding and
other work to keep essential skills active through the end of calendar
year 2004, given that final vehicle deliveries are scheduled for June
2005.
The program funding for Bradley system sustainment and technical
support will transition in fiscal year 2006 from procurement to the
Operation and Maintenance, Army account. We believe United Defense's
engineering staff and the Army's own in-house staff will be able to
sustain the vehicles made by United Defense.
The shortage of Bradley upgrade funding is manageable, but there
are two key issues we must address. The first issue is how we will fund
the required technical support to the fielded fleet. For fiscal year
2003, the Army will have to fund the technical support from operations
and maintenance accounts. That will present a problem for us because we
will be addressing not only peacetime requirements but operational
requirements associated with the global war on terrorism and operations
in Iraq. Obviously, we will finance the highest priority operational
requirements first and defer those which are lower priority. A second
issue is whether key suppliers will abandon the supplier network as we
reduce requirements. This is a continuing problem, and we will do more
tradeoff analysis to support decisions, for example, to either
stockpile components or find alternate suppliers.
Question. Doesn't it make sense to preserve United Defense's combat
vehicle manufacturing capabilities when doing so would simultaneously
meet equipment modernization requirements of the Army National Guard or
maintain previously planned upgrades to an additional division of the
heavy counterattack force?
Answer. The Army recognizes the industrial base capability and
contributions of both United Defense and government-owned depot
facilities. In respect to United Defense, the Army recognizes the
potential contribution that they could make in support of FCS
production, projected to begin in the fiscal year 2007 timeframe. The
Army leadership is currently considering a 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment
modernization strategy that encompasses both the Abrams Tank and
Bradley Fighting Vehicles and intends to provide requested information
to Congress as soon as possible. As a total force, the Army will
continue to support Congressional funding focused on Army National
Guard heavy force modernization.
Question. Secretary White, in the Army's fiscal year 2004 Posture
Statement, General Shinseki and yourself noted: ``In general, the Army
increased funding for programs that are clearly transformational and
support the Defense transformational goals, sustained funding for high
priority systems that will transition to the Objective Force, and
reduced funding for systems not essential to Army Transformation. The
operational risk associated with the decreased funding for certain
current programs is acceptable as long as we field Stryker Brigades on
schedule and accelerate the fielding of the Objective Force for arrival
this decade.''
Given the Army's job to preserve competition in the industrial base
and the risk to the FCS program costs if it is not, is the risk to the
armored vehicle sector acceptable as long as the Army fields Stryker
Brigades on schedule and accelerates the initial fielding of the
Objective Force?
Answer. The Army judges the risk acceptable. I have asked the Army
to look hard at those workload projections for current producers and
identify alternatives which might be needed to protect any combat
vehicle fabrication capability we determine essential for future
production. Those options will consider United Defense work on
development of manned FCS non-line of sight gun system, unmanned ground
systems, foreign sales, and other new non-traditional business. All of
the other industrial base risks from not funding the Counterattack
Corps are judged acceptable.
ARMY HERITAGE AND EDUCATION CENTER
Question. Secretary White, in 2000 the Army leadership made a
commitment to staff the Army Heritage and Education Center at Carlisle
Barracks with 79 people when it was completed. In light of that
commitment, the Cumberland County Commissioners granted 54 acres of
land for the project and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provided $10
million. At present, the facility is suffering because it is
understaffed.
What are the Army's plans for staffing the Army Heritage and
Education Center?
Answer. The Army Heritage and Education Center (AHEC) will move
into their new facility in the spring/summer of fiscal year 2004. There
is still much work to be done in the meantime. AHEC is hiring 21 new
employees this year that will bring them up to 54. AHEC has funding for
54 this year and fiscal year 2004. A U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency
study recommended they hire 18 additional employees for fiscal year
2004, which will give them 72. The study also recommend AHEC add two
more positions in fiscal year 2005 and another five in fiscal year
2006, which would bring AHEC to their recommended total of 79 staff
members.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
WHITE SANDS/THIRD WAVE OUTSOURCING PLAN
Question. Mr. Secretary, I have reviewed your testimony regarding
the Army's Third Wave initiative. And I strongly agree with your
objective of seeking the best value for our taxpayers' dollar. We all
want that. But I do have some questions about the process the Army has
put in place to implement competitive outsourcing.
First, it seems to me that determining what jobs are core and what
jobs are non-core is a very difficult thing. Clearly, certain routine
maintenance duties are not fundamental to the Army's warfighting
mission. But other activities that are not part of the warfighting
mission per se have a very close relationship to how the warfighter
performs.
For example, many of the engineers and skilled DOD personnel in the
test and evaluation field provide critical performance data about the
systems used on the battlefield. To me, this is clearly connected to
warfighting.
Would you provide your assessment of where test and evaluation
activities fit into the Third Wave proposal?
Answer. The test and evaluation function is exempt from the A-76
competitive sourcing process. Congress has, in fact, in Section 802 of
Public Law 96-107, 10 U.S. Code, Section 114, note, barred the use of
A-76 procedures in connection with the obligation or expenditure of
research, development, test or evaluation funds, except for the
operation or support of installations or equipment used for research
and development (including maintenance support of laboratories,
operation and maintenance of test ranges, and maintenance of test
aircraft and ships). OMB Circular A-76 incorporates this statutory
restriction. These restrictions do not foreclose alternatives to the A-
76 process, and such alternatives may merit further consideration in
these functional areas. The Department will not pursue those
alternatives, however, without consulting with Congress and seeking
enabling legislation where appropriate. At this stage, the decision-
making is still pre-decisional with regard to the test and evaluation
function with regard to alternatives to A-76.
Question. Has the Army completed its study of non-core functions
that are to be exempted from outsourcing? If not, when will these
exemptions be determined?
Answer. The Army recently completed the exemption phase of its
study of non-core functions that are to be exempted from outsourcing.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs
made 24 exemption decisions. The exemption decisions will be provided
to the Defense oversight committees as soon as those meetings can be
scheduled.
Question. The issue of security is also very important. It is my
understanding that security personnel and firefighters are exempted
from the Third Wave plan by law. Can you confirm that guards and fire
personnel will remain within DOD?
Answer. Yes, security guards and firefighters are exempted from the
Third Wave plan by law. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 2465, generally
requires government employees to perform security guard and firefighter
functions at installations located in the United States unless the
installation becomes a contractor-operated facility. The issue of
adequate force protection, since 9/11, is a paramount concern. We
appreciate the limited Congressional relief mitigating somewhat the
restrictions of title 10, U.S. Code, Section 2465. Section 332 of the
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,
Public Law 107-314, provides a basis in some circumstances for
arranging for performance by local municipalities of increased
security-guard functions since September 11, 2001. The Department will
comply with these statutes unless Congress provides further relief.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
Question. The Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) is currently
undergoing cleanup as a Superfund site due mostly to contamination by
high explosives from the ammunition. Secretary White, would the Defense
Department proposals for changes to CERCLA and other environmental laws
remove IAAP from the Superfund program? If not, please explain why IAAP
would not be covered by the exemption. If so, please explain why it
would be beneficial to IAAP and the surrounding community for the site
to be removed from CERCLA protections.
Answer. The Defense Department proposals for Readiness and Range
Preservation would not remove IAAP from the Superfund program. DOD's
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act (CERCLA)
legislative proposals clarify when RCRA and CERCLA apply at military
ranges. IAAP is addressing contamination from ammunition assembling
operations, which is distinct from military range activities.
Question. The Army is currently conducting health studies of the
workers and former workers at the IAAP site, alongside similar DOE
studies of former workers at the nuclear weapons facility at the site.
Please update me on the status of the studies, of the contracting
the work, and of release of appropriated funds.
Answer. In response to 2000 and 2001 legislation, DOD is
identifying past and current IAAP DOD workers and notifying them of
possible exposures. The workers have been provided DOD guidance to
facilitate discussions with appropriate officials and health care
providers. As directed, a health study of the IAAP workers has been
developed. The U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive
Medicine (USACHPPM) has contracted with the College of Public Health at
the University of Iowa (UI) to perform the study. As part of Phase I of
the DOD study, UI has identified over 38,000 current and former IAAP
workers. The health study protocol has received Human Subjects
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from UI. In January 2003,
USACHPPM received the revised health study protocol from UI. As part of
USACHPPM's contract approval process, USACHPPM reviewed UI's health
study protocol to ensure it is ethically and scientifically sound, and
that the research complies with the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA). USACHPPM also arranged for peer review of
the health study protocol by the Armed Forces Epidemiology Board and
the DOE Central Beryllium IRB Committee. The final recommendations of
the peer review groups are expected by the end of April 2003. USACHPPM
will then share the recommendations with UI, and incorporate changes
with the UI researchers. An additional $1 million of Congressional
funds for fiscal year 2003 has been received by USACHPPM. Modifications
to the existing contract are underway to incorporate this additional
funding.
Question. Congress directed that testing of workers for chronic
beryllium disease be part of this study. Please update me on the status
of and plans for conducting this testing.
Answer. The DOD IAAP study will contain a complete exposure health
history. Testing for chronic beryllium disease is complex and is under
evaluation through additional expert peer review. Specific beryllium
testing will be performed pending the recommendations of this expert
review.
ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL
Question. Industrial Mobilization Capacity (IMC, formerly UPC)
funds are critical to the arsenals to pay for capacity that is
maintained for national wartime requirements, not for current
contracts, and thus to keep overhead rates reasonable. Last year
Congress approved full funding of IMC, including $14.8 million for Rock
Island Arsenal. Section 8109 of the Defense Appropriations bill did cut
the working capital funds by 8 percent, but with the proviso ``that
these reductions shall be applied proportionally to each budget
activity, activity group, and subactivity group and each program,
project, and activity within each appropriation account.'' Yet I
understand that based on this cut, IMC funding for each of the arsenals
was cut by more than 50 percent.
Were the reductions in Section 8109 applied proportionally to each
budget activity, activity group, and subactivity group and each
program, project, and activity within each appropriation account? If
not, please explain how the distribution of the cuts meets
Congressional direction.
Answer. Section 8109 of the conference report reduced the amount of
the budget request by $400 million ``to reduce cost growth in
information technology development.'' The report allocated $148.6
million of the decrement to Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) and
this reduction was enacted.
The DWCF appropriation of $1,784.956 million was reduced by $148.6
million. After protecting the Defense Commissary Agency ($969 million),
the remaining reduction was spread to all activities. The Army's
portion of the DWCF funding request was $316 million, which consisted
of $89 million for war reserves, $100 million for spare parts
augmentation, and $127 million for IMC funding. Army's share of the
reduction was $67 million.
It wasn't feasible for the Army to apply the reduction to the war
reserves or to the spares augmentation. The war reserve funds had
already been obligated, and the Army was already experiencing
shortfalls in spares funding. The Army's only viable alternative was to
take the reduction in the IMC requirement. The funding reduction was
allocated pro rata to the IMC requirements of the eight ordnance and
five depot maintenance activities.
Question. Does the Army have any plans to restore the IMC funding
for fiscal year 2003?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 DWCF included full funding for the IMC
requirement, which was $119.7 million for the ordnance activities and
$7.3 million for the depot maintenance activities. The DWCF
appropriation was decremented $148 million, in the conference report
(H.R. 107-732) for the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act
(Public Law 107-248, Title V). The Army's share, $67 million, was
applied to the IMC funding. Given the competing demands for limited
funds, it is unlikely the Army will be able to restore the reduction.
The losses from this reduction could be recovered in future
appropriations; otherwise, the loss will be recovered in the ordnance
and depot maintenance customer rates for fiscal year 2005.
Question. Can you ensure us that if Congress approves funding for
IMC in fiscal year 2004, it will actually be used for that purpose?
Answer. If Congress appropriates money to the Army Working Capital
Fund in fiscal year 2004 for IMC, that money will be used for that
purpose.
GROUND SERVICES INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE (GSIE) PLAN
Question. In recent weeks the arsenals have been moving to
implement the GSIE plan to rationalize their workload and make them
more efficient, while keeping them as part of the federal organic base.
Yet at the same time they have been buffeted by a RAND study that
reportedly recommended formation of a government corporation, by Third
Wave plans for privatization, and of course by rumors about the
impending base closure round. I am concerned that the GSIE initiative
will not be given time to work before some other privatization or
reorganization plan is approved. Do you plan to give the arsenals time
to implement the GSIE plan without making other major changes that
could interfere with that effort?
Answer. Formation of the Ground Systems Industrial Enterprise has
been approved, and the Army leadership will be updated regularly on the
progress toward operating efficiently without the need for subsidies.
We are also responding to the Office of the Secretary of Defense on
this. We do not anticipate that any action will be taken to change the
GSIE operating structure before the Army has had a chance to assess the
progress towards this objective.
HIGH MOBILITY TRAILERS AND WASTE
Question. One of the programs I have followed with great interest
is the purchase of high mobility trailers for the humvees. After many
years, these trailers have supposedly been fixed. How many of these
trailers are now in use in the field? How many humvees have been
modified to pull them?
Answer. The High Mobility Trailer has been renamed the Light
Tactical Trailer. Approximately 5,200 trailers have been fielded to
date, and over 10,500 humvees have been modified to pull them.
Question. Have there been any problems with the trailers that are
in use?
Answer. No. They are operating quite well, as we expected.
Question. What are your current plans for purchase of additional
trailers that I understand are still needed?
Answer. The Army plans to procure 5,094 trailers beginning in
fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2009. In fiscal year 2004, we plan
to procure 576 for $9.5 million; in fiscal year 2005, 713 for $11.1
million; in fiscal year 2006, 550 for $8.7 million; in fiscal year
2007, 1,510 for $22.1 million; in fiscal year 2008, 888 for $13.7
million; and in fiscal year 2009, 857 for $13.5 million. The contract
will be a competitive, firm fixed-price contract. The fiscal year 2004
contract is scheduled for award in March 2004.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Inouye. And I would like to thank you on behalf of
all of us for your appearance this morning, and thank you for
your testimony, and General Shinseki, I think everyone here
expressed the sentiment that I would say is felt by the Senate.
We thank you for your service, sir.
General Shinseki. Thank you, Senator. Obviously, without
saying, the service in this position has been the high point of
anyone's service in uniform, but along with that, working with
the members of this committee and patriots in the Congress on
other committees has certainly been a very special privilege
for this soldier, and I thank you all for your support.
Senator Inouye. In a few weeks I hope to travel to Hawaii,
where we will have the 60th anniversary of the formation of my
combat team, the one that I served in, made up of Japanese
Americans, and I can assure you that the men in the regiment
are very proud of you, sir.
General Shinseki. Thank you, sir.
Senator Inouye. Our next hearing of the Defense
Subcommittee is scheduled for Wednesday, March 26, at 10 a.m.
in Dirksen 192. With that, the hearing is recessed. Thank you
very much.
Mr. White. Thank you, sir.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., Wednesday, March 19, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
March 26.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Shelby,
Burns, Inouye, Dorgan, and Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES G. ROCHE, SECRETARY OF THE AIR
FORCE
ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER, AIR FORCE, CHIEF OF STAFF
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Secretary Roche, General Jumper, truly the
eyes of the world are upon you, and we have witnessed with awe
the professionalism of the Air Force and the planning that you
have done. All Americans I think are very proud of you; some
may disagree with the decision to go there, but I don't think
there is anyone that is not proud of our men and women in
uniform and those working with them in civilian life in the
Department of Defense.
These combat missions in Iraq are really telling an amazing
story of the times that you and your predecessors have been
before this committee asking for taxpayers' money to make
certain that you had the type of equipment that you could use
if and when the Commander in Chief asked you to perform the
duties that you are now performing.
I think the whole country is proud of you as I've said, but
I think we are very proud that you are where you are now,
because we know you all and we've worked with you and we know
that you really have in mind the safety of those men and women
that are under your command.
We now begin the review of the fiscal year 2004 budget,
that's what we're talking about today. There is now pending
before us a supplemental request for fiscal year 2003 for the
operations in Iraq and the war on terrorism. That will not be
the subject of the discussion here today. We do believe that
the missions that you are performing today might change this
budget as we go down the line, as far as what's needed in
fiscal year 2004, and we will listen respectfully to any
changes that you might wish to make now or later in your fiscal
year 2004 request.
We personally look forward, I do, to hearing your
statements today and knowing the priorities in the budget
request for fiscal year 2004. I do expect and hope we will hear
your urgent plea for action on the supplemental, which I hope
to get passed before we leave on the Easter recess. And as you
may know, I have made the statement to our Commander in Chief
that if we don't finish by the time for our recess, I don't
think we should leave Washington until we do finish the
supplemental. It's that important, I believe, to the men and
women wearing our uniform around the world.
We will make your statements part of the record in full, I
look forward to your statements today, and before you proceed,
let me call on my good friend from Hawaii, my co-chairman.
Senator Inouye. I want to thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Secretary, General Jumper, I join my chairman in
welcoming you once again to testify before this committee.
Let me join my chairman in saying how proud and supportive
we are of the work done by the men and women of the Air Force
in support of the global war on terrorism and the current
mission in Iraq. I can join my chairman in assuring you that
this committee will do all it can to support the Department's
effort.
Senator Stevens. Senator Burns, do you have a statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo our
feelings, I think I, along with the rest of my colleagues and
you, try to offer our men and women who are wearing the uniform
right now, especially the Air Force, not only have the training
and the equipment to complete the mission that we have, and
also get them home safely. We are very supportive of your
organization, your leadership, and of course the role that all
people are playing right now who wear the uniform of this
country and believe in the same precepts that we do.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me echo the comments you
have made and my other two colleagues, Mr. Secretary, and
especially to the men and women who serve under you for your
service to our country. I'm going to have to go to the floor of
the Senate for about 15 to 20 minutes at 10:30, but I want to
come back. I do have a series of questions I want to ask. And
again, it's always a great opportunity to hear from General
Jumper, and thank you for your service.
Senator Stevens. Let me remind the committee that we have
these high tech microphones now, and you have to push the
button, but the light shows underneath it rather than on top.
Be sure you turn it on when you're going to speak.
Secretary Roche, we should all have a moment of silent
prayer for the souls of those who have already lost their lives
in this endeavor, and I do hope you will agree that we should
just stand here in a moment of silence before we begin this
testimony.
Secretary Roche. I would be honored, Mr. Chairman.
[A moment of silence was observed.]
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Those visions on the television bring back memories to
Senator Inouye and myself, and I think others on this
committee, so we do welcome you today and look forward to your
testimony.
Secretary Roche. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think
I've got the button pushed correctly and it's working.
Thank you, sir, and thank you, Senator Inouye and members
of the committee for this opportunity. It is my great honor to
join my colleague General John Jumper today, to represent the
700,000 active, guard, reserve and civilian airmen who are
engaged in defending our nation and serving our interests
around the globe. We are very proud of their honorable service
and unshakable dedication, from combat operations and homeland
defense to the daily efforts that guarantee the readiness,
health, security and morale of our force.
In our travels around the Air Force, as you have traveled
around to many of our bases, we have been impressed and humbled
by the creativity of our airmen, their commitment and their
professionalism.
As we appear before you today, we have close to 50,000
airmen serving at some 50 expeditionary bases in more than 35
countries, plus another 60,000 airmen currently assigned
overseas. We have over 43,000 airmen in the area of operations
as of today. They are fighting the war on terrorism and
defending our Nation's interests even as we speak.
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Air Force has fully
integrated into a joint and coalition force conducting combat
operations in support of our strategic and campaign objectives.
The combined forces' air component commander, Air Force
Lieutenant General Buzz Moseley, who many of you in the Senate
know, commands almost 2,000 Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and
coalition aircraft in a single combined air operation center in
Southwest Asia.
AIR POWER
The air picture in this operation center shows the dense
presence of air power over the entire country of Iraq. If we
could have a camera looking down from far far overhead, with a
blue dot for every American airplane over Iraq, I think you
would be pleased to see the incredible coverage of air power
over that country supporting the forces on the ground and
supporting key objectives. We are targeting the Iraqi regime,
Saddam's command and control systems, weapons of mass
destruction, security apparatus in the regular forces, who have
often used brutal oppression and treachery to sustain the
regime, and the Iraqi military forces engaged against our
marines, soldiers and airmen on the ground.
Our first and parallel campaign, to support the suppression
of enemy air defenses, Scud hunting, and information operations
have and will continue to enable the maneuver of maritime and
special operations forces to operate under the umbrella of air
dominance throughout the theater.
Our extended preparation of battle space since last summer,
consisting of nearly 4,000 combat sorties and year of planning
has resulted in unprecedented flexibility in achieving decisive
effects. The 10 years that we've been in Operation Northern
Watch and Operation Southern Watch have provided us with crews,
about 70 to 75 percent of whom are combat experienced as they
enter into this conflict.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that to date, the Iraqi
Air Force has not flown a single sortie against coalition
forces or the Iraqi people. This is airspace dominance. This is
what General Jumper has been working on for his whole life,
this is what he promised, and we are delivering. This is what
we pledged to deliver to our combatant commanders and to our
Nation, should the President call upon us to do so. Mr.
Chairman, you are quite right, they have performed superbly,
along with their colleagues on the ground and at sea.
TRANSFORMATION
As we prepare for future uncertainty, we fully support the
Department's continuing efforts to balance near-term readiness
and operational requirements with long-term transformation of
our Armed Forces. Our challenge is to fight the global war on
terrorism while simultaneously transforming, and we must do
both.
Now while we face near-term budget pressures, we
nevertheless must invest for the future. Otherwise, we may be
forced to pay more later in dollars and perhaps even in lives.
Of utmost importance to us is our continued focus on
warfighting and delivering a full spectrum of air and space
capabilities to combatant commanders. Through the efforts of
this committee, your colleagues in the Congress, and Secretary
Rumsfeld, I am proud to report that we are currently meeting
these objectives.
HOMELAND DEFENSE
We have some good news to report on calendar year 2002, Mr.
Chairman. It was a year of challenging operations. In calendar
year 2002 we continued our expanded homeland defense mission,
providing 25,000 fighter, tanker and airborne warning sorties.
This was made possible only through the mobilization of over
30,000 airmen in the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard.
They have conducted over 75 percent of all the Noble Eagle
missions and they have done it superbly.
Today we continue this effort, in fact it's a heightened
effort, with more than 200 military aircraft dedicated to
providing combat air patrols, for on-call support to high risk
areas, cities and key facilities in the United States. In
Operation Enduring Freedom, we made joint operations on a
landlocked nation possible. We flew more than 40,000 sorties,
over 70 percent of the coalition air operations, in 2002 alone,
and of our 8,000 refueling missions we are proud to point out
that 55 percent were to Navy and Marine Corps, and coalition
aircraft.
AFGHANISTAN
In Afghanistan, our special operations teams developed new
ways to bring air and space power to bear in a variety of
engagements. Our combat controllers integrated new technologies
and precision weapons to do close air support from 39,000 feet,
using B-1 and B-52 bombers, and at lower altitudes for our Air
Force, Navy and Marine Corps fighter bombers. And we're now
developing better processes to target and engage time-critical
moving targets.
IRAQ
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, we flew 648 Air Force missions in
Iraq, over Iraq. Our colleagues in the Navy and Marine Corps
also flew many hundred missions. To date, in the last 5 days of
this conflict, sir, we have flown over 4,800 sorties over Iraq.
That includes bombers, fighters, our Combat Search and Rescue
(CSAR) and special operators, and our Command, Control,
Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C\2\ISR), as well
as tankers and cargo aircraft. So we have been working quite
hard.
B-1
Continuous improvements in readiness and technology made
these successes possible. With your support we successfully
consolidated our B-1 bomber fleet and improved overall
readiness. Its mission-capable rate was up 10 percent last year
and is now over 71 percent, the highest in history, and we are
proud to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the B-1 has flown over
Baghdad with 24 weapons on each sortie, 24 highly precise
weapons on each sortie.
C-5
The increases funded by this committee and the Congress
that you have supported is paying off well. Sixteen of 20
weapons systems improved mission-capable rates last year. The
C-5B achieved its highest mission-capable rate since 1994, it's
now at 73 percent. The B-2 improved over 50 percent.
A-10 AND F-15 AIRCRAFT
The A-10, a workhorse working with our Army ground forces
right now, is up 8 percent, and our F-15s are up over 5
percent. These are the best mission-capable rates we have
experienced in 5 years and the best annual increases we've
achieved since the mid-1980s.
Mr. Chairman, while we are making great progress in
adapting the Air Force, we face many challenges to our
continued superiority as you are well aware. The increasing
proliferation of advanced surface-to-air missile systems
threatens our ability to gain and maintain air superiority in
potential conflicts. Manned portable surface-to-air missiles
have proliferated extensively, and in fact new ballistic
missile and cruise missile technologies are spreading.
RUSSIAN SU-37
An advanced fighter has already been produced, specifically
the Russian SU-37, that is superior to our best fighter, a
prototype that has not yet been explored.
We are also now facing the undeniable reality that other
nations are investing in American military technologies and
fielding the best our aerospace industry has to offer in their
air forces. While the investment of our good friends and allies
is a great value to our alliances and industrial base, superior
capabilities are now or shortly will be present in American-
produced airplanes that don't fly the American flag. And I
remind you, sir, that in the late 1930s, the aerospace industry
of America, 38 percent of its sales were overseas sales,
because they did not have enough of a market here in the United
States, and some of the best technology was in fact being
exported to other countries in the late 1930s, and some of that
technology, regrettably, we had to face in combat.
AGING AIRCRAFT
Now while other nations are modernizing, we continue to
employ aging systems that are becoming more difficult to
operate and more expensive to maintain. The average age of the
operational Air Force fleet is over 22 years per aircraft. Even
with planned aircraft procurements, the total fleet average age
is expected to increase to 27 years by the year 2020.
We benchmark this by noting how many of existing aircraft
that are flying, Mr. Chairman, were flying prior to my being
commissioned as an Ensign in the United States Navy, or prior
to General Jumper being commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the
United States Air Force. And you should know, all of our tanker
aircraft that are flying today were flying before General
Jumper was commissioned a Second Lieutenant, and a goodly
number of the E models were flying when I was commissioned an
Ensign. I'm old, but these planes are older.
In the way ahead, our proposed fiscal year 2004 budget
addresses a number of our challenges and supports the
Department's priorities. It accelerates our modernization and
joint capabilities and maintains the gains in readiness and
people programs that we achieved last year. Most importantly,
it gets money into our procurement programs and funds essential
capabilities our warfighters need.
I strongly request that you support these major programs so
that we can get our costs out and we can get reliability up.
MANPOWER
Our number one investment priority remains our people. The
budget fully supports our authorized total force end strength,
funds our education and force development initiatives, puts us
on track to eliminate inadequate housing, and reduces out-of-
pocket housing expenses on schedule with Secretary Rumsfeld's
objectives.
We appreciate your continued support of pay raises for our
uniformed and civilian airmen, and they truly, truly appreciate
the way this has been done, with the disproportionate amounts
going to our most senior enlisted.
READINESS
Our readiness budget increases by 6 percent. It funds an
expanded $6 billion flying hours program, and sustains the
positive trends we've achieved in our readiness rates.
Our proposal increases our infrastructure investment
compared to the fiscal year 2003 requested level and keeps us
on track to meet the Department's goal of a 67 year
recapitalization rate by fiscal year 2008.
F/A-22
Finally, I'm proud to report our proposed budget increases
investment in new technologies by 5 percent over last year.
Next year we will fund 20 F/A-22s with new crew, continuing our
move to sustained production rate. The program is improving and
the Raptor is currently meeting or exceeding all key
performance related requirements. We have a structure to do
upgrade spirals to focus on developing systems with inherent
air-to-ground capabilities, and have recently delivered our
initial production aircraft to Nellis Air Force Base.
Now we are experiencing some difficulties with the new
program, and this is one that is dramatically dependent on
software, one of the greatest advances in aviation in our
history. The software integration and test is an issue that we
are battling through. Mr. Chairman, General Jumper and I
personally got involved in this program in July of last year,
and in the course of those 8 months we have airplanes now
either being delivered on time or early. We have taken care of
all foreign object damage production techniques that were
happening with the contractor, we have fixed the problem of fin
buffet, we are making test forms across the board, both in
terms of flying test points, logistic test points.
We have basically narrowed down what needs to be done to
push this aircraft through to completion, and the software
stability is something we're working on very, very hard. It
represents the classic challenge of transitioning from
development to production, and when something is this software-
dependent, it is very difficult to bring everything together,
and then when we bring it together, we try and make it work.
What is different about the program, Mr. Chairman, is we
now have a more realistic cost-estimating regime and a far
better management team in place to anticipate the likely
challenges we will face.
We remain committed to our F/A-22 buy-to-budget strategy,
and will maximize the number of aircraft we procure within the
pre-established budget caps. This serves as an insurance policy
for the taxpayer and an incentive for the Air Force and our
industry suppliers to get it done right. With your support, we
will continue to deliver the only operational system we will
field this decade that puts iron on the enemy.
And if I may add, Mr. Chairman, we are dedicated to
bringing the system on line because it will alter how we fight.
If we can't, John Jumper and I will be the first to recommend
to Secretary Rumsfeld that this program be terminated. We ask
you to give us a chance to deliver the system, a system about
which you would be very proud, a system that will parallel the
C-17, a program that almost died, almost died, and almost died,
and is now being the absolute workhorse of this battle.
More cuts and restrictions at this juncture will only
increase inefficiencies and costs. We need a blessed year or
two of stability to be able to bring this home.
Mr. Chairman, we are also working with Secretary Rumsfeld
and our colleagues to implement a range of sensible management
practices that we believe will help minimize obstacles to a
path of effective future administration of the Department. In
particular, we are looking at measures to transform our
personnel, acquisition, administrative and range management
practices.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
And yes, Mr. Chairman, we absolutely support your point on
the supplemental. Sixty two point some billion dollars is
something that we can't take out of hide, clearly. We see
ourselves going broke sometime in the early summer. We believe
that this is a reasonable estimate of what we need to go
forward, and we certainly agree with you that having the
supplemental dealt with by Easter would be a dramatic boon to
our forces because we would be able to deal with the problem
that we have been cash flowing expenditures because of the war,
leaving us with a number of gaps, and adjusting those gaps with
a supplemental would be a major issue.
We thank you for the investments you've made in our future,
for the trust that you have placed in our concerted effort to
provide America with aerospace dominance.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, it is my distinct pleasure to come
to work every day and work with the finest colleague I have
ever worked with, John Jumper. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. General Jumper.
General Jumper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, it
is a pleasure to be before this distinguished committee again
this year and to be able to talk about our great United States
Air Force. And your airmen, Mr. Chairman, are proud to stand
beside the soldiers, sailors and marines engaged in the
conflict that commands all of our attention today.
Let me add also what a pleasure it is for our United States
Air Force to have this veteran sailor who sits beside me here
today, a graduate of the United States Navy after 23 years and
a commander of a ship, it's a pleasure to have someone who
brings command responsibility and the understanding of command
and warfare to our United States Air Force. He has graduated
from an ancient mariner to an elder airman, and he has made
that transition very well, sir, and I am very proud to serve
with him.
MISSION CAPABLE RATES
Sir, I would say in the present operations, we are seeing
mission-capable rates on our platforms over there between 80
and 90 percent. This has been enabled by the attention this
committee has paid over the last few years to get the parts and
the assets to the people out there who fix these airplanes.
C-17
The secondary effect is the effect it has on retention and
recruiting. When you get the part to the airman on the flight
line to fix the airplane, you have just given that airman our
vote that we care about what he does, and that translates
directly into retention rates and we are enjoying some of the
highest retention rates in the Air Force that we've seen for a
very long time for our experienced airmen. So, I thank you for
all the attention over the years you have paid to that and as
the Secretary pointed out, the C-17 example, we have seen that
great program mature into an aircraft that we just could not do
without in this current conflict.
We have also seen support from this committee on a new
series of weapons like the Joint Direct Attack Munitions
(JDAM), and I'm happy to report that having found the Global
Positioning System (GPS) jammers in and around Baghdad, we were
able to take those jammers out with GPS-aided bombs, the JDAM,
the very bomb the jammer was designed to defeat, because it was
such a great weapon.
OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE
As the Secretary pointed out, we don't do this alone. In
Operation Noble Eagle, over 80 percent of the effort that goes
in to patrolling the skies over America is done by our National
Guard and Reserve. Although today we have the 388th Fighter
Wing from Hill Air Force Base flying Combat Air Patrols (CAPs)
as we speak over Washington D.C., over 80 percent of those on a
day-to-day basis are performed by the Guard and Reserve, and
most of those over the United States today are in fact done by
the Guard and Reserve.
KC-135
As my boss pointed out, we're also dealing with the effects
of an aging force and all you have to do is go out to Tinker
Air Force Base and see the corrosion that is eating away at our
KC-135 fleet to be convinced that you cannot fly airplanes
forever. And we will continue to try to do our best to replace
the worst of those airplanes as soon as we can.
F/A-22
I would also add, sir, to my boss's description of the F/A-
22, in addition to the data he has provided, we also have
talked to the pilots on a day-to-day basis, and the pilots who
are out flying the airplane come back with stories of the most
magnificent increase in combat capability that they have
imagined. The airplane is performing superbly all of the things
that we need the most, the super cruise, the stealth qualities,
and as the boss pointed out, we still have to work on the
software integration problem, but we have devoted our full
attention to this, the Secretary and I, and we see a way
through this. And again, I add my plea for program stability as
we go into the future.
There are many other things that are transformational that
are ongoing with regard to space and other weapons developments
that we're excited about, but the thing that we're most excited
about is our people. And you all get to travel around, you get
to see our people in action out there on the flight lines and
in operation, and I think we can all be very proud of the young
Americans we're putting out there.
LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE
One of the things I like to do is go to Lackland Air Force
Base on Fridays. Every Friday we bring in a thousand new airmen
into our Air Force, and they parade by and it's a wonderful
ceremony. But a fun thing to do is to go sit in a dark corner
somewhere and watch the youngsters get back with their parents
after their parents haven't seen them for several weeks. And if
you look hard enough, after every ceremony, you will see some
young airman standing in front of his or her mother or father
saying yes, mom, it is me, because the parents don't even
recognize the kid they dropped off just a few short weeks ago.
And the dad's standing back saying this ain't my kid, this kid
is standing up straight, saying ma'am and sir, but it is.
SOUTHWEST ASIA
And you go out there and you see them in action. I was
recently at a base in Southwest Asia and I was approached by a
young captain combat engineer with his chief master sergeant,
who came up and saluted, and said, sir, I'm building this
runway. And he's over there building a runway, not a minor
project by any standard. And he says, sir, I started this
runway a while ago, they're trying to send me home in a couple
of weeks because I'm due to rotate. I'm here to tell you, the
chief and I are here to tell you that we're not leaving until
this runway is done, this is my runway. And that's the way they
feel and operate, and we see it out there all the time. It is
something for us all to be proud of.
I love to talk to World War II veterans, you all know this,
but some of them don't know that this generation when properly
motivated are every bit as dedicated and patriotic as any
generation that ever served, and I'm proud to be a part of
that.
AIR FORCE ACADEMY
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me just make one note about the
United States (U.S.) Air Force Academy. The Secretary and I
have devoted personal attention--you notice that there have
been no spokesmen on this issue. This is an issue we're taking
on personally. Your constituents out there who come to you and
ask for nominations to the United States Air Force Academy need
to know that it's a safe place to go, that it's a place where
we devote our full energy to developing officers of high
character and high moral standards.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We will implement a set of corrections at the Air Force
Academy that will return us to those high standards, and again,
the Secretary and I will personally oversee their
implementation and returning the United States Air Force
Academy to the superb institution that it really is.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James G. Roche and General John P. Jumper
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Air Force has an
unlimited horizon for air and space capabilities. Our Service was borne
of innovation, and we remain focused on identifying and developing the
concepts of operations, advanced technologies, and integrated
operations required to provide the joint force with unprecedented
capabilities and to remain the world's dominant air and space force.
The Wright brothers' historic flight in 1903 ushered in the dawn of
a dramatic era of scientific, cultural, and technological advances. As
the Air Force celebrates this centennial of powered flight, we do so
with the recognition that, despite the daunting challenges of a more
dynamic security environment, the next hundred years will witness
equally fantastic achievements. The 2003 Air Force Posture Statement
reflects this optimism. In this report, we relate some of our
accomplishments of 2002 as well as our vision of an innovative and
adaptive force capable of guaranteeing American air and space dominance
for the decades to come. Our successes are America's successes; they
are the direct result of the selfless and unconditional service by men
and women of the Total Air Force and their families.
During the past year, and in the midst of combat and a variety of
contingency operations, we evaluated, implemented, and validated a host
of technological advances, organizational changes, and concepts of
operations. These enabled us to deliver desired effects faster and with
greater precision than at any time in the history of warfare. Such
adaptation is characteristic of our Service, as airmen continually
strive to push innovation ever forward en route to unprecedented air
and space capabilities for combatant commanders, the joint force, and
our Nation. In the year ahead, we will move our expeditionary Air Force
closer to realizing the transformational imperatives of this new era,
machine-to-machine digital integration of manned, unmanned and space
assets, and joint command and control. Our concepts of operations
leverage this integration, and expand our asymmetric advantages in air
and space--advantages that are fundamental to defending America's
interests, assuring our allies and coalition partners, and winning the
Nation's wars.
We recognize the responsibility for America's security is not one
we shoulder alone. We work tirelessly toward developing and training
professional airmen, transitioning new technologies into warfighting,
and integrating the capabilities of our sister services, other
government agencies, and those of our friends abroad to act in the most
efficient and effective manner across all operations--from humanitarian
to combat missions. At the same time, we pay special attention to the
consolidating aerospace industry, our acquisition processes, and our
critical modernization challenges, to ensure we will be able to draw
upon our core competencies for decades to come.
Blessed with full endorsement from the American people, the
Congress, and the President, we will remain the world's dominant Air
Force. We are honored to serve with America's airmen, and we sincerely
appreciate the confidence in our commitment and capability to provide
our great nation with superiority in air and space.
INTRODUCTION
As America approaches the 100th anniversary of powered flight, the
Air Force realizes that the nation is only in the adolescence of air
and space capabilities. Yet we envision a future that will manifest
dramatic advances in propulsion, operational employment, weapons
systems, information technology, education, and training for our air
and space forces. It is a future of unprecedented, seamless integration
of air and space capabilities with joint command and control at the
operational level of war, and machine-to-machine integration at the
tactical level. We are pursuing these changes--some elementary, others
revolutionary--which will dramatically escalate the capabilities
available to the joint forces of the United States, perpetuate American
air and space dominance, and redefine the nature of warfare.
If there was any ambiguity about the nature of the security
environment in this new century, the attacks of September 11, 2001
crystallized the setting. Just as the turmoil of the previous decade
eluded prediction, the dynamic setting of the decades ahead poses even
greater predictive challenges as centers of power and sources of
conflict migrate from traditional origins. No longer will it suffice to
prepare for real and perceived threats from nation-states. Instead,
America must apply the sum of our operational experiences and
experimentation to develop dynamic, flexible, and adaptable forces,
capable of dissuading, deterring, and defeating a much wider range of
potential adversaries, while still assuring our friends and allies.
This fluid setting underscores the need for doctrinal agility, and
expeditious and responsive acquisition, planning, and execution across
the spectrum of capabilities in support of homeland security--from the
most difficult anti-access scenario to humanitarian relief. As new
generations of technology proliferate among potential adversaries, we
also are reminded of the need to keep pushing technology forward. In
less than one hundred years, we elevated from a Kitty Hawk biplane
flying 100 feet on a 12-second flight, to a host of sophisticated,
stealthy aerial vehicles capable of reaching any place in the world,
and an array of satellites that circle the globe continuously. We do
not rest on these achievements, but instead engage a new generation of
innovation. Therefore, our mission is to make calculated research,
development, and procurement decisions with the resolve to integrate
all of our combat, information, and support systems into an enterprise
architecture that contributes joint air and space capabilities to help
win the Nation's wars.
Meeting these requirements also warrants our continued
transformation into an expeditionary force with the culture,
composition, and capabilities to fulfill our evolving operational
tasks. As the scope of global contingencies requiring American
involvement has multiplied, we have witnessed the substantial value of
agility, rapid response, and integration. Thus, we are becoming ever
more responsive in time, technology, and training, and in the process,
we are elevating Air Force contributions to joint capabilities, while
developing our airmen as joint warfighters.
A year ago, Secretary Rumsfeld laid out a number of key priorities
for the Department of Defense (DOD). All of these--from pursuing the
global war on terrorism and strengthening joint warfighting
capabilities, to streamlining the DOD processes and improving
interagency integration--demand across-the-board changes in the way the
Defense Department operates. The Air Force has taken advantage of this
opportunity to evaluate and strengthen our capabilities, and to
fundamentally drive our investment strategy.
As we contemplate more than a decade of unprecedented success using
air and space power, we recognize that we never fight alone. The
emerging interdependence of joint, coalition, and alliance partnerships
throughout a decade of contingency warfare has been a profound lesson
learned. Through cooperative planning, we will realize the full
potential of our Service--bringing to bear fully integrated air and
space capabilities.
It is our imperative to approach this planning and integration with
innovation and vision, fundamentally focused on capabilities. All of
the armed forces are focusing on meeting the Quadrennial Defense
Review's ``1-4-2-1'' force-shaping construct, by defining the
fundamental capabilities required to meet the challenges of a changing
world. These are: to defend the United States through Homeland
Security; to deter aggression and coercion in the four critical regions
of Europe, Northeast Asia, Southwest Asia and the Asian littorals; to
swiftly defeat aggression in overlapping major conflicts while being
capable of decisive victory in one of those conflicts; and to conduct a
number of smaller scale contingencies. A revitalized, capabilities-
focused approach to operational military requirements will allow us to
meet these missions.
Our focus on capabilities for an uncertain future has inspired us
to adapt a new the way we organize, train, and equip our forces. We
have begun by developing Task Force Concepts of Operations (TF CONOPS),
which will define how we will fight and integrate our air and space
capabilities with joint, coalition, and alliance forces. The
requirements that emerge from these operational concepts will guide a
reformed acquisition process that will include more active, continuous
partnerships among requirement, development, operational, test, and
industry communities working side-by-side at the program level.
This process can only be successful with the help of a vibrant
defense industry. Yet today the aerospace industry is consolidating to
a point that threatens to diminish the advantages of competition. This,
in turn, can lead to loss of innovation, diminished technical skill
base, lower cost efficiencies, and other challenges. We must foster
increased competition to ensure the long-term health of an industrial
sector critical to our national security. While the Air Force will
continue to advance the vision and associated capabilities for air and
space, we also must challenge industry in order for it to stay on the
cutting edge of technology and efficient management practices.
Finally, transforming our force will not be possible without a
process to educate, train, and offer experience to the right mix of
Active Duty, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, and civilian airmen
who understand the nature of our changing security environment. To
achieve this, we will evolve what we have traditionally called the
``personnel'' function in new ways so as to blend Professional Military
Education, advanced academic degrees, and assignment policies under the
auspices of ``Force Development.''
This is the United States Air Force in 2003--inherently innovative,
tirelessly dedicated, and comprised of the very best airmen and
capabilities in the world to ensure American security and defend her
interests. This is what our nation expects, and we will continually
meet that expectation.
WHAT WE DO
The United States armed forces exist to fight and win our Nation's
wars, which no service can accomplish alone. The Air Force's pivotal
role is to deliver fully capable and integrated air and space power to
the Joint Force Commander (JFC). By dominating the media of elevation,
the Air Force offers unique warfighting capabilities that leverage the
strengths of surface forces and expand the range of potential effects.
Air and space are realms with unlimited horizons for discovery and
development. While the Air Force has made tremendous strides in
realizing the visions of early airmen and exploiting the operational
potential in each medium, we know there is an array of capabilities as
yet undiscovered. As the Air Force strives to realize these
possibilities, we deliver a multitude of air and space achievements for
joint warfighting.
Although relatively short, Air Force history reveals fundamental
competencies that are core to developing and delivering air and space
power--those unique institutional qualities that set the Air Force
apart from the other services and any other military force in the
world. By identifying and keeping these competencies foremost in our
vision, we are able to more effectively advance the unique
capabilities, as well as the ultimate effects, the Air Force provides
to the joint force and the Nation.
The Air Force continually develops areas of expertise that make us
the preeminent air and space force in the world. Previously, we
distilled these into six distinctive capabilities which we referred to
as our ``core competencies''--Air and Space Superiority, Global Attack,
Rapid Global Mobility, Precision Engagement, Information Superiority,
and Agile Combat Support. However, just as our concepts of operations
and capabilities continuously evolve, so also does the way in which we
articulate Air Force competencies. With deeper refinement, we learned
there are more fundamental elements to what we are as an Air Force and
how we develop our capabilities for joint warfighting. These are our
underlying institutional air and space core competencies--those that,
in fact, make the six distinctive capabilities possible: Developing
Airmen, Technology-to-Warfighting, and Integrating Operations. These
three air and space core competencies form the basis through which we
organize, train, and equip and from which we derive our strengths as a
service.
(1) Developing Airmen--The heart of combat capability
The ultimate source of air and space combat capability resides in
the men and women of the Air Force. The potential of technology,
organization, and strategy are diminished without professional airmen
to leverage their value. Our Total Force of Active Duty, Guard,
Reserve, and civilian personnel are our largest investment and most
critical asset. They are airmen, steeped in our expeditionary Service
ethos. Therefore, from the moment they step into the Air Force through
their last day of service, we are dedicated to ensuring they receive
the precise education, training, and professional development necessary
to provide a quality edge second to none. The full spectrum
capabilities of our Air Force stem from the collective abilities of our
personnel; and the abilities of our people stem from career-long
development of professional airmen.
(2) Technology-to-Warfighting--The tools of combat capability
The vision of airmen in employing air and space power fundamentally
altered how we address conflict. As the leader in military application
of air and space technology, the Air Force is committed to innovation
and possesses a vision to guide research, development, and fielding of
unsurpassed capabilities. Just as the advent of aircraft revolutionized
joint warfighting, recent advances in low observable technologies,
space-based systems, manipulation of information, precision, and small,
smart weapons offer no less dramatic advantages for combatant
commanders. The Air Force nurtures and promotes its ability to
translate vision into operational capability in order to produce
desired effects. Our innovative operational concepts illuminate the
capabilities we need, allowing us to develop unsurpassed capabilities
to prevail in conflict and avert technological surprise.
The F/A-22 is demonstrative of this ability to adapt technology to
warfighting capabilities. Originally envisioned as an air superiority
fighter, it has been transformed into a multi-role system. The F/A-22
not only brings to bear warfighting capabilities without equal for
decades to come, but also includes those we did not foresee at its
inception. Collectively, the platform's supercruise, stealth,
maneuverability, and novel avionics will deliver the ability to create
crucial battlefield effects to the hands of the warfighter, and allow
access to revolutionary concepts of operations.
(3) Integrating Operations--Maximizing combat capabilities
Effectively integrating the diverse capabilities found in all four
services remains pivotal to successful joint warfighting. The Air Force
contributes to this enduring objective as each element of air and space
power brings unique and essential capabilities to the joint force. Our
inherent ability to envision, experiment, and ultimately execute the
union of a myriad of platforms and people into a greater, synergistic
whole is the key to maximizing these capabilities. In so doing, we are
able to focus acquisition and force planning on systems that enable
specific, effects-based capabilities, rather than on individual
platforms.
Embedded in our exploration of innovative operational concepts is
the efficient integration of all military systems--air, land, maritime,
space, and information--to ensure maximum flexibility in the joint
delivery of desired effects across the spectrum of conflict, from war
to operations short of war. However, effective integration involves
more than smart technology investment--it also requires investigation
of efficient joint and service organization and innovative operational
thinking. Thus, investments in our people to foster intellectual
flexibility and critical analysis are equally as important as our
technology investments.
Collectively, our air and space core competencies reflect the
visions of the earliest airmen and serve to realize the potential of
air and space forces. We foster ingenuity and adventure in the
development of the world's most professional airmen. We seek to
translate new technologies into practical systems while we encourage
intellectual innovation at every level of war. And, we drive
relentlessly toward integration in order to realize the potential and
maturation of air and space capabilities.
Our proficiency in the three institutional air and space core
competencies underpins our ability to deliver the Air Force's six
distinctive capabilities in joint warfighting. In turn, our
capabilities enable desired effects across the spectrum of joint
operations through our task forces drawn from our air and space
expeditionary forces. The results of this relationship between core
competencies, distinctive capabilities, and operational effects are
manifest in the array of successful missions the Air Force accomplished
in the past year and those we continue to execute.
Expeditionary Construct
Our core competencies reflect a legacy of innovation and adaptation
to accomplish our mission. This point is underscored by the fact that,
in spite of over a 30 percent reduction in manpower in the past twelve
years, we have faced an exponential increase in worldwide taskings.
Intensifying operations tempo (OPSTEMPO) requires significant changes
in the way our force trains, organizes, and deploys to support JFC
requirements. We are a truly expeditionary force--the nature of our
``business'' is deployed operations.
The Air Force meets JFC requirements by presenting forces and
capabilities through our Air and Space Expeditionary Force (AEF)
construct. This divides our combat forces into ten equivalent AEFs,
each possessing air and space warfighting and associated mobility and
support capabilities. A key element of our ability to deliver these
tailored and ready expeditionary forces is our development of Task
Force Concepts of Operations. Our TF CONOPS describe how we fight and
how we integrate with our sister services and outside agencies. They
are the fundamental blueprints for how we go to war. Combined with our
AEF construct--the principal tool we use to present expeditionary
wings, groups, and squadrons--TF CONOPS will guide our decisions in
operational planning, enable us to provide scalable, quick-reacting,
tasked-organized units from the ten standing AEFs; and sustain our
ability to ensure trained and ready forces are available to satisfy
operational plans and contingency requirements.
The AEF construct incorporates a 15-month cycle during which two
AEFs are designated as lead for a 90-day ``eligibility'' period. During
this period, the two are either deployed or on alert for daily,
worldwide expeditionary taskings, for which they are tailored and
presented to the JFC as expeditionary squadrons, groups, and wings
(depending on the specific requirement.) Meanwhile, the remaining eight
AEFs are in various stages of reconstituting, training, or preparatory
spin-up. It is during this preparatory time (approximately two months)
that we integrate the training-to-task of AEF squadrons immediately
prior to their on-call window.
Yet, it is important to note that while our combat forces cycle
through deployment vulnerability periods, they sustain wartime
readiness throughout the 15-month training and preparation cycle--a
critical driver of our 90-day eligibility window. Our AEF cycle thus
precludes the need for ``tiered'' readiness by allowing our combat
forces to remain current and capable for any contingency or operational
plan.
While ensuring necessary capabilities for the JFC, AEF cycles allow
us to provide our airmen with a more stable and predictable environment
in which to train, re-fit, and equip. In addition, AEF scheduling makes
it easier and more practicable for the Air Reserve Component (ARC)
forces--Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and Air National Guard (ANG)--
to bring their essential contributions to bear by allowing them to plan
definitive absences from their civilian employment. This is a critical
advantage of the AEF construct, as ARC forces comprise nearly half of
the forces assigned to AEFs and contribute the majority of forces for
some mission areas.
Operations in 2002
Confident in our air and space capabilities, and committed to
meeting any mission tasked, the Air Force completed an unprecedented
array of operations and exercises in 2002. From the mountain ranges in
Afghanistan and the jungles of the Philippines to the deserts of the
Middle East, and across every continent and body of water, the Air
Force joined with land and naval forces to secure America's national
objectives. With each mission, the joint force grows more capable as it
applies vision, experimentation, and integration to every undertaking.
We do not act as individual services, but in concert as joint
warfighters, as we prevail in the war on terrorism and in all
undertakings.
Assuring our Nation's citizens, the Air Force conducts a range of
alert postures involving more than 200 military aircraft at over 20
airbases for Operation NOBLE EAGLE (ONE). In conjunction with
unprecedented NATO airborne warning support and other U.S. assets, we
have provided continuous combat air patrols over sensitive/high risk
areas, and random patrols over other metropolitan areas and key
infrastructure. Last year, we flew over 25,000 ONE fighter, tanker,
airlift, and airborne warning sorties, made possible only through the
mobilization of over 30,000 reserve component airmen. In fact, the ANG
and AFRC have effected over 75 percent of the total ONE missions. We
will continue this critical mission, as we execute our most fundamental
responsibility--homeland defense.
Throughout Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF), the USAF has
maintained a continuous, steady-force presence in Afghanistan and the
rest of the area of responsibility with more than 14,000 airmen. Air
Force assets provide crucial intelligence and situation awareness,
combat power, and support capabilities for the combatant commander. A
key reason for American military success in the region is the
performance of Air Force special operations airmen. Working in teams
with other special forces, ground units, and coalition elements, airmen
special operators heroically bring to bear the full weight of air and
space capabilities--from the ground. They introduce our adversaries to
the full lethality of our airmen, fully integrated on the ground, in
the air, and from space.
Fully engaged in all aspects of the war on terrorism, from mobility
to close air support, our aircraft and crews flew more than 40,000 OEF
sorties in 2002--over 70 percent of all coalition sorties. Over 8,000
refueling missions marked the linchpin capability for the joint fight--
the tanker force--while the magnificent achievements of airlift assets
rounded out overwhelming mobility efforts. Simply put, Air Force
mobility forces made operations in a distant, land-locked nation
possible.
Beyond air operations, we operated and maintained several
constellations of earth-orbiting satellites, and in 2002 we launched 18
missions with a 100 percent success rate--including the first space
launches using Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles. These activities
bolstered America's assured access to space and ensured vigorous,
global intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), missile
warning, precision navigation and timing, communications, and weather
systems. In addition, manned, unmanned, and space ISR assets not only
delivered unprecedented battlefield awareness, but with the Predator
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), also introduced transformational combat
capabilities.
ONE and OEF levied particularly heavy demands on our security
forces. In CONUS and forward locations, increased alert postures
warranted significant increases in security personnel who constitute a
critical element of our force protection capabilities. These demands
have raised our force protection posture worldwide and have forced us
to adjust to a new ``steady state'' condition. Security forces bear the
brunt of the adjustment effort despite a resultant baseline shortfall
of approximately 8,000 personnel to meet the alert postures. In the
near term, we involuntarily extended for a second year nearly 9,500 ARC
security forces. However, in order to relieve these ARC forces, we
concluded a two-year agreement with the Army for short-term support,
and initiated several ongoing efforts to combine technology, new
processes, and some manpower shifts to achieve a long-term adjustment
to this new era.
As we adjust, we continue to deliver force protection through the
integrated application of counter and antiterrorism operations, and
preparedness for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
explosive (CBRNE) incidents. We employ a tailored selection and
application of multi-layered active and passive, offensive and
defensive measures. Intelligence and counterintelligence programs
support this integrated effort and remain critical to our success. In
this regard, we continued to develop and employ all-source intelligence
systems; cross-functional intelligence analysis procedures; and an
operational planning process to implement Force Protection operations
that deter, detect, deny, and destroy threats. Our goal is to see
first, understand first, and act first.
Though engaged in these security enhancements and the global war on
terrorism, our combat operations were not limited to OEF in 2002. Iraqi
forces fired on coalition aircraft over 400 times during 14,000 sorties
supporting Operations NORTHERN WATCH (ONW) and SOUTHERN WATCH (OSW).
The Air Force maintained a continuous, regional presence of more than
9,000 airmen, while air and space assets provided vital intelligence,
situation awareness, and indications and warning to monitor Iraq's
compliance with United Nations' directives.
Whether on the ground or in the skies, our airmen also conducted a
host of other missions above-and-beyond standing security requirements
around the globe. Even though the war on terrorism is our national
military focus, airmen joined soldiers, sailors, and marines in the
Balkans, South America, Europe, Asia, and around the world to assure
our friends and allies, while deterring and dissuading our adversaries.
Worldwide humanitarian and non-combat evacuation operations
missions remain other key tasks for Air Force personnel. In 2002, for
example, airlift crews exceeded 2.4 million airdropped daily ration
deliveries in Afghanistan, evacuated allied personnel at threatened
locations around the world, and flew typhoon relief missions to Guam,
while our explosive ordnance specialists removed unexploded munitions
in Africa. Yet, while conducting unprecedented food, medical, civil
engineering, and evacuation relief efforts in warring regions, we were
also on call to perform critical, quick-response missions during
natural or man-made crises at home. Through explosive ordnance
disposal, firefighting, law enforcement support, and rapid medical
response expertise, we conducted daily operations in support of local,
state, and federal agencies. During the wildfire season, ANG and AFRC
C-130s equipped with modular airborne fire fighting systems flew nearly
200 sorties while assisting U.S. Forest Service firefighting efforts in
numerous states. In addition, when Hurricane Lili endangered Louisiana,
Air Force aeromedical and critical care forces rolled in with C-9
aircraft to transport and safeguard 40 patients from threatened
hospitals.
Training Transformation
Training is a unique American military strength. As potential
adversaries work to overcome our technological superiority, it is
imperative we enhance this strength through improved proficiency at the
tactical level and integration at the joint level. Training is integral
to our core competencies and the critical enabler for military
capabilities, so we are engaged with the other services, unified
commands, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in
developing and implementing a training transformation plan. Our
objective is to train as we will fight, and increase the joint context
of our exercises through live, virtual, distributed, and constructive
environments. It is the realism of this training that gives us the edge
in combat. This involves not only modernizing the integration of space
and information operations on our ranges, but also planning for their
sustainment to meet future test and training missions while
implementing environmentally sound use and management to ensure long
term availability. Additionally, to expand range support for current
and emerging missions, we are embarking on a new effort to identify and
procure environmental, airspace, and spectrum resources at home and
abroad. Balancing competing economic and environmental needs for these
resources is a growing challenge we face with our regulatory and
community partners. To support this effort, DOD developed the Range and
Readiness Preservation Initiative. This legislation recommends
clarification to environmental laws that, as currently written and
interpreted, can adversely affect resources available to support
training activities at ranges.
Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Exercises, Interoperability Training, and
Experimentation
We advanced joint and combined interoperability skills with our
sister services and those of 104 nations throughout 111 JCS exercises
and Joint Task Force (JTF) experimentation, conducted in 40 foreign
countries. Exercises ranged from large field training such as BRIGHT
STAR, to command post exercises like POSITIVE RESPONSE, to smaller, but
equally valuable, humanitarian exercises, as in the school
construction, well drilling, and medical clinic visits of NEW
HORIZONS--JAMAICA. These activities provided realistic training and
enhanced the effectiveness of all participating nations' forces.
Task Force Enduring Look
Success in future operations hinges upon our ability to learn from
previous operations and exercises. To ensure we learn from ongoing
operations and adapt accordingly, we established Task Force Enduring
Look (TFEL). TFEL is responsible for Air Force-wide data collection,
exploitation, documentation, and reporting for our efforts in ONE/OEF.
The objective for TFEL is clear--provide superior support to the
warfighter, and properly recognize and apply lessons learned during
rather than only at the conclusion of these operations.
Through extensive investigation and analysis, TFEL examines joint
warfighting effectiveness, determines implications, and shapes future
Air Force transformation of expeditionary air and space power. The task
force documents lessons learned in a variety of products that cover
every conceivable subject matter. As derivative campaigns unfold, TFEL
will broaden its assessments in follow-on reports. Applying the lessons
in these reports and adapting from our past experiences will help
ensure we prevail in future operations.
We are able to accomplish the full spectrum of air and space
missions and improve our capabilities through lessons learned, by
focusing on the best way to organize, train, and equip. Creativity,
ingenuity, and innovation are the hallmarks of all that we do, all of
which begins with our people.
WHO WE ARE
``No arsenal and no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so
formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a
weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon
that we as Americans do have.'' President Ronald Reagan, 20 January
1981
America is blessed with vast resources, and chief among these is
her people. In the same way, the Air Force relies on the officers,
enlisted, civilians, and contractors that comprise our Total Force--
Active Duty, Guard and Reserve--for cultural strength and unbridled
skill. Air Force strength will never reside in systems alone, but in
the airmen operating them. Nor will our capabilities improve solely
through technology, but instead through the adaptive insight of our
creative and selfless professionals.
Therefore, we recruit and retain a remarkably diverse group to
ensure we reach the fullest potential of air and space forces. Their
backgrounds reflect the cross-section of American culture--all races,
religions, economic and educational backgrounds, skill and management
levels, men and women--and make this Air Force the tremendous
organization it is today. Just as diverse individual citizens find
unity in the term American, our personnel embrace an identity and
fundamental perspective as Airmen.
The underlying qualities found in all airmen emanate from our core
values--integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all
that we do. Embedded in these core values are the inherent
characteristics of our confident, capable airmen--courage, tenacity,
professionalism, vision, pride, and, when faced with seemingly
insurmountable obstacles, heroism. Indeed, today's airmen carry on the
traditions and visions of the earliest generation of airmen while
preparing for the challenges of the future.
The diversity of our airmen energizes the advancement of America's
air and space power. Airmen embrace transformational ideas and seek to
apply them to every aspect of the Air Force, from organizational
constructs to concepts of operations and employment. They are able
stewards of the nation's space programs, advancing ideas and
technologies for national security, as well as for the environmental
and economic benefit of our Nation and the world. And yet, ultimately
our standout advantage is our warrior airmen themselves, who
demonstrate skills and dedication in combat unsurpassed by any in
history. Whether maintaining safe skies across the United Nations'
sanctioned no-fly zone in Iraq, hunting down terrorists in the jungles
of the Philippines, or paying the ultimate price while rescuing fellow
Americans in a battle on an Afghan ridge, our airmen are proven combat
veterans. Their selflessness resonates the very best of our Service.
Airmen are expeditionary--our natural state of operations is not
``home station,'' but rather, deployed. After two successful cycles,
our AEF construct has been validated as an effective means of meeting
our Nation's expeditionary requirements. Yet we continue to enhance the
construct, by initiating significant organizational change to ensure
nearly every airman belongs to one of the ten AEFs. The effect has been
a change to our airmen's mindset and culture, where an individual's AEF
association cultivates an expeditionary perspective and a clearer
appreciation for joint warfighting requirements and capabilities.
Force Development--A New Leadership Development Paradigm
In the past, we addressed aspects of career development, education,
and assignments individually, but not necessarily in a coordinated,
connected approach. Recognizing this, and to prepare for the future
more ably, we introduced a systemic, deliberate force development
construct that evolves professional airmen into joint force warriors.
This construct coordinates doctrine and policies, concentrated to
provide the right level, timing, and focus of education, training, and
experience for all airmen, while encompassing personal, team, and
institutional leadership skills across tactical, operational, and
strategic levels.
In the 21st Century, we need air and space warriors with mastery of
their primary skills and others who possess competency beyond their own
specialty. However, this diversity must be deliberate to ensure the
correct skills are paired according to institutional requirements.
Force development encourages many to obtain a deep perspective in their
functional area, but at the same time offers the broader perspective we
need to complement our leadership team. We begin this transformation
with the Active Duty officer corps and will eventually encompass the
civilian, enlisted, and Reserve component to better meet the expanding
challenges of tomorrow.
Education and Technical Training--Emphasis on Joint Leadership/Warfare
As opportunities resident in advancing technologies unfold, it is
imperative that the Air Force be able to draw upon a vibrant collection
of educated, technically skilled, and technologically savvy airmen--
both uniformed and civilian alike. We are answering this fundamental
need in fiscal year 2003 with aggressive and innovative initiatives to
enhance the abilities and breadth of our force. Agile, flexible
training is an essential investment in human capital, and our
initiatives will ensure our investment delivers the right training to
the right people at the right time.
In August 2002, we began our groundbreaking Enlisted-to-Air Force
Institute of Technology (AFIT) Program. An initial cadre of senior NCOs
began receiving world-class, graduate education to optimize them for
greater responsibilities and challenging follow-on assignments. We will
also provide a major influx of officers into AFIT, Naval Postgraduate
School (NPS), and civilian institutions. In addition, because more than
42 percent of our civilian force will be eligible for retirement in the
next five years, we are committing significant resources to pay for
advanced education as well as cross-functional career broadening.
Future military missions and contingencies will require greater
sophistication and understanding of the security environment, and our
expeditionary force requires airmen with international insight, foreign
language proficiency, and cultural understanding. We are working
diligently to expand the cadre of professionals with such skill sets
and experiences. Our education initiatives will contribute to a major
corporate culture shift that fosters appropriate development throughout
our airmen's careers to meet evolving force requirements.
Diversity
Foremost among our efforts to enhance the capabilities of our
airmen is a passionate drive for diversity. Diversity is a warfighting
issue; it is a readiness issue. We must attract people from all
segments of American society and tap into the limitless talents and
advantages resident in our diverse population if we hope to reach our
fullest potential as a fighting force. Nurturing rich representation
from all demographics opens the door to creativity and ingenuity,
offering an unparalleled competitive edge for air and space
development. Today's multi-threat world also mandates that we
invigorate in our airmen the ability to effectively think across
cultural boundaries and functional paradigms (or stovepipes). We will
thus recruit, train, and retain airmen without intellectual boundaries,
uniquely capable of integrating people, weapons, ideas, and systems to
achieve air and space dominance.
Recruiting
It takes tremendous effort to identify and develop such airmen, yet
the return for the nation is immeasurable. Increased advertising, an
expanded recruiting force with broader access to secondary school
students, and competitive compensation prepare us to meet recruiting
goals. Despite the challenge of mustering such a diverse and skilled
collection of Americans, we exceeded our fiscal year 2002 enlisted
recruiting goals and expect to surpass fiscal year 2003 objectives. We
will adapt our goals to meet new force objectives; however, the
capacity limitations of Basic Military Training and Technical Training
School quotas will continue to challenge Total Force recruiting
efforts.
Officer recruitment presents similar challenges, yet we continue to
attract America's best and brightest. However, we are particularly
concerned with military and civilian scientists and engineers. We fell
short of our accession goal for this group and have begun all-out
recruitment and retention efforts for these critical specialties. For
example, in fiscal year 2003 we plan to begin a college sponsorship
program to attract scientists and engineers from universities lacking
ROTC programs. In addition, we continue to find recruiting health care
professionals especially difficult, so we are making adjustments to
ensure improvement.
We will also closely monitor ARC recruitment. Historically, the ANG
and AFRC access close to 25 percent of eligible, separating Active Duty
Air Force members (i.e. no break in service.) Continued high OPSTEMPO
may negatively impact our efforts in attracting Air National Guardsmen,
as well as drawing separating Active Duty airmen to the Air Force
Reserve. As a result, recruiting will have to ``make up'' a substantial
portion of accessions from that market by developing alternatives.
Retention
The Air Force is a retention-based force. The critical skill sets
we develop in our airmen are not easily replaced, so we expend every
effort to retain our people--the impetus for our ``re-recruiting''
efforts. Overall retention plans include robust compensation packages
that reward service, provide for a suitable standard of living, ensure
a high quality of life, and retain the caliber of professionals we need
to decisively win America's wars.
For fiscal year 2002, it was difficult to calculate accurate
retention results due to Air Force implementation of Stop Loss.
Nonetheless, we continue to reap the benefits of an aggressive
retention program, aided by bonuses, targeted pay raises, and quality
of life improvements. Introducing the Critical Skills Retention Bonus
for select officer specialties reinforces our commitment to target
specific skills suffering significant retention challenges. However,
many airmen retained under Stop Loss will separate throughout fiscal
year 2003--a fact of particular concern for our rated force.
Bonuses and special pay programs continue to be effective tools in
retaining our members. The ANG has placed particular emphasis on
aircraft maintenance fields, security forces, and communication and
intelligence specialists, among others, by offering enlistment and
reenlistment bonuses, Student Loan Repayment Program, and the
Montgomery GI Bill Kicker Program. Another example is the flexible
Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) program--an important part of our
multi-faceted plan to retain pilots. In conjunction with our rated
recall program, our fiscal year 2002 plan resulted in a substantial
increase in committed personnel. We have a similarly designed ACP
program in fiscal year 2003, and developed extensions to include
navigators and air battle managers.
Summary
Regardless of AEF deployment or home station missions, our airmen
accomplish their duties with firm commitment and resolute action. It's
what we do. It's who we are: a practical, technically sound, ingenious
force of uniformed and civilian airmen derived from this richly diverse
nation to create the world's premier air and space power.
WHERE WE'RE GOING
The first hundred years of powered flight witnessed tremendous and
enduring innovation. We commemorate this centennial during 2003 with
the theme, Born of Dreams, Inspired by Freedom, which recognizes the
remarkable accomplishments of generations of airmen. Today's airmen are
equally impassioned to bring dreams to reality as we pursue our vision
of tomorrow's Air Force, Unlimited Horizon. Through this vision, we
build a bridge from today's existing capabilities to those required to
win tomorrow's wars.
Ultimately our success will be measured by our ability to provide
our forces with assured freedom to attack and freedom from attack.
Achieving such victory in tomorrow's battlespace will demand our full
integration with fellow services, allies, and coalition partners--an
essential part of the expeditionary construct. Through our security
cooperation efforts, we build these international defense relationships
and allied capabilities to ensure we have the access, interoperability,
and international support for our worldwide commitments. Toward this
requirement, we are working with our sister services to develop truly
joint concepts of operations that integrate the full spectrum of land,
sea, air, space, and information warfighting capabilities. When America
places its men and women in uniform into harm's way, we owe them
preeminent resources, planning, and organization to achieve victory
over any adversary.
Capabilities-Based CONOPS
While adapting to the new strategic environment, our principal
focus has been transitioning from a platform-based garrison force to a
capabilities-based expeditionary force. No longer platform-centric, we
are committed to making warfighting effects, and the capabilities we
need to achieve them, the driving force behind our ongoing
transformation. From this point forward, all of our operational,
programming, and budget decisions will be supported by a predefined
capability.
Our emerging TF CONOPS will help make this essential shift by
providing solutions to a variety of problems warfighters can expect to
encounter in the future. Whether detailing our plans for operating in
an anti-access environment or identifying how to deliver humanitarian
rations to refugees, TF CONOPS lend focus on the essential elements
required to accomplish the mission. They cover the complete spectrum of
warfighting capabilities (deep strike, information, urban,
psychological operations, etc.) and enable us to tailor forces
(expeditionary wings, groups, or squadrons) from existing AEFs to meet
JFC's requirements. Responsibility for CONOPS development falls to the
Major Commands, with a senior officer on the HQ USAF Air Staff assigned
to each CONOPS to serve as their ``Champion,'' facilitating the
process.
TF CONOPS directly support Secretary Rumsfeld's efforts to free
scarce resources trapped in bureaucracy and push them to the
warfighter. They will also be the focal point for a capabilities-based
Program Objective Memorandum (POM). In support of this effort, our
Capabilities Review and Risk Assessment analyzes and assesses
shortfalls, health, risks, and opportunities, while prioritizing
required future capabilities. This helps CONOPS developers articulate
any disconnects between required capabilities and developing programs,
while providing senior Air Force leadership an operational,
capabilities-based focus for acquisition program decision-making. TF
CONOPS include:
--Global Strike Task Force (GSTF) employs joint power-projection
capabilities to engage anti-access and high-value targets, gain
access to denied battlespace, and maintain battlespace access
for all required joint/coalition follow-on operations.
--Global Response Task Force (GRTF) combines intelligence and strike
systems to attack fleeting or emergent, high-value, or high-
risk targets by surgically applying air and space power in a
narrow window of opportunity, anywhere on the globe, within
hours.
--Homeland Security Task Force (HLSTF) leverages Air Force
capabilities with joint and interagency efforts to prevent,
protect, and respond to threats against our homeland--whether
within or beyond U.S. territories.
--Space and Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (Space & C\4\ISR) Task Force
harnesses horizontal integration of manned, unmanned, and space
systems to provide persistent situation awareness and
executable decision-quality information to the JFC.
--Global Mobility Task Force (GMTF) provides regional combatant
commanders with the planning, command and control (C\2\), and
operations capabilities to enable rapid, timely, and effective
projection, employment, and sustainment of U.S. power in
support of U.S. global interests--precision delivery for
operational effects.
--Nuclear Response Task Force (NRTF) provides the deterrent
``umbrella'' under which conventional forces operate, and, if
deterrence fails, avails a rapid scalable response.
--Air and Space Expeditionary CONOPS is the overarching context,
which identifies and sequences distinctive capabilities and
broad-based functions that air and space power provide the JFC
to generate desired effects for national military objectives.
The Air Force is transforming around these Task Force Concepts of
Operations. In addition to serving as a roadmap for operators, the TF
construct will form the basis for resource allocation, future system
acquisitions, and POM submissions in order to find capabilities-based
solutions to warfighter problems.
Science and Technology (S&T)--Wellspring of Air and Space Capabilities
Reaching these warfighter solutions rests in large measure with
research and development. Through robust investment and deliberate
focus in science and technology, the Air Force invigorates our core
competency of technology-to-warfighting. Combined with innovative
vision, S&T opens the direct route towards transforming air and space
capabilities. Therefore we continue long-term, stable investment in S&T
to ensure we realize future capabilities, as well as those that may
immediately affect existing systems.
We are improving our S&T planning and collaboration with other
services and agencies to ensure: we: (1) encourage an operational pull
that conveys to the S&T community a clear vision of the capabilities we
need for the future; (2) address the full spectrum of future needs in a
balanced and well-thought out manner; and (3) enhance our ability to
demonstrate and integrate promising technologies. Some of these new
technologies--UAV systems, laser-based communications, space-based
radar, and others--show clear promise for near-term, joint warfighting
applications. Others present opportunities we can only begin to
imagine. We are exploring each of these technologies, and our
investment will deliver the required capabilities of our CONOPS.
Executive Agent for Space
Embedded in all of our TF CONOPS, and indeed within most military
operations, is an extensive reliance on systems resident in space. The
Air Force proudly fulfills the role of Department of Defense Executive
Agent for Space with confidence and enthusiasm. Our ability to execute
this tremendous responsibility stems from a natural outflow of our core
competencies and distinctive capabilities. Accordingly, and in
conjunction with the other services and agencies, we are shaping a new
and comprehensive approach to national security space management and
organization.
Our capstone objective is to realize the enormous potential in the
high ground of space, and to employ the full spectrum of space-based
capabilities to enable joint warfighting and to protect our national
security. The key to achieving this end is wholesale integration:
through air, land, space, and sea; across legacy and future systems;
among existing and evolving concepts of operations; and between
organizations across all sectors of government. We will continue to
deliver unity of vision, effort, and execution to fulfill our mission
of delivering the most advanced space capabilities for America.
Drawing Effects from Space
Our horizon is truly unlimited, extending beyond the atmospheric
environs of airpower to the reaches of outer space. Our proud Air Force
tradition of airpower is joined by an equally proud and continually
developing tradition of space power.
In the early days of the space age, only those at the strategic
level received and exploited the benefits of space capabilities. The
current state of affairs, however, is decidedly different. The former
distinctions between classified and unclassified programs among
military, civil, and commercial applications are growing increasingly
blurred--in some cases, they are virtually seamless. In short, space
capabilities now are woven deeply into the fabric of modern society,
and they have altered forever the way we fight wars, defend our
homeland, and live our lives.
It is in this context and this understanding of the widespread and
increasing importance of space systems that we strive to meet present
and future national security challenges by providing dominant space
capabilities that will:
--Exploit Space for Joint Warfighting.--Space capabilities are
integral to modern warfighting forces, providing critical
surveillance and reconnaissance information, especially over
areas of high risk or denied access for airborne platforms.
They provide weather and other earth-observation data, global
communications, precision navigation and guidance to troops on
the ground, ships at sea, aircraft in flight, and weapons en
route to targets. All of these capabilities, and more, make
possible the tremendous success our joint warfighters achieve
during combat operations.
We will enhance these existing capabilities and, where it makes
sense, pursue new ones such as the Transformational
Communications System (TCS), which will strive to dramatically
increase bandwidth and access for warfighters; and Space Based
Radar, which will complement the airborne Joint Surveillance
Target and Attack Radar System (JSTARS) while migrating Ground
Moving Target Indicators (GMTI) into space. We will also
develop methods and technologies to enhance our nation's
ability to conduct rapid and accurate global strike operations
anywhere in pursuit of U.S. interests.
--Pursue Assured Access to Space.--We cannot effectively exploit
space for joint warfighting if we do not have responsive,
reliable, and assured access to space. In August 2002, the new
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle got off to a strong start
with the successful launch of Lockheed Martin's Atlas V
booster. Boeing's Delta IV program added to the Nation's quiver
of modern launch vehicles with liftoff in November 2002. We
will also pursue advanced and highly versatile reusable
launchers and small expendables with extremely short response
times to achieve long-term assured access, while taking the
necessary steps to maintain and improve our space launch
infrastructure.
--Preserve our Freedom to Act in Space.--We must be able to act
freely in space, or risk losing those capabilities essential to
joint warfighting. We initiated efforts to increase our space
situation awareness, beginning with the new Space Situation
Awareness Integration Office at Air Force Space Command, and a
similar program at the Space and Missile Systems Center. Future
efforts are planned to develop strategy, doctrine, and programs
to improve the protection of our own space capabilities while
denying the benefits of joint space capabilities to our
adversaries.
As it is with all Air Force capabilities, the most important
resource for national space capabilities is neither technological nor
fiscal--it is human. Our Space Professional Strategy fulfills a Space
Commission recommendation to develop space professionals and nurture a
cadre to lead our national security space endeavors at all levels in
the decades ahead. These space-expert airmen will be the core stewards
of space operations, and shoulder the responsibility for aggressively
advancing joint warfighting capabilities into the high ground frontier.
Horizontal Integration of Manned, Unmanned, and Space Assets
The essence of transformation is found in leveraging the nation's
technological dominance to create maximum asymmetrical advantage.
Airmen seek unrestricted boundaries when looking at war planning from a
theater-wide perspective, or talking about national elements of power.
Simply stated, it is in the way we think--we must take advantage of it.
Our foremost objective is to develop the capability to conduct
rapid and precise operations to achieve desired effects and shape the
battlespace for the joint force. This requires interfacing numerous DOD
and national assets--the seamless, horizontal integration of manned,
unmanned, and space-based systems. An essential element is designing
systems that use digital-level, machine-to-machine conversations to
expedite data flow and ensure the JFC receives timely, decision-quality
information. Such integration will dramatically shorten the find, fix,
track, target, engage, and assess (F\2\T\2\EA) cycle. In the end, we
know that neither JFC's guiding operations, nor special operators
putting iron on targets, care what source provides the target data. It
is an effect they seek, and what we will provide.
Key to the warfighter's success is Predictive Battlespace Awareness
(PBA). PBA requires in-depth study of an adversary well before
hostilities begin. Ultimately we want to be able to anticipate his
actions to the maximum extent possible. PBA-derived insights allow us
to utilize critical ISR assets for confirmation rather than pure
discovery once hostilities begin. We are then able to analyze
information to assess current conditions, exploit emerging
opportunities, anticipate future actions, and act with a degree of
speed and certainty unmatched by our adversaries.
Along this path, we are transitioning from collecting data through
a myriad of independent systems (Rivet Joint, AWACS, JSTARS, space-
based assets, etc) to a Multi-sensor Command and Control Constellation
(MC\2\C) capable of providing the JFC with real-time, enhanced
battlespace awareness. Today, this transition is restricted by the
necessity to rely on Low Density/High Demand (LD/HD) C\4\ISR assets.
The limitation inherent in LD/HD platforms forces us to shift their
exploitation capabilities between theaters to cover emerging global
threats and events. This sub-optimizes overall battlespace awareness
and limits our efforts at predictive analysis. In the interim,
responsive space-based ISR assets will help mitigate our over-stressed
LD/HD systems. Yet ultimately, we need a synergistic combination of
military and commercial assets, advanced data processing capabilities,
and assured reachback to achieve true battlespace awareness.
In the future, a single wide-body platform employing tunable
antennas and sensors--Multi-sensor Command and Control Aircraft
(MC\2\A)--will replace many of the C\4\ISR functions of today's
specialized, but independent assets. Air, ground, and space assets will
comprise the MC\2\C, which will elevate Joint Forces Air Component
Commanders' ability to command and control air assets. Additionally,
every platform will be a sensor on the integrated network. Regardless
of mission function (C\2\, ISR, shooters, tankers, etc), any data
collected by a sensor will be passed to all network recipients. This
requires networking all air, space, ground, and sea-based ISR systems,
command and control (C\2\) nodes, and strike platforms, to achieve
shared battlespace awareness and a synergy to maximize our ability to
achieve the JFC's desired effects.
Uniting joint and coalition information presents the most difficult
challenge in providing one common operational picture for key decision
makers. We are working closely with our sister services to eliminate
the seams between existing systems and taking the necessary steps to
ensure all future acquisitions are planned and funded to meet the
interoperability requirements of future joint CONOPS.
A critical element of successful information merging is
communications, as bandwidth is finite and requires careful management.
Long-range or penetrating systems must communicate beyond the horizon
despite adversaries' attempts to exploit or interrupt these links. To
counter disruption, all systems must be reliable, secure, and
bandwidth-efficient. The PBA construct facilitates this objective by
eliminating constrictive, stove-piped communications systems while
emphasizing networked operations.
We will realize the vision of horizontal integration in our TF
CONOPS. GSTF, for example, will deliver the right-sized mix of assets
with appropriate sensors capable of penetrating into enemy airspace.
Such sensors may be low observable and/or expendable, mounted on either
ISR platforms or imbedded into strike platforms. Sensors may consist of
special operations forces, inserted before the commencement of
hostilities, who communicate with attack platforms during combat via
secure electronic writing tablets, annotating targets and threats on
the imagery display with a stylus. As technology progresses, and where
it makes sense, a significant portion of ISR functionality will likely
migrate to space, affording 24/7 persistence and penetration. Likewise,
advanced defensive counterspace capabilities will afford these systems
protection from enemy actions.
Combining manned, unmanned, and space-based assets with dynamic
C\2\ and PBA transforms disparate collection and analysis activities
into a coherent process, allowing the warfighter to make timely,
confident, and capable combat decisions. This is what the Air Force
brings to the joint fight. It is what air and space warriors are all
about. We unlock the intellectual potential of airmen who think across
the dimensions of mediums and systems capabilities, for the joint
warfighter.
Addressing the Recapitalization Challenges
Despite new CONOPS and visions for future capabilities, we cannot
rely on intellectual flexibility to eradicate the challenge of old
systems and technologies. Though creativity may temporarily reduce the
negative impacts of aging systems on our operational options,
ultimately there are impassable limits created by air and space system
hardware issues.
We have made tremendous strides in modernizing and improving
maintenance plans for our aircraft; however, the tyranny of age has
introduced new problems for old aircraft. Reality dictates that if we
completely enhance the avionics and add new engines to 40-year old
tankers and bombers, they are still 40-year old aircraft, and subject
to fleet-threatening problems such as corrosion and structural failure.
This is equally true for our fighter aircraft, where once cutting-
edge F-117s now average over 15-years of age, and mainstay air-
dominance F-15Cs are averaging nearly 20-years of service. With double-
digit surface-to-air missile systems, next-generation aircraft, and
advanced cruise missile threats proliferating, merely maintaining our
aging fighter and attack aircraft will be insufficient. In fact, the
dramatic advances offered in many of our TF CONOPs cannot be realized
without the addition of the unique capabilities incorporated in the F/
A-22. Simply stated, our legacy systems cannot ensure air dominance in
future engagements--the fundamental element for joint force access and
operations. We will thus continue executive oversight of F/A-22
acquisition in order to ensure program success. While keeping our
funding promises, we will procure the only system in this decade that
puts munitions on targets, and which is unequally capable of detecting
and intercepting aircraft and cruise missiles.
Although ultimately solving these recapitalization challenges
requires acquisition of new systems, we will continue to find
innovative means to keep current systems operationally effective in the
near term. We know that just as new problems develop with old systems,
so too do new opportunities for employment, such as our employment of
B-1s and B-52s in a close air support role during OEF. We will also
pursue new options for these long-range strike assets in a standoff
attack role for future operations.
Unlike with the aforementioned air-breathing assets, we cannot make
service life extensions or other modifications to our orbiting space
systems. Satellites must be replaced regularly to account for hardware
failures, upgrade their capabilities, and avoid significant coverage
gaps. Additionally, we must improve outmoded ground control stations,
enhance protective measures, continue to address new space launch
avenues, and address bandwidth limitations in order to continue
leveraging space capabilities for the joint warfighter. We are
exploring alternatives for assuring access to space, and a key aspect
of this effort will be invigorating the space industrial base.
Finally, it is imperative that we address the growing deficiencies
in our infrastructure. Any improvements we may secure for our air and
space systems will be limited without a commensurate address of
essential support systems. Deteriorated roofs, waterlines, electrical
networks, and airfields are just some of the infrastructure elements
warranting immediate attention. Our ability to generate air and space
capabilities preeminently rests with the ingenuity of visionary ideas,
yet intellectual versatility must be supported by viable systems and
structures to realize our Service potential.
Organizational Adaptations
Commensurate with our drive to enhance air and space capabilities
is our identification and development of organizational structures to
aid these advances. In 2002, we initiated numerous adaptations to more
efficiently and effectively exploit Air Force advantages for the joint
warfighter.
Warfighting Integration Deputate
Comprehensive integration of the Air Force's extensive C\4\ISR
systems is paramount for our future capabilities. This requires an
enterprise approach of total information-cycle activities including
people, processes, and technology. To achieve this, we created a new
Deputy Chief of Staff for Warfighting Integration (AF/XI), which brings
together the operational experience and the technical expertise of
diverse elements (C\4\ISR, systems integration, modeling and
simulation, and enterprise architecture specialties.)
This new directorate will close the seams in the F\2\T\2\EA kill
chain by guiding the integration of manned, unmanned, and space C\4\ISR
systems. AF/XI's leadership, policy, and resource prioritization will
capitalize on the technologies, concepts of operations, and
organizational changes necessary to achieve horizontal integration and
interoperability.
Success has been immediate. AF/XI worked with the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Air and Space Operations to champion increased Air Operations
Center weapon system funding in the fiscal year 2004 POM, which
accelerated the stabilization and standardization of the weapon system.
Subsequently, the base-lined weapon system now has a modernization
plan, which is both viable and affordable. AF/XI also led analysis that
highlighted imbalances among collection and exploitation capabilities.
As a result, we plan to accelerate ground processing and exploitation
capabilities within the Future Years Defense Program to close the gap.
Major contributions in management of the complex information
environment will continue, as AF/XI makes better use of scarce
resources, allowing the Air Force to provide the joint warfighter the
capabilities to dominate the battlespace.
Chief Information Officer (AF/CIO)
Partnered with AF/XI, the AF/CIO shares responsibility to spearhead
the transformation to an information-driven, network-centric Air Force.
These two organizations orchestrate the integration within our
information enterprise, and establish processes and standards to
accelerate funding and ensure priorities match our integrated
information vision.
The AF/CIO's specific mission is to promote the most effective and
efficient application, acquisition, and management of information
technology resources under an enterprise architecture. The goal is to
provide the roadmap for innovation and to function as a blueprint for
the overall leverage of valuable information technology. Enterprise
architecture will use models and processes to capture the complex
interrelationships between the Air Force's systems and platforms. A
resultant example is basing Information Technology (IT) investment
decisions on sound business cases, approved Air Force standards, and,
ultimately, how a particular technology contributes to specific
capabilities. Additionally, we are institutionalizing enterprise
architecting as a key construct in defining mission information
requirements and promoting interoperability.
Currently, the wide variety of IT standards limits C\2\ processes
and information and decision support to our warfighters. The AF/CIO-AF/
XI team is tackling this and all other integration challenges as they
develop an enterprise architecture that spans the entire Air Force,
while also staying in harmony with other services' efforts.
Blended Wing
We do nothing in today's Air Force without Guard, Reserve and
civilian personnel working alongside Active Duty airmen. A fundamental
initiative of Air Force transformation is formalizing this integration
under the Future Total Force (FTF). As part of the FTF, we are pursuing
innovative organizational constructs and personnel policies to meld the
components into a single, more homogenous force. FTF integration will
create efficiencies, cut costs, ensure stability, retain invaluable
human capital, and, above all, increase our combat capabilities.
A key effort is to ``blend,'' where sensible, units from two or
more components into a single wing with a single commander. This level
of integration is unprecedented in any of the services, where Active
Duty, Guard, and Reserve personnel share the same facilities and
equipment, and together, execute the same mission. In essence, blending
provides two resource pools within a single wing--one, a highly
experienced, semi-permanent Reserve component workforce, offering
stability and continuity; the other, a force of primarily Active Duty
personnel able to rotate to other locations as needs dictate.
The first blended wing opportunity arose with the consolidation of
the B1-B fleet. The move left behind an experienced but underutilized
pool of Guard personnel at Robins AFB, GA. Meanwhile, the collocated
93rd Air Control Wing (ACW) (Active Duty E-8 Joint STARS), suffered
from high tempo and low retention. Hence, Secretary Roche directed that
the two units merge, and on 1 October 2002, the blended wing concept
became a reality with the activation of the 116th ACW.
The 116th ACW tackled many pioneering challenges: from legal
questions surrounding the command of combined Active-Reserve component
units, to programmatic issues with funding the program from two
separate accounts, to integrating different personnel systems used by
each component. Airmen from both components are working through these
issues successfully, making the 116th an example for future FTF
blending. Yet, some additional Title 10 and Title 32 provisions still
need to be changed to make the FTF a reality. Meanwhile, parallel
efforts, such as placing Reserve pilots and maintenance personnel
directly into Active Duty flying organizations under the Fighter
Associate Program, add to this leveraging of highly experienced
Reservists to promote a more stable, experienced workforce.
As organizational constructs, blending and associate programs lay
an important foundation for a capabilities-based, expeditionary air and
space force, which are inherently flexible and ideal to meet rotational
AEF requirements. In a resource-constrained environment, blending
promotes efficiencies and synergies by leveraging each component's
comparative strengths, freeing funds for modernization while sustaining
combat effectiveness, and effecting warfighting capabilities greater
than the sum of its parts.
Combat Wing
The comprehensive evaluations in our ongoing transformation include
examining our wing structure. Given all of the lessons gleaned from
expeditionary operations over the past decades, we asked, ``Could we
derive advantages in revised wing organization for both force
development and combat capability?'' The answer was ``Yes,'' and we
enacted changes to create the Combat Wing Organization (CWO).
The central aspect of the CWO is the new Mission Support Group.
This will merge former support and logistics readiness groups, and
contracting and aerial port squadrons, as applicable. Within this
group, we will hone expeditionary skills from crisis action planning,
personnel readiness, and working with the joint system for load
planning and deployment, to communications, contingency bed down, and
force protection. Currently, all of these aspects exist in skill sets
that none of our officers have in total. But the new expeditionary
support discipline will address this, and provide our officers the
expertise in all aspects of commanding expeditionary operations. With
this reorganization, each wing will now have one individual responsible
for the full range of deployment and employment tasks--the Mission
Support Group Commander.
The restructuring will retain the Operations Group; however, group
commanders will become more active in the operational level of war.
Squadron commanders will be role models for operators in the wings,
ready to lead the first exercise and combat missions. Similarly, we
will establish a maintenance group responsible for base-level weapons
system maintenance and sortie production rates. Like their operator
counterparts, maintenance squadron and group commanders will be role
models for all wing maintainers. Meanwhile, medical groups will retain
their current organization, although we are working changes to home and
deployed medical operations for future implementation.
Flying and fixing our weapons systems, as well as mission support,
are essential skill sets. Each requires the highest expertise,
proficiency and leadership. The new wing organization allows commanders
to fully develop within specific functional areas to plan and execute
air and space power as part of expeditionary units, while also giving
maintenance and support personnel focused career progression. This re-
organization does not fix something that is broken--it makes a great
structure exceptional.
Acquisition and Business Transformation
To achieve our vision of an agile, flexible, responsive, and
capabilities-based air and space force, we must transform the processes
that provide combatant commanders with air and space capabilities. An
example of this in action is the Air Force's efforts to carry out the
responsibilities of DOD Space Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). The
Secretary of the Air Force delegated those responsibilities to the
Under Secretary of the Air Force, under whose leadership immediate
benefit was realized. Adapting an effective process already in use at
the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the Under Secretary
instituted a new streamlined space acquisition program review and
milestone decision-making process. This new process was used for the
first time in August 2002 in developing a contract for the National
Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System. This effort
creates an opportunity for the Air Force to apply performance and cost
accountability to defense industrial firms through their chief
financial officers and board of directors by linking executive
compensation to contract performance.
In addition to the major process changes for DOD space, the Air
Force's Business Transformation Task Force directs and integrates
further process improvement and adaptation. Core business and
operations support processes--such as acquisition, logistics,
maintenance, training, medical and dental, among others--are crucial,
as they ultimately determine our overall enterprise effectiveness and
directly sustain combat capabilities. An additional category of
processes called ``enablers'' completes the Air Force enterprise.
Examples of ``enablers'' include management of human resources,
finances, contracts, property plant and equipment, and information. The
enablers are important as they facilitate our core capabilities and
determine the overall efficiency of our enterprise.
The Air Force will enact business transformation from an integrated
enterprise perspective, examining every process and associated link.
Accordingly, we will employ industry best practices and identify
management metrics to improve process efficiency without degrading our
enterprise effectiveness; expand our customer's self-service management
capability and free up needed resources for the operational
communities; and provide real-time, accurate financial data for better
decision making. Already, acquisition reform has effected notable
improvements, including:
--(1) Streamlined our acquisition and contracting regulations,
replacing lengthy prescriptive sets of rules with brief
documents that emphasize speed, innovation, sensible risk
management, and elimination of time-consuming process steps
that have little value. As previously mentioned, our new
National Security Space acquisition process is an example of
progress in this area.
--(2) Created a Program Executive Office for Services to bring new
efficiency to the growing area of services contracts. This key
area, which accounts for nearly half of our procurement budget,
had no prior centralized coordination and oversight.
--(3) Developed and initiated System Metric and Reporting Tool
(SMART), putting real-time program status information on
everyone's desktop. This web-based application pulls data from
dozens of legacy reporting systems to give everyone from
program managers up to senior leadership direct visibility into
the ``health'' of hundreds of acquisition and modernization
programs. When fully deployed in fiscal year 2003, it will
automate the tedious and laborious process of creating Monthly
Acquisition Reports and possibly Defense Acquisition Executive
Summary reporting to OSD.
--(4) Empowered ``High Powered Teams'' of requirements and
acquisition professionals to create spiral development plans to
deliver initial capability to warfighters more quickly, and add
capability increments in future spirals.
--(5) Designed a Reformed Supply Support Program to improve the
spares acquisition process by integrating the support
contractor into the government supply system. Contractors now
have the same capability as government inventory control points
to manage parts, respond to base level requisitions, track
spares levels, and monitor asset movement.
--(6) Continued, with OSD support, expansion of the Reduction in
Total Ownership Cost (R-TOC) program, to identify critical cost
drivers, fund investments to address them, and generate cost
savings and cost avoidance. We also created standard processes
and a business case analysis model to use for initiatives
within R-TOC. In fiscal year 2003, OSD allocated $24.9 million
no-offset investments to R-TOC that will return $53.2 million
through fiscal year 2008. A planned $37.1 million investment
across the FYDP will save a projected $331 million in
operations and maintenance through fiscal year 2009.
These initiatives are only the beginning of a comprehensive and
aggressive approach to reforming business practices. Our efforts today
will have a direct effect on efficient and effective air and space
capability acquisition, both immediately and in the future.
Ensuring Readiness
Integrating systems and expanding business practices will not only
have dramatic effects on air and space capabilities, but also reduce
readiness challenges. However, we still face daunting, but
surmountable, obstacles. We must overcome a multitude of installations
and logistical issues to secure flexible and timely execution of
expeditionary requirements for joint warfighting.
Reconstituting and reconfiguring our expeditionary basing systems
and wartime stocks is a critical element of our force projection
planning. While we made significant strides in funding, we require
additional investments in bare base systems, vehicles, spares,
munitions, and pre-positioning assets. Our infrastructure investment
strategy focuses on three simultaneous steps. First, we must dispose of
excess facilities. Second, we must fully sustain our facilities and
systems so they remain combat effective throughout their expected life.
Third, we must establish a steady investment program to restore and
modernize our facilities and systems, while advancing our ability to
protect our people and resources from the growing threat of terrorism
at current, planned, and future operating locations--at home or abroad.
We are making progress. Improved vehicle fleet funding allowed us
to replace some aging vehicles with more reliable assets, including
alternative fuel versions to help meet federal fuel reduction mandates.
Targeted efficiencies in spares management and new fuels mobility
support equipment will improve supply readiness. In addition, our
spares campaign restructured Readiness Spares Packages and repositioned
assets to contingency sites. Moreover, to increase munitions readiness,
we expanded our Afloat Prepositioning Fleet capabilities, and continue
acquiring a broad mix of effects-based munitions in line with the
requirements of all TF CONOPS.
Finally, our ``Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan'' calls
for major transformation in financial and infrastructure capitalization
to ensure Air Force hardware is safe and ready to operate across the
threat spectrum. To support this plan, we increased funding in fiscal
year 2004 for depot facilities and equipment modernization. We also
began a significant push to require weapon systems managers to
establish their product support and depot maintenance programs early in
the acquisition cycle and to plan and program the necessary investment
dollars required for capacity and capability. Additionally, we are
partnering with private industry to adopt technologies to meet
capability requirements. The results from these efforts will be
enhanced, more agile warfighter support through the critical enabler of
infrastructure.
Expanding AEF Personnel
The attacks of 9/11 significantly increased workload and stress in
a number of mission areas for our expeditionary forces. Manning for
these operations is drawn from our existing AEF packages. In order to
accommodate increased contingency requirements we are exploring options
to augment the existing AEF construct. Recent and ongoing efforts to
maximize the identification of deployable forces and align them with
AEF cycle, assisted in meeting immediate critical warfighting
requirements. However, some career fields remain seriously stressed by
the war on terrorism. Accordingly, our efforts focus on changing
processes that drive requirements not tuned to our AEF rhythm. We
developed formulas to measure, and gathered quantitative data to
evaluate, the relative stress amongst career fields to redirect
resources to the most critical areas. We also began a critical review
of blue-suit utilization, to ensure uniform airmen are used only where
absolutely necessary, and maximize the use of the civilian and contract
workforce for best service contribution and military essentiality.
We are refocusing uniformed manpower allocation on our distinctive
capabilities to reduce the stress on our active force. Additionally, we
are carefully considering technologies to relieve the increased
workload. These efforts exist within our longer-term work to
reengineer, transform, and streamline Air Force operations and
organizations, and have allowed us already to realign some new recruits
into our most stressed career fields.
Summary
As the two mediums with the most undeveloped potential, air and
space represent the largest growth areas for national security and the
greatest frontiers for joint warfighting. As such, air and space
operations will play an ever-increasing role in the security of America
and her allies. The Air Force will exploit technology, innovative
concepts of operations, organizational change, and our ability to
embrace creative ideas and new ways of thinking. We will bring to bear
the full suite of air and space capabilities for tomorrow's joint force
commander--drawing from every resource, integrating closely with all
services, and overcoming any obstacle to succeed.
NEXT HORIZON
The events of the last year have emphasized the dynamics of a new
international security era. The decade of new states following the Cold
War has been followed by the rise of non-state actors, many following a
path of aggression and destruction. Yet, just as America adapted to new
global dynamics in the past, we will again confront emerging challenges
with confidence and faith in our ability to meet the demands of
assuring freedom.
The Air Force remains dedicated to drawing on its innovation,
ingenuity, and resolve to develop far-reaching capabilities. The
ability to deliver effects across the spectrum of national security
requirements is the cornerstone of the vision and strategy of Air Force
planning and programming. In conjunction, and increasingly in
integration with ground, naval, marine, and other national agency
systems, the Air Force will play a central role in elevating joint
operations. We recognize the greatest potential for dominant American
military capabilities lies in the integration of our air and space
systems with those of other services and agencies, and our success in
this objective will be evident in every mission to deter, dissuade, or
decisively defeat any adversary.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. General, you are
right about our generation. Most of our members were drafted
for that war, and this force is all volunteer, and it is a
different generation, and we do stand in awe. I see those young
men and women walking across that desert carrying those packs,
which includes all that protection gear for chemical and
biological warfare, and to see what they're doing, we have to
marvel at them. You have done an excellent job in training them
and they are demonstrating that training now, and I just can't
tell you how proud we are of them.
I am a little worried about what you said, though, Mr.
Secretary, about the age of the equipment that our young people
are flying. I don't know many people other than a few cracks,
that are going to work in a 50-year old car.
Senator Burns. Me.
Senator Stevens. I already said cracks.
But when we look at this, really the genius of the Air
Force is not those who are pilots, with due respect. It's the
mechanics. These people are doing an enormous job. I'm just
amazed that we don't have 50 percent of our planes red-lined
and not capable of flying. You're saying they were flying in
the eighties and in wartime, that's simply an amazing record
and I think somehow you ought to get a really outstanding kind
of award for those people maintaining those airplanes and
keeping them flying.
767 TANKER LEASE
I am compelled to ask, Mr. Secretary, about the decision on
the tankers, because as you know, those tankers now are
averaging 44 years of age. Some of them were opposed by Harry
Truman, they actually go back to those days, the fifties and
late forties. To have an average of 44 you have to have a few
out there of that age. Now what about the tanker decision in
terms of leasing the tankers?
Secretary Roche. Well, the Secretary of Defense has really
gotten himself involved in this, and it's a different approach,
as you know. The Air Force believed it had a good proposal, it
did require a lease buildup that had a high peak and then came
back down again. The things that he has sort of fed back to us
is the sense that yes, there is a real need for tankers. The
notion that planes can fly forever, I think we've dispelled.
And by the way, we recognize that it was the Air Force that
sent a study over a few years ago that said replacements would
be required by 2030. That was a paper study done by analysts
who unfortunately never lived with real objects like ships and
airplanes, and understood corrosion and understood delaminating
aluminum. So we're overcoming some of our own bad promotion.
He fully agrees with that. He also recognizes that re-
engining very old airplanes doesn't solve the problem and it's
not the engines that are the problems, it is the corrosive
effects to the main aircraft. And he has asked his staff to
work with us to see if there is a way that we can satisfy the
needs to begin tanker replacement early and at the same time
not have such a big bump in the budget, and we are working with
his staff.
It is now a very congenial working relationship. It is no
longer--it never was really adversarial, it was more gee, this
is so odd, so different, this lease notion, but now we're
taking a look at leases, combinations of things, we're working
very much together, and I would hope we can have something back
to him so that he can make a final decision within the next
couple of weeks. But, the war is taking up a lot of his time,
unfortunately.
Senator Stevens. Well, it is a difficult issue to address
during a war, but very clearly, we're going to get to the point
where we have some capability of rotating some of those older
assets out of this tanker fleet, we're going to have to get new
ones in there, and I am disturbed about that.
C-17 AIRCRAFT
What about the C-17s? Are those the workhorse today of the
Air Force? Last year we thought we authorized 15 new aircraft
and there are only 11 in this budget.
Secretary Roche. Sir, last year when we heard you
authorized and directed us to put in money for 15 for this
year, we were doing so, it was causing a budget difficulty that
we discussed with the Office of the Secretary. We noticed that
because of what you did last year, you put a lot of money up
front, and that allowed for the fact that 15 airplanes had come
off the production line every year very smoothly, to the
position that if we were to buy the 15 this year, four of them
would go into backlog. In other words, they wouldn't be built
in 2004, they would really be built in 2005. And so we----
Senator Stevens. Why? I don't understand that.
Secretary Roche. Because 15 come out each year and because
of prior funding, there are 15 about to come out. There are
four already in backlog. If we would do 15 more, we only
increase backlog. By ordering 11, they all get built in 2004
and then we continue because of the fact that there is an
existing line. But we ask that this only be considered, this
proposal. We recognize that we did not do exactly what we were
directed to do.
The reason that you had the concerns last year was we were
busting limits on advance procurement in a number of years.
Because of the cash infusion that was made by the committee
last year, you have set up a situation where we can in fact
save the taxpayer a good bit of money by having this very
smooth and still producing 15 a year, but not spending money a
year earlier than necessary.
Senator Stevens. How many total are you going to acquire
under this new approach?
Secretary Roche. It would be the same number of airplanes
as before, sir. It would be 60 in this multiyear plus the
others, for a total of 180.
Senator Stevens. You're not reducing the number at all?
Secretary Roche. No, sir.
Senator Stevens. The final number remains the same?
Secretary Roche. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
AIR FORCE ACADEMY INVESTIGATION
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. General Jumper, I
would like to begin with your last item, the Academy. We have
been told that the Air Force has rejected an outside review
panel to look over the situation and make their own assessment.
Some of my colleagues have been inquiring, why reject this
proposal. Can you tell us why?
General Jumper. Sir, first and foremost, we believe that
this is the Air Force's problem to fix. We do have the
Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) in with us on
this investigation and they are doing a portion of the
investigation to look into the cases that have arisen, to help
us with that part of it. The Secretary and I have been out
there personally, we have had our team out there three times.
We have gotten to the point now where the data that we're
getting is repetitive data, and we think we have a good
understanding of what the problems and issues are. We're being
transparent on this, we're sharing what we have with the
committee.
But this I believe, sir, is the responsibility of the
Secretary and myself to go fix this and we intend to do that.
And we are sharing our data, but this is our responsibility.
We're the ones that are accountable, sir, and for our own sake
and the sake of our Air Force, we want to press on to this
solution.
Secretary Roche. May I comment, sir?
Senator Inouye. Please.
Secretary Roche. The interesting thing about the Academy,
Senator, is it's not a university. We have 4,200 cadets,
typically between the age of 18 to 23, and we don't have
graduate students, married graduate students, and it is not a
university. The only thing that is like it is West Point, the
Naval Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, and possibly the
Maritime Academy.
When you have a gender distribution of 84 percent men and
16 percent women, it is very different than at an American
university which is now over 50 percent women and under 50
percent men.
It's in a military culture. We're taking young people from
around the United States and putting them together. The thing
that we looked at when we went at this is, if we were to have a
safety problem or something else, we would want to learn about
the problem and deal with it ourselves rather than sending it
to some outsiders who may not understand the culture as well.
The second thing we have going for us is we now have a
cadre of women officers, spectacular officers, and the first
graduates from 1980 are now Colonels or just about becoming
Colonels. We have maintainers who are Major Generals, we have a
number of women officers in place, and we felt that the experts
on military life, the Academy life, problems of sexual assault,
et cetera, we had the best experts in the world to deal with
that, women who had attended our Air Force Academy, who
understood it, who understood our Air Force, who could help us.
And they have been wonderful in helping us.
RESERVES
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary,
according to the latest reports, 36,200 reservists are now
deployed throughout the world, including a high portion of
critical specialists. The law presently limits service to 24
months, and there is some indication that we might be facing
shortages. Do you have any plans to request extending the 24
months?
Secretary Roche. At this stage, Senator, what we have done
is when those were mobilized, we put a program in to demobilize
as rapidly as we could, taking into account the plans of the
individual reservists. You have to give them some certainty. If
they go to their employer and say they're going to be gone for
6 months, sometimes it just causes a problem if you send them
back in 3 months. So we try to work with them, we try to make
the transition in, smooth, and transition out, smooth.
We had gotten that number down to under 14,000. Of that,
9,000 were in force protection, protecting bases, a number of
bases here, plus all the new bases we have created overseas. We
recognize that we have until July 2003 to address that problem
and that's why you've seen us effectively hire 8,000 Army
guardsmen to protect our bases. I believe if you go to Bolling
Air Force Base now, you will find it's our Army colleagues
protecting the base, and this was something that was worked out
between General Jumper and General Shinseki, and it's a
wonderful thing to do. That takes some of the pressure off that
9,000.
It's our hope this war will be over soon enough that we can
once again keep our word to these men and women and get them
back to their civilian jobs as soon as we can, so at this stage
we don't see a request for extension. We would rather be
motivated to find ways to get them back to their normal life.
We are concerned, that if we overwork the Guard and Reserve,
their ability to recruit will be very, very difficult.
We are now operating with something like 1,800 volunteers,
which is wonderful. These are men and women who see a chunk of
time, they can give it to us, and they have been doing so.
PERSONNEL TRANSFORMATION
General Jumper. Sir, if I might add, as part of Secretary
Rumsfeld's personnel transformation, he has asked us to go out
and find ways to make sure that people who are wearing the
uniform are doing jobs that require people to be in uniform.
This is another part of Secretary Roche's efforts, and in that
effort we have gone out and found about 12,000 people in our
Air Force who we think their job could be done in another way.
We won't get all of those back, but I think we will get a
goodly portion of those back. Also, technology can help us out
with things like guarding bases. Those are the things we're
looking at right now to see if we can make sure that the demand
for people in uniform is done correctly.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, we have been advised that as
a result of the long period of deployment, some of your
reservists are experiencing financial problems. Is the
Department planning to do something about this?
GUARD AND RESERVE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS
Secretary Roche. Not that I'm aware, Senator. In some cases
that I have been able to get into personally, I've known
employers and I've been able to call employers, but I don't
know enough. We have a program borrowing from World War II
where you recall, sir, that in World War II, the services
honored employers who helped their employees get to war. We now
have gone to our reserves and guardsmen--and by the way, we're
not allowed to keep a list of their employers for some privacy
reason--but we've asked them if they would give us the names of
their employers, and to each of them we have sent a thank you
letter and a special pin with the E.
We will shortly do the same thing for parents, for parents
being able to walk around and letting us know that their son or
daughter is serving.
With respect to financial conditions, both the Guard and
Reserve try to take into account those members who have that
problem, and it is a way to relieve them of volunteers, or if
there's some other way to get them back to the jobs as soon as
they can, they do. Right now, it's a very stressing thing and I
don't know of any particular program that the Department is
looking at to worry about the financial conditions when these
men and women come on active duty and leave their jobs.
General Jumper. Senator, if I might add, as you well know,
there are a great number of employers out there that take the
burden themselves to make up the difference between the salary
that the member gets when he or she comes on active duty and
the salary they had before. These are great Americans out there
who are helping carry this burden. Not all of them can afford
to do that, and it is a concern, sir.
IRAQI AIRCRAFT
Senator Inouye. Like most Americans, I have been following
the events as they unfold in Iraq, and I have been very
impressed by the efficiency and the accuracy of your personnel.
It appears that possibly as a result of that, there are no
Iraqi aircraft flying around. Does it mean that the Iraqis have
no aircraft left?
General Jumper. Sir, the Iraqis do have more than 100 very
capable aircraft left. I mean, one could conclude by looking at
the actions over there that they actually threw up their hands
and gave up as the first order of business. I have been
surprised at the lack of coordination that I have seen in their
response both with their surface to air missiles and their
airplanes. They do have capable airplanes.
And as you know, Senator, as the Secretary mentioned,
starting back in June or so, we started working away with a
more aggressive enforcement of United Nations Security Council
resolutions. In responding to violations that put command and
control communications lines, surface-to-air missiles in the
wrong areas, we were prompt about taking those out, and we
think that possibly has had an effect on their ability to
organize a responsive defense.
I would hasten to add that you still don't know what you
don't know. Although this is unexplained, they still have
capability down there, and we have to certainly respect that,
sir.
Senator Inouye. May I ask one more? Mr. Secretary, you
mentioned the GPS jammers. Are they the ones that the Russians
provided the Iraqis?
Secretary Roche. May I answer that off line to you, sir? I
don't know if I can answer that in open session. But I would
like to reemphasize that we find it wonderfully ironic that we
use GPS bombs against GPS jammers, and the bombs worked just
fine, Senator.
Senator Inouye. There must be something wrong.
Secretary Roche. Or something good about what you
appropriated 4 years ago, sir.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. We do follow the early bird rule. Senator
Durbin.
AIR FORCE ACADEMY
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to return to this issue about the Air Force Academy for a
moment. I've followed it and I've spoken to my colleague
Senator Allard, who I think has really been a leader on this
issue, and he first had one of the young women come forward. He
has dealt with this responsibly and I think really drawn our
attention to it as a national issue.
It is a different issue from this side of the table than
most, because for 20 years I have been sending young men and
women from my congressional district in my State to the
academies. They were anxious to be appointed, they wanted to go
there, and I wanted to send them. And I really looked hard to
find young women who would be part of our modern military,
because I think that's an important element. And now we have
this scandalous report which may result in some dramatic
changes at the Academy.
Mr. Secretary, I would say to you that I wish you would
step back a moment from your earlier comment and think about
what you told us. When Senator Inouye asked you about an
outside review you said that these outsiders would not
understand our culture. That is a troubling statement, because
it is the culture of the last 10 years which has allowed this
scandal to grow rather than to disappear, and that culture
needs to be changed, clearly.
When we are talking about bringing in the experts, I think
you made a good point. We could bring in women who have served
in the military, presently serve in the military, who could
give excellent insight into how this culture could be changed.
But I hope that you will concede to me that change is necessary
in the culture and understand that the acceptance of it is just
not acceptable.
Secretary Roche. Senator, thank you very much for your
question, because I clearly did not communicate. The culture at
the Academy absolutely must change, and I could go on for a
great length of time agreeing with you on point after point
after point.
I meant the culture of the United States Air Force. A young
woman on one of our regular Air Force bases, an airman first
class, is far better protected, far better dealt with when a
problem emerges, the chain of command goes into action very
quickly. That doesn't mean we don't have a problem now and
then; it is, we are very confident when the chain of command is
held responsible and accountable to all parties, and that we
have crisis response teams, and we have first sergeants and
senior enlisted. She is a lot better off than is a female today
at the Air Force Academy.
Our Air Force culture is very good. The Academy culture
must change. And the reason the two of us have taken this
personally is that we recognize that this is a culture issue.
You can't just fire a couple of generals and think the problem
is solved because you would have missed the issue.
It goes back to, what struck us most in the cases we have
over a 10-year period, there are cases there, some we
prosecuted, some with insufficient evidence, there are three of
the 23 rape allegations made over the last 10 years where the
young women recanted and said it never happened. That's bad.
But when we start having officers we know come up to us and say
General, there is something you need to know, when I was at the
Academy, this is what happened to me, that really hurts us,
because it means that women have been victims in the United
States Air Force.
We want any assailant out of our Air Force. If there is
someone out there attacking our young airmen, we want him out,
and we want them out, and we want to help these young women
help us cull these people out. The culture, you will see this
when we release our initial set of directions, and we will
still hold these individuals accountable, but we are going
right at the culture. But we recognize that you don't change a
culture with one member, it means starting from the top, which
means it starts with us. It means we go back out there over and
over and over.
We both have been involved, we changed the honor system
last year, we changed the recruiting athletics system, we
changed the curriculum. This area we thought was handled, but
it clearly was not, and it goes over a long period of time. In
1993, this all occurred and we thought we had solved it, but
those actions had secondary effects that made some of it worse,
so we absolutely have to address it now as a cultural problem.
It has to be addressed now, because in less than 90 days,
Senator, including some people you have nominated, they will
have a new class beginning, including 189 women, there will be
a total of 714 women at the Academy in the fall. We have to
make the first steps so that the families of these young women
coming in June can believe that their daughters are okay and
also the families of the cadets will believe that due process
is going to be applied.
Now having done the initial set of moves, we have the
experts--for instance, the Federal task force on domestic
violence, which looks at domestic violence against another in a
family setting, which very much replicates it. We're going to
change it, but we are going to make changes immediately and
then start turning somewhere, as compared to if I need 10--
which experts, this set of experts, that set, wait for 6
months, and meanwhile have another class coming to the Academy.
Senator Durbin. This is a very serious issue and I'm glad
for your response, because I think it helped to explain what
you said earlier.
I hope that in the course of this, both you and the
General, in your commitment to transparency, will bring in
those credible parties who will help to restore the integrity
and the reputation of a great institution, the U.S. Air Force
Academy, and I hope that you will do that.
MEDICAL EVACUATION MISSION
I have one other issue that I will raise if I have a minute
here, Mr. Chairman, I see I have a very brief period of time,
and that was our discovery that in the budget request, there is
a proposal to discontinue the so-called Nightingale Mission,
the aeromedical evacuation mission, and to privatize it, to
contract it out, and to suggest that we would use available
space on C-130s and C-17s to move people who are injured or
ill, where at the present time we are using C-9s dedicated to
that purpose.
Despite my interest in it because of Scott Air Force Base
and obvious reasons, it does raise a serious question to me as
to whether or not we can privatize and contract out something
so critically important as the movement of personnel who are
ill or very sick or injured or in some way have been victimized
by combat. And I wonder if we could have your response to that,
and if we could expand the conversation to talk about some
options that might be considered.
Secretary Roche. Sir, let me let General Jumper start, and
this is frankly the question we hoped you would ask us.
General Jumper. Sir, I know of no effort out there to
privatize the medical evacuation. I think the effort, first of
all, starts with the C-9s and the age of the C-9s and the
significant costs to either bring them up to current Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) standards--they don't meet any of
those standards, or to replace them.
When we have out there active in the circuit every day our
whole fleet of strategic airlift capability, our C-17s, our C-
5s and our C-130s, that are moving around at present more than
100 countries every day, that provide the opportune lift to get
patients from one place to another. That's the thing we hope to
be able to take advantage of. As a matter of fact, we did not
use the C-9 in any of the evacuations during Operation Allied
Force in Kosovo, nor in Afghanistan, because of the limitations
of that kind of an airplane.
So, we have been successful in taking advantage of our air
fleet. I will make sure that what I said to you about
contracting out is correct, because that's the first I've heard
of such a thing, but I have been surprised before.
Senator Durbin. If I could mention one other thing, Mr.
Secretary. I'll end here because my time is up. And that is,
while I had an opportunity to go with the congressional
delegation to Afghanistan and flew in a C-130, great crew,
terrific performance, pretty old plane, but to put litters in
the back of that plane for people who are sick, I don't think
is an adequate response and I don't think it mirrors the
quality of care we would ask from the Air Force and many
others.
Secretary Roche. If I may, Senator, we may every now and
then inside the United States use an air ambulance service for
a one-time situation, so that may be the contract, but
generally we are not. The C-130Js are much newer. The preferred
plane is the C-17, which we can in fact, and we have these
modular systems for the medical pallets. We've both talked to
the Surgeon General's people who we're dealing on the aircraft,
and with the Air Mobility Command (AMC) commander and United
States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) at Scott Air Force
Base. C-9s are old, these other planes are far more viable in
getting around, and it is the judgment of the Air Mobility
Command that we can do this with the other aircraft.
The one area that we are working on together is in the
Pacific, the bases are so far apart for our own active duty and
dependents, getting them to specialized hospitals, let's say
Kadena or someplace else, that may require us having to convene
with some other aircraft.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
General, it's good to see you, and Mr. Secretary, it's great to
see you again.
Obviously this is a day when we have talked about parochial
issues and important issues in our home State, and we wonder
whether it's even the right forum because our troops are at war
overseas, it seems almost insignificant that we talk about
local issues such as Holloman or Cannon or Kirtland.
I want to join in complimenting both of you as the leaders
of our Air Force. The performance of our troops in Iraq is so
spectacular, it is difficult to comprehend. I never thought
we'd see our forces have such an advantage. I've been here 30
years and I get to follow development and evolution of our
Military Forces, but I frankly never believed that we could
move so exponentially in 10 years with reference to quality and
technology. It's obvious that you're doing it right and we are
proud to be part of it, at least in paying attention and doing
what you ask us to do.
PROMOTIONS
And Mr. Secretary, I'm extremely pleased that we have
somebody as competent as you there. I have only one observation
about the makeup of the hierarchy of the Air Force. I'm a real
sucker for big science, I love big science, and we have a lot
of it in New Mexico. We have the directed energy activities at
Kirkland Air Force Base and it's the headquarters for laser
research, and I went out there recently for a visit, and you
know what I would like to see? I would like to see a couple or
more two-star or three-star generals that are not just pilots
but are Ph.D.s in chemistry, physics and engineering.
Secretary Roche. Oh, I agree with you.
Senator Domenici. I believe you ought to do that.
Secretary Roche. As a Ph.D. myself, I think it's a great
idea.
Senator Domenici. I think you ought to just promote the
brightest Air Force people and send them to Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), give them whatever they need to
get a Ph.D., and then let them come. What confidence we'd have
if they were walking around the laser facility instead of a
colonel. He's great, but he has to relate to an engineering
Ph.D. from a school, and the few times I have seen a one-star
general, I've thought how magnificent that is. I urge that you
start a program to encourage them, give them extra incentives,
get 8 or 10 of them graduated from California Institute of
Technology, get the best and get them out to our Air Force lab,
that's what we ought to do.
AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Secretary Roche. Thank you for your support, Senator. We
have reinvigorated our Air Force Institute of Technology
(AFIT). We have ended the notion that you had to go get a paper
master's program in order to be promoted. We have a program now
that will send every one of our officers either to a graduate
school or to a similar experience. We are trying to take our
scientists and engineers, with your help, we're giving them
bonuses. We're trying to make their careers more exciting.
We have had a whole rerecruiting campaign of these young
people, because when you go to one of our labs, the Air Force
Research Laboratory (AFRL), or go to the laser facility at
Kirtland, as we've both done and did together, you see some of
these young officers who have all of the brights in the world,
they love what they're doing, they love the fact that their
work is going to be meaningful to somebody in combat, and
somehow we lose them, and we can't lose them.
And I'm proud to say that even though my partner is a
fighter pilot, he was the first to say well, for heaven's sake,
why don't we get them their doctorates and keep them.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary, you wouldn't lose those
scientists, those military guys if they had two stars on them
and they were scientists. You're losing them because they are
only colonels and they don't want to stay there very long, and
they're masters, they're not Ph.D.s. If you get them up there,
they will stay there, and if you have them in that hierarchy,
they will be glad to stay.
Secretary Roche. We need more.
Senator Domenici. I want to ask about the Predator.
Senator Stevens. Would the Senator yield for a second?
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Senator Stevens. Why don't we pay them the equivalent of
being generals instead of paying them as colonels? Why don't
you jump their rates of pay as opposed to their grade in
service?
Secretary Roche. It's not a bad idea. We're talking about
bonuses in the system for the younger ones. We take science and
engineering seriously. Can we take that to study, sir?
There is also a point, though, in making them leaders and
showing the young officers that there are role models ahead. We
have a couple. We could do more because we are so highly
dependent on technology for our service.
Senator Domenici. If you did that, you would have the
pilots wondering why they are being discriminated against, so
you don't want to do that. In any event, it seems to me that
this is an idea whose time has come.
PREDATOR
In any event, let me talk about the Predator. First of all,
when do you expect the selection process to be completed, and
can you give us an update on the environmental assessment
that's being performed and for bases recommended for the
Predator squadrons, either of you?
General Jumper. Sir, there is an ongoing environmental
assessment right now for where we might go with the Predator.
Our plan right now as we're continuing to build Predator at a
rate of about two per month, to maintain Indian Springs as our
center of excellence for the Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(UAV). When we start building the numbers up, we will make
decisions for the future about where and how to expand out the
criteria.
As you well know, it has to do with being adjacent to
uncontrolled airspace, the weather has to be decent, the winds
have to be within a certain limit, et cetera, et cetera. So
those things are ongoing, sir, but we don't have a timetable.
Secretary Roche. They're also basing more of them overseas
than they are at home right now, sir.
Senator Domenici. Yes, I understand, but sooner or later we
will have them based at home. And if we need weather plus all
the rest, it looks like Holloman has an exciting future in
terms of that.
MELROSE BOMBING RANGE
Let's talk about the Melrose Bombing Range over on the east
side of New Mexico and its supersonic testing capacity.
Supersonic land facilities are very, very important. They're
doing all that testing now over water. What's the status of the
study with reference to Melrose and the possibility for it
having supersonic capacity?
Secretary Roche. Sir, I have just come upon this and I'm
not up to speed on it. May I get back to you on that?
Senator Domenici. Absolutely.
[The information follows:]
Melrose Bombing Range
Sir, my staff has worked this issue with Air Combat Command
and has completed a draft of a study to determine the
requirements to extend supersonic capability at Melrose Range.
The study is now in the process of review to ensure accuracy;
we will provide a copy within the next 30 days.
Secretary Roche. And by the way, the issue you raised,
however, is a critical one. Oftentimes we think we will have a
range but then because of restrictions we can't go supersonic.
As we move to an era of super cruise, it becomes terribly
important to us to be able to do it over places other than
water.
Senator Domenici. Well, Melrose is over there by Cannon,
but it has served the purpose of Holloman, Cannon, and some
from Texas. It's a very big range. We acquired it so as to
create diversity about 15 years ago, and I think it would be
looked at for supersonic land testing, which people are more
than willing to take a look and listen, but we have to do it
right so we don't surprise them if in fact it's chosen.
CV-22
Now what about the CV-22, what's the current status of the
testing and what is the latest schedule for training squadrons
at Kirtland, if either of you know?
Secretary Roche. The CV-22, sir, is in a position where
it's having to prove itself, and the Navy and Marine Corps in
fact have the lead. We have our own special op reader Air Force
personnel associated with it. It's a testing program now that
has been backed into test, it is encouraging them, but it still
has a way to go. We believe that if it tests out well, we would
like to have it in our Air Force Special Operating Command
(AFSOC). Whether or not we would use it for combat search and
rescue is still to be determined, because it has some issues
about how it flies close to the ground and may not make it
worthwhile. We put on hold what we would do to get them until
we find whether or not this program is something that we in
fact will buy, and is one where we and the Marine Corps and the
Navy would be making a decision and making a recommendation to
the Secretary on it after the test program is over. But as you
know, it has had a very rough test program.
Senator Domenici. General, did you have anything to add to
that?
General Jumper. No, sir, I can't add to that.
Senator Domenici. Thank both of you very much. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PREDATOR HELLFIRE SYSTEM
General Jumper, could you talk a little bit, maybe not
everything, about the significance of the joint coordination
that took place between the Air Force and the Army to engineer
and integrate the Predator Hellfire system?
General Jumper. Yes, sir. We----
Senator Shelby. I think that's a great accomplishment.
General Jumper. It's a great story. The Predator story is a
long and tortured one. It came to us in 1996 as a technology
demonstration, and we took it over years and developed it into
what it is, to include the first step of putting a laser
designator on it so it actually designates targets on the
ground, and then shortly thereafter by putting the Hellfire
missile on it.
Of course we had to go to the Army to work the integration
of the Hellfire missile and we had superb cooperation.
Senator Shelby. They worked that out at Redstone, didn't
they?
General Jumper. Absolutely, out at Redstone. And with the
scientists at Redstone actually to do the warhead enhancements
that we have done actually just over the last year or so. And
the scientists actually at Redstone were the ones that helped
us with that development. We are continuing to work with them
for even future versions of the Hellfire that will overcome
some of the limitations of shooting it from higher altitude,
and that work continues, sir.
Senator Shelby. What you're basically doing is utilizing an
organic laboratory.
General Jumper. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Roche. I was going to say, we were both just
tickled pink. Our boss has told us, sometimes I see Hellfires
going into buildings and people coming out, and you know, Don
Rumsfeld says, why are they coming out? And we turned to
Huntsville and asked for some help, and the speed with which
they built the sleeve was just incredible.
AIR UNIVERSITY
Senator Shelby. Thank you. I want to switch over to the Air
University, General, or to both of you. Both of you know that
the Air University at Maxwell has seen a dramatic increase in
their training responsibilities, particularly for Reserve
Officer Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship recipients. I brought
this issue up with you before last year and I want to get your
thoughts again this year on how Maxwell is doing in meeting
their training challenges and do they have the funds to
continue this? I think it's very important to the Air Force.
General Jumper. Sir, let me just say, and you know this
very well, over the last few years at the Air University, we
have added the doctrine center, we've added the air and space
basic course, and we've increased the student flow through
there, and in every school that's housed there, in addition to
our law school, our chaplains, et cetera, et cetera, they all
go through Maxwell Air Force Base and all of its magnificent
history going back to the tactical school in the thirties.
We believe that everything there is adequately funded. As a
matter of fact, as we continue to find new ways to phase
students into the Air University that are in line with our
rotation cycles overseas, we have made accommodations for our
entire Expeditionary Aerospace Force concept so that throughout
the year we can phase students in there in modules, if you
will. That work is ongoing there, and that will increase the
student flow. We have looked at a whole new way to do the
correspondence courses that we have. Again, technology and
other things invested into the Air University. These things are
ongoing, sir, and it's really tremendous out there.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. We appreciate
very much the leadership and outstanding service that our
witnesses are providing to our country, particularly the
leadership of the Air Force in this challenging time.
C-17 AIRCRAFT
When General Myers was here the other day, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he talked about and commented on the
unanticipated wear and tear on the C-17s and the aging of the
C-5 fleet as a result of the high operating tempo during this
war against terror. Do you believe the planned procurement of
C-17s and upgrades to the C-5s are sufficient to meet our
future airlift needs?
Secretary Roche. Senator, I will start and then ask General
Jumper to comment. The C-17 is one of those airplanes that you
dream for. We accepted it one day and in 48 hours it's in the
air and working. It has just been a workhorse, it has been
terrific, and I have had the pleasure of flying on them. It has
just proven what people said could be done was done, even
though the program, as the chairman knows well, went from 220,
cut to 110, cut to 40, almost zero, almost zero, almost zero,
limped to 40, 80, boom, now 120 going to 180.
C-5 AIRCRAFT
We are going to take the C-5, the C-5Bs and modernize
those. The question that we face is to what degree can we take
the C-5As and fully extend their life usefully, as compared to
just creating another maintenance stream for a long period of
time that becomes too costly. We will take and diagnose two of
the Bs, then take a look at an A or two, we are creating an
air-worthiness board which parallels what the Navy does in its
board of inspection survey, because we now have so many old
airplanes we need to put together teams of real experts on
materials, structures, to be able to advise us, to say this
aircraft by hull number has to be retired.
If we cannot get a good answer by modernizing some of the
C-5As, recognizing we do all 50 of the Bs, then we will have to
determine how many more C-17s are required to make up the
shortfall in the lift requirements that we have. That is our
current plan. Meanwhile, the C-17s are on multiyear, going
along fine. We will review those other studies, and we should
be able to find out and understand what it requires to
modernize the As and how many of them we could modernize, and
then do all the Bs, and then make a decision between doing the
As or more C-17s.
General Jumper. Sir, if I might add, the objective out
there from the mobility requirement study is 54.5 ton miles per
day. It will be worth our while, especially following this
conflict, to go back and take a look and see if that number
remains adequate, because that number was established with a
completely different set of assumptions. But in order to get to
the 54.5 in the course that the Secretary described is the
course that we are on right now.
Secretary Roche. We wish we just had a problem of building,
Senator, it would be easier. We have aging across the board and
trying to have budget fit these different categories after,
frankly, 10, or 8 to 12 years of not investing. We don't have a
capital budget and we don't have a process to reinvest a
depreciation rate. So we face you with these big bumps of
modernization, which is a shame.
GLOBAL HAWK
Senator Cochran. Another point that I recall the chairman
making when he was here before the committee was the importance
of the capability of these unmanned aircraft to surveil and
identify activity through intelligence gathering. The
usefulness obviously is very important in a war like we are
conducting in Iraq right now. My impression is that Global Hawk
has proven to be very valuable to our operations.
My question is, are we moving fast enough to procure
systems such as Global Hawk and other necessary unmanned aerial
vehicle variants that we see developing? I know Northrop
Grumman is developing a Fire Scout as another option. What is
your impression of these new systems and are we integrating
them into the Air Force quickly enough?
Secretary Roche. First of all, Senator, I think the Air
Force integration is one where people keep wondering why
fighter pilots are doing this, and we're past that. We are
absolutely past that. When we have the chief fighter pilot of
the Air Force as one of the greatest fans of unmanned vehicles,
it's amazing that his leadership has made everyone recognize
that there is a complementary nature of manned and unmanned
aircraft.
General Franks really did us an enormous favor when we both
asked him if we could put some drones over Afghanistan that
were not fully developed, not ready for prime time, in order to
learn how these operated in war. We probably have saved the
American taxpayer an enormous amount of money by having the
chance to build something, play with it, use it, understand it,
change it, go back.
We're getting the same permission from General Franks here
in the Iraqi war. That's allowed us to do things very quickly
like the armed Predator, like the sleeve on the Hellfire, like
looking at Global Hawk for multiple types of missions,
including taking some of the bandwidth off of the satellites
and having Global Hawks behave as lower altitude satellites.
It's led us to take the multi-sensor command and control
aircraft and to think about part of the back end controlling
some drones.
And then taking a leaf from history, in the late thirties
at Maxwell Air Force Base and the Wright Patterson Air Force
Base, the Army Air Corps procured small numbers of a number of
different types of aircraft and allowed the young pilots to say
here's how these are best used, here's how things go. We've
been trying to replicate that. And in open session I can't tell
you how many families, I can tell you it's more than you can
count on one hand, the families of unattended vehicles plus
remotely piloted aircraft, we have found in certain
circumstances having a pilot who has to make an attack decision
is very important, and also just how the pilot's instincts take
over.
You know, a pilot can see a black cloud and won't go into
it. A drone will go exactly where you told it to go and then
you may find you have a problem because you're in a black
cloud. Or when an Iraqi Flogger is coming in at our Predators,
our pilots use certain techniques to do that--alter what the
Flogger could see. We, by playing and understanding these and
getting our young people involved, it has made a huge
difference.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE PILOTS
Now we had a cultural problem when a number of our young
pilots thought that somehow they had failed us and that's why
they were being assigned to unmanned vehicles. We have both
visited every operating unit, we've both spent time at Indian
Springs. We've now found every one of their problems like gate
time, they didn't get gate time, or they weren't eligible for
medals because quite often they were not in the region,
although some of them have killed more people than a heck of a
lot of our other pilots. They can get medals now. They worried
about where they would go on their next set of orders. We make
it clear to them that they are pioneers and we just milk their
brains, as well as the maintainers on these aircraft.
PREDATOR B
And from that we have developed the notion of a basic
Predator closer to a razor blade as cheap as possible, and it's
a killer scout. Predator B is going to be a hunter killer, fly
higher, carry more. Global Hawk is equivalent to a low altitude
satellite, it can do all kinds of things. And so we believe
that our procurement program is much greater than it was a few
years ago. And then there are others that I can't discuss in
open. This will form a set of families that will let us
replicate what happened prior to World War II where the United
States was able to pick the best precisely because it
experimented as well. General?
General Jumper. Sir, if I could just add a few points. One
is that we have to make sure that we understand the true value
of these remotely piloted and unattended vehicles to the fight,
and the main virtue that we see is this notion of persistence.
We had a Predator here just a few days ago that flew a 33-hour
mission. It's this persistence that enables you to stare and to
predict, and to do it day and night that makes this small
airplane so valuable to us. We've got to make sure that we
understand the value of these things and that when we project
out to where our capabilities need to go in the future that
we're not just merely taking people out of airplanes.
One of the issues that we discuss often is, would we be
buying this vehicle if it were manned, because the vehicle does
something unique that we can't do with anything else. That's
one of the litmus tests that we have to make sure that we pass.
And if we can't pass that test, then we have to make sure that
we're not taking the judgment out of the airplane that is
absolutely required to be there.
That's why we make this distinction about remotely piloted
aircraft. We're going to have a rated person at the controls of
the Predator as long as there is a requirement to bear the
burden of putting weapons on targets and being responsible for
the lives of people on the ground, just the way we burden our
people who fly in the airplanes. It's those kinds of things
that we are thinking our way through in a deliberate way before
we make big commitments out there for the future.
But we understand the urgency, sir, and we are pressing on
with it.
Secretary Roche. In the notion of range of persistence, the
third one that we have come upon is this notion of what we call
digital acuity. It says that a drone in its 23rd hour of
operation is just as sharp as it was in the second hour of
operation, where a human being tires, a human being starts to
lose interest, where a digital system does not. So we're
looking for comparative advantage in each case and we have
proven that drones or remotely piloted aircraft and piloted
aircraft can operate in the same airspace very comfortably. A
Navy F-18 in Afghanistan asked the Predator a question, and the
Predator answered the question.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I have had the opportunity to tour the Global Hawk, the
Predator and F-22 programs, and I am very impressed.
IRAQ WAR NEWS COVERAGE
I want to ask you about the Air Guard, their jet fighters,
B-52s, but before I do that, let me ask a question that's been
bothering me. With this 24-7 news coverage of the war and 500
journalists embedded in our Armed Forces who are fighting that
war and with all of the networks actually having begun
advertising before the war began about their cast of characters
for analysts and interpreters, in the mornings I have watched
retired generals and admirals, many people who have served this
country with great distinction standing on full-scale maps on
the floors and walls with pointers, and they're describing
where our troops are moving, where they're headed, what they
think might or might not happen. Some have even been mildly
critical, I believe.
But I watch all that and I think, this is a wealth of
information to me as an American citizen. I also have access to
top secret briefings, as do my colleagues. What I see in the
morning on television or at night by many of these analysts,
former colleagues of yours, makes me wonder. Is there any cause
for anxiety or concern inside the Pentagon about what's being
disclosed with all these pointers? It's a wealth of information
to me and to the American people. Is it also a wealth of
information to the Iraqis, who I assume watch Cable News
Network (CNN) and other news services? Do you have any anxiety
or concerns about that, General?
General Jumper. From time to time some of the things I have
seen have actually caused me some anxiety, because it has
appeared to me from time to time that some of these people, not
necessarily former military people who have access to
classified information, have actually talked about things that
shouldn't be talked about.
By and large what I see is a description of ongoing
operations that are usually lagging in events and would be of
little help. I can tell you that most, not all, most of the
people who formerly wore a uniform are acutely aware of this
and they take great care to make sure that what they are going
to say does not divulge anything. Also, it's fascinating to see
how captivating this notion of a camera going along in the back
of a Bradley for hours and hours is to the American people out
there, and of course that gets the American people right down
to the tactical level, which I think is good for them, because
they get to see our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines at
work.
B-52 BOMBERS
Senator Dorgan. Thank you, General, for your response.
Let me ask about the B-52s. You talked about the KC-135s
and the aging and corrosion. That same circumstance is not
present with the B-52s, is it?
Secretary Roche. No, sir, and there are a couple of
reasons. One is, the design of the plane was such that it was
overdesigned and in particular, if I can demonstrate--my
colleague does it better than I do. B-52s have wings like this,
and 135s have wings like that. In one case water flows into the
fuselage and in the other case it flows out, so we have not had
the problem of assembly metal and the cabin corrosion with B-
52s. Also, over the course of time because they were nuclear
bombers, there has been major structural rework done on those
planes. And then lastly and most importantly, we don't fly the
plane anywhere near the way it was intended to be flown. We
have found that it serves a particularly wonderful mission if
it goes up high, launches, stand off in defended areas, or over
the top in areas where there is no air defense, so how we use
the plane makes a big difference. And we kept 76 of the best
from many hundreds.
Senator Dorgan. And in fact when they talk about the age of
the plane, in large respect they are not that old; much and
most of that plane has been replaced and updated.
Secretary Roche. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. But I just wanted to make that point, that
we don't have the same circumstance with the B-52 even though
it's a very old system.
General Jumper. Right.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
Senator Dorgan. Let me ask about the Air Guard and the F-
22s that will come on line at some point, and I happen to share
your view. I hope we can keep this schedule moving. I think
it's an impressive airplane and I hope very much that we can
continue to fund it and move it along. As we do that, planes
have become available for the Reserve components and the Guard.
As you know, one of the best Guard units are the Happy
Hooligans from Fargo. In fact, they were the first up to
protect the Capitol the day of the attack on 9/11, the first
fighters scrambled from Langley. They have won the William Tell
award twice, and I think the only Air Guard unit perhaps to
ever win it, and certainly to win it twice against all the best
pilots in the world. But the best pilots are now flying the
oldest airplanes, which gives them some amount of angst and
myself as well. And we're trying to evaluate what's the future
here, when will they get their F-15s or modern F-16s? You and I
have talked about that a great deal, General, and Mr.
Secretary, we have as well. Any news on that front?
Secretary Roche. Much depends on whether we can keep the F/
A-22 schedule on. We are very aware of the Happy Hooligans'
record and we also are aware that they have a strong interest
in F-15s if not the F-16Cs, and that's something we have in our
heads. We would like to flow these down when appropriate to the
Hooligans and other members of the Guard to get some aircraft.
The second thing we would wish to do, as you know, we have
a group that's called blended wing at Warner Robins on the
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JOINT STARS)
aircraft, which was a radical experiment that General Jumper
and I wanted to take, which was to have active and guardsmen in
the identical wing with full-time missions. Right now the head
of that wing is a guardsman. And other than some constitutional
issues of someone empowered by a State giving orders to a
Federal force, it has worked wonderfully, and this war is going
to prove that we can do this. The only thing we would like to
do different in the long run is to start to think of doing that
more in the Guard, among other things to get F/A-22s into the
Guard where we can blend wings.
Senator Dorgan. I will come back and talk to both of you at
other times on this issue.
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
Let me just ask two additional very brief questions. One,
B-52s and electronic warfare mission, I believe, General, you
testified to that over in the House. And the second, I want to
just ask, are you reasonably positive, do you feel generally
positive about the decision the Secretary might make with
respect to leasing 767s?
So if you could address those two things, the B-52
electronic warfare issue, and the 767.
Secretary Roche. How do you want to handle this?
General Jumper. I will take the B-52.
Sir, as you well know, we are pursuing a program to take a
very hard look at complementing the United States Navy and its
desire to replace the EA-6B in a jamming world with something
that can persist a little bit longer and can also help both the
Navy and the Air Force and the Marine Corps with stand-off
jamming that's persistent. And the platform we would like to
take a look at, of course, is the B-52. Take advantage of that
very large fuel tank that they have out on the wing tip----
Senator Dorgan. You said that was the size of a
condominium?
General Jumper. It's the size of a small condominium. When
you stand off it doesn't look that big, but when you walk it up
next to it, you can figure out you can live in it. But we could
take the work on the electronic jamming pods that has been done
for the Navy in the EF-18 and we could take that same
technology and leverage it for this pod, I think without
disturbing the rest of the mission of the aircraft at all. So
it can deploy long ranges, it can persist for long periods of
time and complement the shorter range F-18.
767 LEASE
Secretary Roche. With respect to the 767 lease, I would not
want to speak for Don Rumsfeld.
Senator Dorgan. I'm just asking how you feel.
Secretary Roche. I feel good about some variation of the
lease, because the Secretary clearly understands and accepts
and is probably, given his history as Secretary of Defense
earlier, recognizes that all these tankers were flying then.
And in fact, some of them were flying when he was still on
active duty, or just about. And that we do need new tankers and
this has to be done sensibly. The fact that we now have some
collegiality between his staff and the Air Force trying to
address this problem in a sensible manner, I must give special
praise to Secretary Aldridge. He has tried mightily to make the
points that need to be made and also to try to take into
account concerns of controllers and others, as well as Zone B,
and we are trying to come up with an alternative that's a
variation that in fact the Secretary could approve us going
forward, but we're working together for the first time.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you for your responses.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Two things. I have asked the staff to take a look at the
current GI bill, the Montgomery bill, to make certain that it's
going to be available to those who have been involved in this
effort. There is some question as to whether they had to have
made the decision at the time they entered the service as to
whether they wished to be eligible for that, and I think many
of them after this experience might want to have a second look
at that, and I would urge you to talk to the Department about
that.
COMBAT PAY
Secondly, I asked the staff to look at the problem of what
we called combat pay, we now call hostile fire and imminent
danger pay. I'm informed that was $110 a month before the
Persian Gulf War, during the Persian Gulf War it was raised
about 27 percent to $150 a month. And we have had an increase
in pay since for just general military pay since the Persian
Gulf War of about 30 percent. Clearly, we ought to have a
combat pay figure that is relevant to the current pay scales
and to current problems, and I would urge you to also take this
up with the Department.
I don't think we ought to jump the gun. I think that was
raised actually by executive action in the Persian Gulf War, it
was made permanent in the 1993 Act, but the current rate of
$150 was made permanent then. We seek your guidance. I should
think that the Executive Order would be sufficient right now,
but the permanent pay scale ought to be raised sometime in the
future.
Again, I thank you very much for your presence. Senator
Inouye and I have been here now for over 30 years on this
committee and watched the development of many of the systems
that we're seeing used so effectively in this war, and we
commend you as we did in the beginning for your efforts and
your role. And I promise not to show your picture around, the
one I talked to you about, General.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
General Jumper. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stevens. He went to high school in Anchorage.
Thank you very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to James G. Roche
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
BASIC MILITARY TRAINING AND TECHNICAL TRAINING SCHOOL
Question. Your submitted joint written statement addresses the
importance of recruiting and retention to maintain a quality force. You
said, ``Despite the challenge of mustering such a diverse and skilled
collection of Americans, we exceeded our fiscal year 2002 enlisted
recruiting goals and expect to surpass fiscal year 2003 objectives. We
will adapt our goals to meet new force objectives; however the capacity
limitations of Basic Military Training and Technical Training School
quotas will continue to challenge Total Force recruiting efforts.''
Since these missions are accomplished as a whole or in part at Lackland
and Sheppard Air Force Bases, can you elaborate on what you mean by
capacity limitations?
Answer. The Air Force is in the process of reshaping the force in
response to the current security environment. Basic Military Training
(BMT) and most Air Force Speciality Code (AFSC) technical schools met
past capacity requirements but are now feeling stressed because of
meeting new or expanded mission demands. BMT capacity is currently
tight because of increased Guard/Reserve numbers but capacity is
sufficient to meet demand. Some of our most in-demand career fields are
trained at technical training wings in Texas (e.g., CE Readiness at
Sheppard; Security Forces at Lackland; Intelligence/Linguist at
Goodfellow). As we transform, certain skills will be temporarily
stressed; however, adequate resources will be moved to accommodate
increases in throughput. As we work through this force reshaping,
training requirements will be adjusted. Active and Reserve Component
requirements will be re-evaluated and enough seats made available to
meet new steady state current and future requirements.
In the interim, timing of course dates may not be as convenient;
however, sufficient seats will be available to accomplish Total Force
mission requirements. Our focus is on making force-shaping adjustments
while maintaining the most effective and efficient Total Force training
pipeline possible. We expect to sustain adequate capacity given the
size of the force we have today.
RANGE AND READINESS PRESERVATION INITIATIVE
Question. Please provide some background information on the Range
and Readiness Preservation Initiative that you mentioned in your
written statement, intended to examine training range activity and
current legislation's impact on these activities.
Answer. The Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative (RRPI)
provides clarification to specific statutes; it does not provide
``sweeping'' exemptions from environmental laws. Also, the RRPI is not
a complete solution for every encroachment challenge. Changes in
regulations and administrative practices are also being explored.
Recently, courts have been interpreting environmental statutes and
existing laws in new ways that are impacting military operations on
ranges and in airspace. RRPI is one process used by the Air Force to
address encroachment. The current RRPI seeks focused legislative
changes to protect our readiness as we manage our resources. It does
this by; (1) codifying Department of the Interior policy to use DOD's
integrated natural resources management plans. These replace the need
for critical habitat designations under the Endangered Species Act on
DOD lands, (2) amending the Marine Mammal Protection Act to clarify
that military readiness activities are not considered ``harassment'' of
marine mammals unless they present a significant potential to injure
the mammals or to disrupt natural behavior patterns, (3) codifying the
Environmental Protection Agency rule that munitions used as intended on
operational ranges, e.g., dropped on a range, are not ``solid waste,''
(4) clarifying Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) definition that firing a weapon is not a
``release,'' and by (5) extending the timeframe to conform to State
Implementation Plan requirements for air emissions.
In summary, these modest changes to the current laws will maintain
the current status of law and regulatory implementation policy while
preventing judicial creep from changing well-established rules.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
FORCE PROTECTION
Question. Secretary Roche, I understand that the Army will be
providing approximately 8,000 additional personnel to help the Air
Force meet its increased force protection requirements. This support
will last for two years, but is not included in the fiscal year 2003
Budget or the proposed fiscal year 2004 budget. How does the Air Force
plan on funding this increase and what plans are in the works for a
permanent solution to the shortfall?
Answer. The increases for Air Force force protection are a direct
result of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Global War on
Terrorism. These increases were initially fulfilled by the mobilization
of over 90 percent of Air Reserve Component security forces. With the
limit of 24 months of mobilization and the inability to replace those
whose mobilizations will expire in 2003, the Air Force entered the
agreement with the Army to provide replacement personnel. The timing of
these requirements was such that the Air Force was unable to include it
in the fiscal year 2003 or fiscal year 2004 budgets. For fiscal year
2003, supplemental funding was provided. The fiscal year 2004
requirement remains unfunded at this time.
The Air Force plans to permanently resolve this shortfall with a
combination of increasing the number of security forces by force
structure adjustments, providing contract support where applicable, and
exploiting technologies that will reduce the personnel requirement.
F/A-22 RAPTOR
Question. Secretary Roche, as you know, the GAO has recently
released a report on the cost growth of the F/A-22 Raptor. It states
that ``DOD has not fully informed Congress (1) about what the total
cost of the production program could be if cost reduction plans do not
offset cost growth as planned or (2) about the aircraft quantity that
can be procured within the production cost limit.'' If the cost limit
is maintained and estimated production costs continue to rise, will the
Air Force have to procure fewer F/A-22s than currently planned?
Answer. The program has experienced production cost increases that
have reduced the number of jets that can be bought. Under the $36.8
billion Congressional production cap, current estimate is that between
220-230 aircraft can be procured. It is important to note that, though
aircraft affordability is not matching initial expectations, the
aircraft are getting cheaper. By promoting production stability and
momentum, there is no reason the program can't continue, and even
accelerate, towards the ultimate goal of delivering Air Dominance to
the Combatant Commanders.
With relief from the current Congressional production cap, the Air
Force estimates it can procure at least 276 aircraft under the $42.2
billion OSD-approved ``buy-to-budget'' strategy. This revised estimate
accounts for actual negotiated lots through Lot 3, conservative
assumptions for future efficiencies, and a 5 percent risk factor for
production ``unknowns.'' In addition, the Air Force and Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG)
quantity estimates now agree within 3 percent. For these reasons as
well as the positive affordability trend mentioned above, the Air Force
fully expects to buy more than 276 aircraft under the OSD-approved
production limit.
Question. Secretary Roche, at the annual Air Force Association's
Air Warfare Symposium, you described problems with F/A-22 and contended
that if those problems cannot be repaired you would recommend
termination of the program. Can you please describe the problems you
were referring to, and is it your plan to cancel the program is these
problems continue?
Answer. The problem I referred to at the Air Warfare Symposium is
avionics software stability. The issue is not how well the avionics
perform, but how long they run before a module in the avionics software
suite requires a reset. The current average run-time between resets, as
measured in the F/A-22 Avionics Integration Laboratory (AIL), decreased
when the software was loaded on the aircraft. OSD chartered an
independent team to study this problem and recommend ways for improving
run-time in the jet and ways for translating stability from the AIL
into the aircraft. The team's recommendations center on implementation
of new software development tools and data capturing methods for
finding and fixing the root causes of instability events. The team
stated that, after implementing new tools, there is no reason software
stability cannot be resolved.
TANKER FLEET
Question. Secretary Roche, General Myers stated in testimony before
the Congress that replacing the 40-year old KC-135 air refueling fleet
is an essential joint warfighting requirement. However, funds for
replacing the tankers were not included in the fiscal year 2004 budget
request. Is the tanker fleet ``relatively healthy'' or is the
replacement of refueling tanks ``essential'' to support mission
requirements?
Answer. Recapitalization of the tanker fleet is ``essential'' and
must begin now to continue to meet tanker requirements. The fiscal year
2004 President's Budget does not include funding for the tanker
replacement; however, there are two options under consideration by the
Department of Defense to field a replacement aircraft within the future
years defense plan. Pending departmental approval, the Air Force
intends to bring the recommended plan forward and identify funding and
delivery schedules at that time.
AIR FORCE INVESTMENT BUDGET
Question. Secretary Roche, a Congressional Budget Office study of
the long-term budget implications of current defense plans commissioned
by this committee suggested that the Air Force's investment budget
would need to grow to $59 billion by around 2012. The Air Force has
made some cut backs to force size since CBO made that estimate but it
seems likely that Air Force investment will require significant real
increases in spending. Do you think those increases are likely to
become available?
Answer. As the CBO study illustrates, the Air Force faces a complex
set of aging aircraft/system challenges. Since procurement of new
U.S.A.F. aircraft/systems dropped to minimal levels during the 1990s,
we now face a modernization bow wave that will take time and money to
turn around. Moreover, the cost to maintain older systems could grow
substantially and further erode the funding available for
modernization.
Though it is not appropriate for me to predict the level of
funding, it is my role to examine the national security strategy and
make recommendations to the Secretary and on how best to spend those
funds available. We do this each year as part of the Future Years
Defense Program build. The next comprehensive look at all this, to
include the new security strategy and the post-Iraq-War environment,
will be during the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. The Air Force will
be a full and active partner in that process.
______
Questions Submitted to General John P. Jumper
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
AIR EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
Question. General Jumper, I understand the Air Expeditionary Force
construct you refer to on pages 11 and 12 of your written statement has
been useful in managing deployment rotations and incorporation of the
Guard and Reserves. Can you comment on the utility of this rotation
methodology in the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts?
Answer. The Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) has been very successful
in allowing the Air Force to respond to the requirements of both
Afghanistan and Iraq. Even under these stressing conditions the AEF
allowed us to deploy and re-deploy forces in an orderly and thoughtful
manner, thereby preserving the ability of the Air Force to meet
national security imperatives.
In January 2003, we made the decision to deviate from our normal 3-
month rotations so the Air Force could meet combatant commander
requirements. To do so we ``surged'' the AEF to build-up the level of
available forces by freezing AEF seven and eight in place and reaching
forward into future AEFs for additional forces. This allowed us to
simultaneously support homeland security requirements, the global war
on terrorism, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, and an increased force posture
in the Korean AOR proving the AEF's robustness and ability to respond
to crisis situations; however, this deviation from the Air Force's
normal AEF ``battle rhythm'' affected all Air Force personnel: Active
Duty, Guard, and Reserve.
As I noted in the U.S.A.F. Posture Statement, ``we do nothing
without Guard, Reserve and civilian personnel working alongside Active
Duty airmen.'' The AEF construct gives the Air Force the tools to
select the Active Duty, Guard or Reserve capability best able to meet
combatant commander's requirements and achieve national military
objectives. Since September 11, 2001, we have seen a continued increase
in baseline requirements for air and space expeditionary forces. This
trend began after Desert Storm and has continued throughout Kosovo and
Afghanistan. Until we are better able to judge the post Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM requirements, we cannot specifically define the level of
emerging sustained forces required. Regardless of the level of this
requirement, the AEF construct allows us to maximize our sustainable
deployed capability while giving us the flexibility to respond to
additional contingency requirements.
To understand this, one has to realize that the AEF construct is
not just a way for the Air Force to manage deployment rotations. The
AEF construct allows us to provide the greatest possible capability to
the combatant commanders while preserving the readiness of the force to
meet both rotational and crisis requirements. A crucial part of force
readiness is achieved by retaining our most critical resource, the
trained and motivated airman. The recent conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan have once again highlighted the tremendous job these young
professionals are doing for our country. To retain this crucial
resource it is essential we give them the tools to manage their
professional and personal lives by providing predictability and
stability. The AEF construct has been fundamental to our ability to
train and retain the best and brightest.
Recent Operations operations have afforded the Air Force an
opportunity to test the ability of the AEF to robust and respond to
crisis situations. The AEF met this challenge head-on, seamlessly
proving each combatant commander with the expeditionary air and space
capabilities to prevail.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
TANKER FLEET
Question. General Jumper, there is strong reason to believe that
the need for aerial refueling operations to conduct current and future
operations will continue to grow. Is the Air Force's current tanker
fleet able to handle an increased pace of operations?
Answer. We are confident that we can, and will, successfully
execute missions as we did with Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI
FREEDOM. However, if simultaneous operations in other regions are
added, tanker availability becomes more of a limiting factor, delaying
deployment of forces, and extending the duration of the air war.
The Air Force has an urgent and compelling need to begin replacing
the 43-year-old KC-135E as soon as possible. Competing priorities and
limited budget demand our leaders make decisions based on operational
risk and investment choices. Today, our most pressing tanker risk is a
delay to the replacement process. In the future, the Air Force will
continue to assess its tanker requirements and make appropriate
decisions regarding future force structure.
SPACE PROGRAMS
Question. General Jumper, the Space-Based InfraRed System-High has
in the past suffered from schedule delays and significant cost growth.
Can you please give the committee an update on progress in the Air
Force's Space-Based InfraRed System-High in the fiscal year 2004 budget
request and can you guarantee that this program is on schedule and
within its budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation (RDT&E) request for Space-Based Infrared System-High (SBIRS
High) will continue to fund the development contract for space and
ground segment development, continue System Program Office support, and
independent technical analysis by Aerospace corporation.
The fiscal year 2004 Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF) will fund
procurement of equipment needed for Mission Control Station Backup
(MCSB) site activation, systems engineering, integration, and test
support; and hardware and software licenses and government furnished
equipment (GFE). The MCSB at Schriever AFB, CO will be the backup to
the SBIRS Mission control station (MCS) at Buckley AFB, CO, to meet
full operational needs. The MCSB is currently under construction using
the MILCON funded in fiscal year 2002 ($19 million) and is on schedule
for completion by September 2003.
The Interim Test Center (ITC) hardware installation in Boulder, CO,
is scheduled to be completed in July. The Integrated Training Suite
(ITS) is scheduled to be available in the fall of this year. The ITS is
critical to maintain an experienced and effective crew force--ensuring
personnel are trained when they arrive station and remain proficient
throughout their assignment.
SBIRS Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO)-1 payload environmental
testing, including thermal vacuum and acoustic tests, and several
payload-to-host and -ground interface tests were successfully completed
in 2002. Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) testing uncovered excessive
radiated emissions levels in late December 2002. The HEO-1 test and
certification program is designed to find and fix problems. The
problems encountered are not unusual for first time payload integration
of a new sensor. Resolution has required extended rework and parts
fabrication, resulting in a schedule breach to the Acquisition Program
Baseline for delivery of the HEO-1 payload (May 2003 threshold). The
revised schedule details are still being worked; however, delivery
should satisfy the Host's need date. Impacts to the schedules for
subsequent deliveries, including HEO-2 payload and GEO spacecraft, are
under review. The delivery of HEO-1 continues to receive the highest
attention and priority among all stakeholders, contractor CEOs, and the
Under Secretary of the Air Force.
The recent delay in the delivery of the HEO-1 payload is being
handled within the program's funding based on the cost estimate
developed during the Nunn McCurdy certification review process. While
HEO-1 payload delay is unfortunate, the lessons learned from this delay
are being incorporated in the HEO-2 and GEO assembly, integration, and
test.
As a result of the schedule delays and significant cost growth that
led to the SBIRS Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach notification to Congress
in December 2001, the Secretary of the Air Force directed an
Independent Review Team (IRT), in concert with Lockheed Martin, to
review the program and diagnose the root causes and contributing
factors of the significant cost growth. Three root causes were
identified.
1. The program was too immature to enter the detailed System Design
and Development phase.
2. The system requirements and their flow-down into engineering
solutions were not well understood.
3. A significant breakdown in execution management occurred, both
within the government and the contractor teams.
These findings were addressed in the restructured program presented
to the Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics USD(AT&L) for his review.
The USD(AT&L) certified the SBIRS program to Congress as required
by the Nunn-McCurdy Act on May 2, 2002. The Acquisition Decision
Memorandum directed the Air Force to:
--Fully fund the SBIRS-High program to the OSD estimate
--Rebaseline program to OSD schedule
--Approve a revised Acquisition Program Baseline and a revised
Acquisition Strategy
--Submit a quarterly Selected Acquisition Report with an as-of-date
of June 30, 2002
--By January 30, 2003, Under Secretary of the Air Force provide AT&L
with assessment of the program status to meet the revised
Acquisition Program Baseline--completed January 27, 2003.
As part of the Nunn-McCurdy certification process, the Air Force
restructured SBIRS High to make it executable and fully funded the
program to the OSD estimate. The program established a realistic
baseline and implemented management changes based on the Independent
Review Team findings. The acquisition strategy was revised and the
Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) clause removed from the
contract. The comprehensive government Estimate at Complete (EAC)
identified many shortfalls with the original technical baseline that
are now corrected and funded. The schedule also provides for adequate
testing timelines (based on historical data). The Earned Value
Management System (EVMS) enhancements add industry best practices and
more SPO surveillance. Both government and Aerospace staff dedicated to
SBIRS have increased.
The program is implementing only ``Urgent & Compelling'' needs via
a disciplined change process controlled by the SBIRS Program Management
Board. This Program Management Board is in place to prevent
requirements creep. The revised contract defines quantifiable,
objective performance criteria to reward positive behavior and penalize
poor behavior--a Best practice recommendation of the Young Panel.
--Program Execution Performance (PEP) incentivizes disciplined
management/system engineering processes
--Mission Success Incentive incentivizes timely delivery of military
capability
--Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract clause incentivizes cost
performance
Although challenges remain, the Department is reasonably confident
that the SBIRS cost and schedule estimates are realistic and
executable, based on both Air Force and OSD independent cost estimates.
EXPEDITIONARY AEROSPACE FORCE (EAF)
Question. General Jumper, given the current world situation--with
its large scale deployments for the war on terrorism and war with Iraq,
and the possibility that these large scale deployments might continue
for a number of years--is the EAF concept still viable?
Answer. Yes, the Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) concept is
still viable. The AEF concept is not tied to a particular base or
mission. It is the way the Air Force organizes and prepares for
military operations abroad.
The Air Force implemented the AEF structure in October 1999 as a
force management and presentation tool designed to ensure fully trained
and combat-capable airpower forces are always available to successfully
support standing contingency operations.
Sustaining on-going rotation requirements has become part of our
Air Force culture. The AEF concept articulates the capability of the
Air Force to support normal standing rotations and contingency
operations. The Air Force can indefinitely support the deployment of up
to two AEFs (aircraft and expeditionary combat support) worth of
assets.
When contingency requirements exceeded this maximum sustainable
capability, we ``surged'' the AEF to meet those evolving requirements.
During ``surge'' we are able to temporarily increase the amount of
deployed capability up to four AEFs. Requirements beyond two AEFs force
us to reach forward into successive AEFs for the required capabilities.
This surge comes at a price. To enable the build-up of capability unit
training cycles are curtailed and deployment durations are extended.
The higher the level and the duration of surge the greater the
reconstitution impact, in terms of training and recapitalization of
equipment. The Air Force is prepared to transition back to a more
normal rotation cycle when the combatant commanders no longer need the
additional support for OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.
It is important to stress that the ability of the Air Force to
support deployment requirements is in no way limited by the AEF
construct. The AEF structure allows the Air Force to meet the
challenges head on. It provides the Air Force a methodology for
managing force readiness to meet the growing demands for Air & Space
Expeditionary Forces, while simultaneously supporting the Defense
Strategy requirements such as: defend the homeland, deter forward,
swiftly defeat and/or a limited number of lesser contingencies.
Total force size, active to reserve component mix and overseas and
CONUS base structure determine our total deployment capability. To
maintain readiness and meet retention needs the Air Force, like the
other services, needs to limit Temporary Duty (TDY)/deployments of this
deployable capability to approximately one-third of the time. The AEF
rotational construct does this.
Air Force senior leadership is working to reshape the force in
areas of concern highlighted by the recent stress on the system
resulting from current operations. Where possible we are shifting
resources from less stressed areas into stressed career fields and
shifting military positions to make the maximum deployable capability
available. We are also completely revamping our methodology for
determining military and civilian manning requirements to focus the
requirement process on deployable capability rather that home station
requirements. These efforts have made over 270,000 active duty
positions available to meet deployed requirements.
The bottom line is that the AEF has been a tremendous success since
its inception. The modifications we are pursuing, such as embedding the
Air Expeditionary Wings (AEWs) have enhanced the capability of the AEF
over the course of its evolution. The likely level of requirements will
continue to stress the Air Force in the coming years as we reduce the
numbers of mobilized forces, the AEF gives us the best possible tool to
cope with these stresses.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Stevens. If there is nothing further, the
subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., Wednesday, March 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Inouye, and
Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
STATEMENT OF HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, ACTING SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
ADMIRAL VERNON E. CLARK, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
GENERAL MICHAEL W. HAGEE, USMC, COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye [presiding]. I have just received word that
the chairman of the committee is occupied at this moment
getting prepared for the supplemental appropriations debate.
So I will open the proceedings, and I thank all of you for
being here this morning. We have some new faces, new Navy and
Marine Corps leaders with us here today. For the first time, we
have with us our Acting Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Hansford
Johnson, and General Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine
Corps. I look forward to working closely with both of you.
I would like to take a moment to recognize and commend the
men and women of the Navy and Marine Corps for their selfless
service in the war in Iraq and the global war on terrorism.
They are doing courageous and valiant work in the Gulf at this
very moment and obviously, all of us are extremely proud of
their service and their commitment to our Nation, and we wish
them and their families the very best as they continue with
this difficult and honorable mission.
We are here today to discuss the Navy and Marine Corps
fiscal year 2004 budget request. Again, we face challenges as
we attempt to strike the appropriate balance between the needs
of today and the transformation of tomorrow's fleet. This
committee has demonstrated its commitment to our naval forces
year after year. As always, we will want to hear from you about
what is included in the budget for the men and women serving in
the Department, but we are also interested in discussing the
planned size of the naval fleet and the Marine Corps aviation
programs.
With that, I look forward to hearing your remarks today and
extend to you the apologies of my chairman, and we assure you
that we will continue working with you as we maintain the
finest Navy and the most courageous Marine forces in the world.
Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am
pleased to join you in welcoming our distinguished panel of
witnesses before the committee today. Secretary Johnson,
Admiral Clark, Commandant Hagee, thank you very much for your
cooperation with our committee. We are looking forward to your
presentation about the budget request for the next fiscal year
and your observations about how we can be helpful to ensure
that our Navy and Marine Corps remain well-supplied and well-
funded with the resources that you need in order to do your
part to protect the security of our great Nation, and to
continue to successfully wage the war against terror. I think
your accomplishments to date have been truly outstanding in
every way. You have reflected credit on our country and we
thank you for your service.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. May we begin with the
testimony of the Secretary?
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY JOHNSON
Secretary Johnson. Thank you, Senator Inouye, Senator
Cochran. It is an honor to appear before you today and update
you on the Department of the Navy and discuss our 2004 budget.
Today in the Persian Gulf and around the world, our Nation
is served by the most professional and capable naval force in
the world. You should take immense pride as you did in your
comments, Senator Inouye, with how you helped fund this force
and prepare it to do what they are doing today. On behalf of
each sailor and Marine, I thank you for your continuing strong
support.
The Navy and Marine Corps, alongside their Army, Air Force
and Coast Guard partners, are on station in every corner of the
world, taking the fight and global war on terrorism to the
enemies, determining aggression against our Nation and our
allies and representing U.S. interests abroad.
Today, over 68 percent of our ships are underway, including
seven deployed carrier groups. Sixty-six percent of Marine
operating forces are deployed. The Navy-Marine Corps team's
successes are reflective of this strong sustained support that
you and the Congress have provided.
As well as on the home front, our dedicated civilian and
contractor employees, the great American moms and dads, wives,
husbands and children who support these forward deployed
defenders of freedom, we are eternally grateful for the hard
work and sacrifice that they are making for our Nation each
day.
Our people remain our most precious asset. Our ships,
submarines, aircraft and ground combat assets are of no value
without them. The 2004 budget sustains the tremendous progress
we made in personnel and readiness accounts. We have kept faith
with our people by requesting targeted pay raises and further
reduction of the out-of-pocket housing expenses. Recruiting
goals are being met and retention remains strong. In sum, our
Navy-Marine Corps team is well-trained, highly motivated, and
meeting the Nation's call.
Having made great strides in our current readiness and
personnel programs, we must now turn to recapitalization and
modernization. Two-thirds of our Department's top line
increases for 2004 is dedicated to increased procurement.
Eleven billion four hundred million dollars is dedicated to
shipbuilding. This provides for the construction of seven new
ships, two SSBN to SSGN conversions, and the first ship in the
cruiser conversion program. Shipbuilding, while not at the
optimal ten ships per year, represents a significant increase
and a step in the proper direction.
I am also pleased to report that the budget funds 100 new
aircraft, it sustains the MV-22 program, continues development
of the joint strike fighter, and continues a procurement
process for the advanced amphibious assault vehicle. Moreover,
we are pressing ahead with innovative ways to ensure that we
are not locked into purchasing platforms whose electronic
sensor and weapons systems are obsolete upon delivery.
We are moving forward to procure ships not as a total
package, but in the phased approach, the sea frame or hull
followed by the weapons and followed by electronics. This new
strategy will allow us to acquire our systems in the right way
and insert them at the right time in the construction process.
The budget reflects careful balancing of competing demands
and risks. This is most evident in our decision to accelerate
the retirement of the oldest, least capable and most
maintenance-intensive ships. We are convinced that by selecting
near-term divestment of platforms least relevant to our future
is the fastest and most efficient way to recapitalize and
modernize, and transform the Navy and Marine Corps without
compromising our ability to accomplish the ongoing missions.
In total, the retirement of legacy systems and application
of transformational business practices will result in savings
of $1.9 billion. More importantly, the budget builds the
concept of transformation into our recapitalization and
modernization.
This commitment to transformational platforms includes the
next generation aircraft carrier, the CVN-21, the DDX, which is
the centerpiece of the Navy's future family of ships, and the
Littoral combat ship, LCS, which is the newest member of our
family of ships and is designed from the outset as a focused
mission ship that uses reconfigurable mission modules to
counter the most challenging threats in Littorals.
In aviation, we continue to move forward with the joint
strike fighter, the advanced Hawkeye upgrade program, and this
year we are introducing the EA-18G, which will replace the EA-
6B Prowler, which is our most maintenance-intensive aircraft in
the fleet today.
Force Net is a future architecture that will enable
netcentric warfare throughout our forces.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We have made some difficult choices in the 2004 budget
request. We have carefully crafted it to sustain advances made
in personnel, quality of life and readiness, to balance the
risk while divesting legacy systems and concepts to invest in
shipbuilding, aircraft procurement and transformational
technologies, all to achieve the total force that the future
demands.
We look forward to working with you as we move forward.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hansford T. Johnson
NAVY-MARINE CORPS TEAM: NATIONAL SEAPOWER--AROUND THE WORLD, AROUND THE
CLOCK
INTRODUCTION
The Navy-Marine Corps Team continues to provide extraordinary
service and value to our Nation. Throughout the past year our Naval
Forces have distinguished themselves around the globe, and our Sailors
and Marines operating in the air, on and under the sea, and on the
ground--including our space cadre--remain at the leading edge of the
Global War on Terrorism. They have demonstrated the full effect of
their lethal power, from the blue water to the littorals and well
beyond, engaging and destroying the enemy in areas that previously
would have been considered sanctuaries from sea-based forces. At a time
of great consequence for our Nation, our Navy and Marine Corps not only
have ``answered the call,'' but have done so while improving our combat
readiness and retaining our Sailors and Marines at historic rates.
Our successes in the Global War on Terrorism, while significant,
have not been achieved in isolation. We have worked alongside, in
partnership, with our sister Services to realize the true potential of
joint, interoperable forces in the new environment of 21st Century
warfare. The superior operational and personnel readiness levels we
have been able to sustain are directly reflective of the strong,
sustained support of the Congress. In fiscal year 2004, we seek your
support for the President's budget request to sustain the gains made to
date, improve those areas where shortfalls remain, and continue
transforming the Navy and Marine Corps for the 21st Century.
In the balance of this statement we will describe the significant
accomplishments the Navy and Marine Corps have realized during the past
year, the improvements in our warfighting readiness and capabilities
that are supported by the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request,
and some details of our plans to transform and prepare for the
challenges of the future. In assessing our request, it is important to
note that our focus is on improving our ability to operate as an agile,
lethal and effective member of a broader, networked joint warfighting
force. To that end, we have given priority to the following overarching
goals:
--Successfully prosecuting the Global War on Terrorism while
sustaining our current readiness;
--Recapitalizing, modernizing and transforming our Navy and Marine
Corps to meet the challenges of the future;
--Fully networking our forces at sea and ashore to operate seamlessly
in a joint and coalition environment;
--Continuing to invest in our Sailors and Marines; and
--Sustaining the quality of our operational training.
In pursuing these principal objectives, we had to make some
difficult tradeoffs within our proposed program. However, our fiscal
year 2004 budget request is the best balance possible among important,
but often competing priorities.
CONTEXT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST: SUCCEEDING IN A TIME
OF GREAT CONSEQUENCE
Last year, our Navy and Marine Corps forces built on the historic
response of our Sailors and Marines following the September 11, 2001
attacks on our Nation. Today, our forces continue leading the way on
the front lines of the Global War on Terrorism. More than half of our
Navy operating forces and over sixty percent of the Marine Corps
operating forces are currently deployed around the globe. Since the
beginning of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM more than 90,000 Sailors and
Marines and 100 Navy ships have deployed in support of ongoing
operations. Nine of our 12 aircraft carriers and half of our 12
Amphibious Ready Groups have seen action in this worldwide conflict.
Additionally, over 5,000 members of the Naval Reserve and 15,000
members of the Marine Corps Reserve have been activated in support of
these operations.
Even after the effective defeat of the Taliban and the liberation
of Afghanistan, our Naval Forces, whether sea-based or on the ground,
continue their missions. For example, Marines from the 4th Marine
Expeditionary Brigade (Anti-Terrorism) provide support and security for
the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, while others
serve in Tactical Air Operations Detachments in support of air and
Naval Special Warfare operations in Afghanistan.
While the Global War on Terrorism remains our principal focus, the
Navy-Marine Corps team still operates extensively, as in the past,
representing U.S. interests throughout the world. In Southwest Asia, we
maintained continuous carrier presence, conducting combat operations
over Iraq in support of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH. At the same time,
naval task forces continued Maritime and Leadership Interdiction
Operations supporting United Nations economic sanctions against Iraq
for the eleventh straight year. In addition to these operational
commitments, over 2,000 Marines participated in EAGER MACE 2002, an
amphibious assault exercise in Kuwait in late September 2002.
During May through August 2002, over 1,400 Sailors, Marines, and
Coast Guardsmen participated in the eighth annual Cooperation Afloat
Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercise with countries including the
Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei.
Marines from the Third Marine Expeditionary Force participated with all
CARAT nations in landing force operations as well as providing a Marine
Security Element to advise and assist the armed forces of the
Philippines in their efforts against global terrorism.
In the Mediterranean, Navy ships, including surface combatants,
submarines and patrol craft operated with friends and allies in over 60
exercises with NATO and Western European nations to enforce United
Nations sanctions in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Marines from
the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable)
demonstrated their capability to offload and move inland to reinforce
Kosovo Forces' security requirements.
Our ability to sustain the preceding breadth of capabilities, from
combat operations to peacetime coalition-building exercises, came as a
result of difficult choices we made--choices that have proven wise by
the manner in which history unfolded last year. As you recall, in last
year's budget we placed great emphasis on fixing some of the chronic
problems that had been threatening our long term ability to man,
operate and sustain the fleet we have today. We made a conscious
decision to give the highest priority to our personnel and current
readiness accounts. Within our critical procurement accounts we
undertook a major effort to make the foundations for our shipbuilding
programs healthy, even at the expense of being able to procure only
five new ships in fiscal year 2003. While Congressional support for
supplemental appropriations did much to decrease our maintenance
backlog and fill our spare parts bins, we fully recognize our fiscal
year 2003 plan devoted fewer resources toward recapitalization than
either the Department or the Congress would have wished. Having made
that difficult prioritization we committed to translating a healthy
procurement base in fiscal year 2003 into earnest recapitalization in
fiscal year 2004. We have kept that promise.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET: BUILDING FROM A SOLID FOUNDATION
The Department's fiscal year 2004 budget request reflects an
increase of $3.5 billion above the amount provided in the fiscal year
2003 Defense Appropriations Act. It also reflects the Department's
commitment to get the most out of every dollar provided by the American
taxpayers. We do not come to the Congress with ``hat in hand,'' but
rather with a responsible request, optimally balanced across an entire
department of competing priorities. In this budget request we have
proposed an additional $1.9 billion for our priority programs with
funds identified through our own rigorous cost savings and divestiture
initiatives.
Together, these sources of additional funds have enabled us to
``turn the corner'' in our most pressing recapitalization efforts. Two-
thirds of our top line increase is dedicated toward increased
procurement. This budget request reflects two more new construction
ships and five more aircraft than appropriated by Congress last year.
It increases our funding for transformational R&D initiatives by a half
billion dollars while consolidating the critical gains in personnel and
current readiness achieved in last year's budget. The following
represents the priority funding in fiscal year 2004 for the Department
of the Navy:
--We propose 7 new construction ships and 100 new aircraft;
--We propose significant transformational capabilities, including the
next-generation aircraft carrier (CVN-21), the next-generation
destroyer (DD(X)), the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), two more
SSBN-to-SSGN conversions, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the
V-22 Osprey, the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) and
the Advanced Hawkeye (E-2C) Program;
--The Administration proposes a range of military pay increases from
2.0 percent up to 6.25 percent, targeted by rank and years of
service, and additional reductions in out-of-pocket housing
costs from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent;
--We propose sustained funding for our key operational readiness
accounts, including an increase by over $200 million for
aviation depot maintenance;
--We implement Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Aviation Integration, a
process that will maximize our combat power, optimize the core
capability of Naval aviation forces, and introduce 200 modern
aircraft across the fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2009 program;
--We improve the quality of our operational training through our
Training Resource Strategy, and provide $61 million in fiscal
year 2004 toward this end.
Highlights of our fiscal year 2004 budget request are provided in
the sections below.
Current Readiness
The fiscal year 2004 budget request builds upon the best successive
two years in readiness budgets in more than a decade. It funds an
OPTEMPO of 54.0 days per quarter for our deployed forces. This level
supports the Global Naval Forces Presence Policy in terms of Carrier
Battle Group (CVBG) and Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) availability as
required by national security policy. However, accelerated deployment
timelines and increased OPTEMPO will cause current year execution to
run ahead of the existing plan.
Funding for ship maintenance will achieve more than 96 percent of
the fiscal year 2004 notional goal. This reflects a virtually identical
posture as compared to last year, both in terms of percent
accomplishment and quantity of backlog remaining. The aggregate level
of funding for ship maintenance declines from fiscal year 2003 to
fiscal year 2004, due in part to the positive effects of the additional
maintenance funding provided in supplemental appropriations in the
previous year, and in part to the accelerated retirement of our oldest,
least capable, and most maintenance-intensive ships.
Accelerating the retirement of these ships was one of the most
difficult decisions we made in building this year's budget. While
aggregate warfighting capability is a better metric than the number of
ships in our inventory, we recognize that below a certain threshold
numbers do matter. However, our analyses indicate that the near-term
inactivations we are proposing provide an acceptable level of risk
without compromising our ability to accomplish our mission, and that
the fastest and most efficient way to recapitalize and transform the
Fleet is to pursue vertical cuts in our least capable type-model
series, both in ships and in aircraft, and apply those savings toward
procuring new ships and aircraft.
The growing sophistication of potential threats, increasing
complexity of modern warfare, advances in training technology, and the
development of new weapons and tactics require more capable training
facilities and methodologies. Under the leadership of Fleet Forces
Command, the Department has produced the Training Resource Strategy
(TRS), a multi-year plan to improve inter-deployment training for
CVBGs, ARGs and Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs). The Department is
committed to implementing and fully funding these improvements.
The training technology, range and facility improvements programmed
via the TRS will ensure the long-term combat readiness and
effectiveness of our deploying forces and produce a training capability
superior to that existing today. The fiscal year 2004 budget will
ensure deploying forces are fully prepared for the challenges of armed
conflict in the 21st Century.
Personnel Readiness
Our ships, submarines and aircraft have no ``asset value'' to the
nation until manned by trained, educated, and motivated people. Sailors
and Marines--along with our civilian workforce--remain the strong and
steady foundation of our naval capabilities. The families of our
service members also are vital to our readiness. It is a fact that we
recruit Sailors and Marines, but we retain families, and we recognize
that the effectiveness of our forces is dependent in large measure on
the support they receive from their loved ones.
Over the past two years we realized significant gains in the
manpower arena that translated directly into increased personnel
readiness. In the process of maintaining an increased readiness posture
while transforming Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection positions, Navy
operated just below the Congressionally-allowed maximum end-strength
flexibility in fiscal year 2002. Doing so permitted us to sustain CVBG
and ARG manning readiness near 100 percent. Our ability to surge deploy
forces around the globe in response to recent events is testimony to
the success of our personnel readiness posture. Over the course of
fiscal year 2003 and 2004, we anticipate end-strength will decrease
slightly to reflect force structure changes.
Active Duty.--The Navy and Marine Corps met recruiting and
accession goals in 2002, and continue to attract America's finest young
men and women to national service. The Marine Corps notched its seventh
year of meeting monthly and annual recruiting goals. Navy achieved its
recruiting goals for a fourth consecutive year. Both Services are well
positioned for success in meeting 2003 officer accession requirements.
The Sailors and Marines entering active duty truly represent our
country's best and brightest. In 2002, 92 percent of Navy's enlisted
accessions were high school graduates (up from 90 percent in 2001),
while the Marine Corps accessions of high school graduates rose 1.3
percent to 97.5 percent.
Retention rates in 2002 remained at record levels, with 58 percent
of eligible first-term Sailors deciding to ``stay Navy.'' The Marine
Corps met retention goals in 2002 in record time, achieving its highest
occupational specialty match to date while also experiencing its
highest officer retention rate in 18 years. Sailors and Marines have a
sense of purpose and the desire to serve during this critical juncture
in our nation's history. We provide them unique opportunities to grow
professionally and personally, to achieve and be recognized, and to
lead. They see improvements to their quality of service, and they
appreciate the outstanding compensation and benefits provided to them
and to their families. Our recruiting and retention success is
reflected in the fully manned and operationally capable CVBGs and ARGs
currently on station around the globe.
We are fully committed to providing the finest education and
training for these bright young minds, as befits their place as future
leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps. Graduation from ``Battle
Stations'' or the ``Crucible'' is but the first step toward achieving
the technologically advanced force required to conduct naval warfare in
the 21st Century. Our ``Revolution in Training'' is establishing a
career-long learning continuum, ensuring the continuous personal and
professional development of every service member.
Successful as we are in attracting and retaining the best, we must
not lose focus on people programs. Our immediate goals include:
--Increase Navy recruit high school graduation rates from 92 percent
to 94 percent. Maintain Marine Corps recruit high school
graduation rates between 97 percent and 98 percent;
--Increase the percentage of enlisted Navy recruits with previous
college experience or technical/vocational training;
--Continue the Training Transformation started by Navy Task Force
EXCEL (Excellence through Commitment to Education and
Learning), and Marine Corps training continuum synchronization,
including partnering with industry and academia to impart
individual training and education;
--Continue to develop a live, virtual and constructive training
environment both within the Department and for use in
conjunction with the Joint National Training Capability; and
--Explore innovative manning initiatives such as the Optimum Manning
program, which relies on new technologies and creative
leadership to reduce ship manning.
Congressional support for a targeted pay raise in fiscal year 2004,
which recognizes and reaffirms the value of our career force, is
critical to staying the course. So, too, is continuing the reduction of
out-of-pocket housing expenses and the extension and enhancement of
essential special pay and bonus authorities. Selective Reenlistment
Bonus remains an important tool for retaining our critical skill
personnel.
Reserves.--Our reserve community remains an integral part of our
Navy and Marine Corps team, with 88,000 Naval Reservists and 40,000
Selected Marine Corps Reservists serving today. The seamless
integration of the reserve and active components as a Total Force in
the Global War on Terrorism has been a resounding success. The
dedicated service, invaluable resources, and selfless sacrifices to
duty each of these ``citizen Sailors and Marines'' provides on a daily
basis are integral to operational success. We have recalled over 26,000
Navy and Marine Corps Reservists as of mid-March 2003. These patriots
have provided force protection, staff augmentation, intelligence, and
warfighting skills to the Nation's war efforts.
The Naval Reserve constitutes 19 percent of the Navy's Total Force,
with an additional 69,000 Sailors serving as Individual Ready
Reservists (IRRs). In 2002 the Naval Reserve met both its officer and
enlisted recruiting goals, the result of significant recruiting program
efforts. These reserve forces provide our inter-theater airlift, harbor
defense, Naval embarked advisory teams, and Naval Coastal Warfare
capabilities. In addition, a large portion of the Navy's port cargo
handling support, Mobile Construction Battalions, intelligence, and
medical capabilities are resident in the reserves.
The Selected Marine Corps Reserve comprises nearly 25 percent of
the Marine Corps' warfighting capability, with an additional 58,000
Marines serving as Individual Ready Reservists (IRRs). The Marine Corps
Reserve's contribution to the Global War on Terrorism continues with
individuals and units mobilized to provide a wide variety of support.
The additional mobilization of hundreds of Individual Mobilizations
Augmentees and IRRs provided a critical surge of ready expertise and
staff augmentation to warfighting commands, both Joint and Marine.
Civilian Personnel.--The civilian workforce, currently totaling
approximately 186,000, forms an essential role as part of our Total
Force. Hard-working and dedicated civilian employees can be found in
every major command, working alongside our Sailors and Marines,
performing the vital work of the Department. We continually refine and
shape this vital work force for current and future missions. Twenty-one
civilian occupational groups are targeted specifically for intensive
active management. These include science and engineering, logistics,
contracting, human resources, and financial management. Just as it is
essential to recruit and retain the very best Sailors and Marines, it
also is essential to recruit and retain the best and brightest
civilians. We are in a competition for talent, and your support for a
flexible set of civilian human resource management tools that will
reward unconventional thinking will enhance our efforts to hire,
develop, and retain this quality work force. The National Security
Personnel System that is being considered would provide these tools in
our competition for talent.
Shipbuilding
The fiscal year 2004 budget request provides funding for seven new
construction ships, the final two of four planned SSBN-to-SSGN
conversions, and the first ship in our Cruiser Conversion program. In
all, our shipbuilding program includes $11.4 billion, a significant
increase above last year. Additionally, we invest more than $1.5
billion for Research and Development (R&D) in transformational
shipbuilding programs such as CVN-21, DD(X), LCS and SSGN, discussed
later in this statement. The seven new ships include:
--Three ARLEIGH BURKE Class (DDG-51) destroyers. These ships are
being procured as part of a multi-year procurement (MYP) of 10
DDG-51 ships over the period fiscal year 2002 through fiscal
year 2005. In addition to the cost savings from this MYP, the
Navy and its two principal DDG builders successfully negotiated
a workload swap arrangement in June 2002 in which General
Dynamics' Bath Iron Works will transfer LPD-17 ship
construction work to Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in exchange
for additional DDG-51 work. This arrangement will optimize
production efficiencies and stabilize workload at all shipyards
building DDG-51 and LPD-17 Class ships.
--One VIRGINIA Class (SSN-774) fast attack submarine. The fiscal year
2004 ship marks the initial year of a seven-ship, five-year MYP
that will achieve significant savings while increasing
submarine procurement to two per year starting in fiscal year
2007. The first VIRGINIA Class submarine (SSN-774) will deliver
in June 2004.
--One SAN ANTONIO Class (LPD-17) amphibious transport dock. The
fiscal year 2004 budget provides full funding to procure the
sixth ship of this class. The program is on track, and
represents an urgently needed contribution to the Marine Corps'
amphibious lift requirements.
--Two LEWIS AND CLARK Class (T-AKE) auxiliary cargo and ammunition
ships. Fiscal year 2004 funding procures the fifth and sixth
ships of this class to continue recapitalization of our support
fleet. Delivery of the lead ship is expected in fiscal year
2005.
Beginning in fiscal year 2004, the Cruiser Conversion Program will
provide selected TICONDEROGA Class Aegis-equipped cruisers with
essential land attack, force protection, and Area Air Defense Commander
capabilities, extending their mission-relevant service life to 35-plus
years.
Beyond the new construction ships and conversions, the fiscal year
2004 budget request provides additional incremental funding for LHD-8,
service life extension for three Landing Craft Air Cushioned, and
initial R&D efforts on the LHA Replacement (LHA(R)), scheduled for
procurement in fiscal year 2007. In LHA(R) the Department is pursuing a
far more capable replacement for aging amphibious ships such as the
LHA. While the initial stages of design move forward, LHA(R) will offer
many improvements over the LHA it will replace, and will set the stage
for further development toward a new design that could offer
capabilities such as concurrent flight operations of helicopters and
fixed wing aircraft.
Aircraft
The Department's fiscal year 2004 budget maximizes the return on
aviation investment, primarily through the use of MYP arrangements for
the F/A-18E/F (both airframe and engine), the E-2C, and the MH-60S. We
also have agreed to enter a joint MYP contract with the Air Force to
procure KC-130Js to replace the Marine Corps' fleet of KC-130F/Rs. In
all, the fiscal year 2004 budget procures 100 new aircraft, including:
53 tactical, fixed wing aircraft (42 F/A-18E/F, 2 E-2C and 9 MV-22); 28
helicopters (13 MH-60S, 6 MH-60R and 9 UH-1Y /AH-1Z); 16 trainer
aircraft (15 T-45 and 1 T-39); and 3 support aircraft (2 UC-35 and 1 C-
40A).
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the Navy's principal tactical
aviation recapitalization program until we get to the JSF. The fiscal
year 2004 budget includes $3.0 billion for 42 planes, which constitutes
the final installment of an fiscal year 2000-fiscal year 2004 MYP
contract. Deliveries remain ahead of schedule, and the first squadron
of F/A-18E/F recently conducted combat operations aboard USS ABRAHAM
LINCOLN (CVN-72). Of note, a variant of the F/A-18 airframe, the EA-
18G, has been selected as the Navy platform to replace the aging EA-6B
Prowler. By using a common airframe, the EA-6B follow-on will deliver
at lower cost while providing growth potential for improved future
electronic warfare systems. The Marine Corps expects to fly the EA-6B
(ICAP III) until approximately 2014 to 2015 before transitioning to a
new Electronic Attack aircraft.
Based on successful flight testing results, the Department felt
confident to continue the minimum sustaining rate for the V-22 Osprey
program and has requested nine MV-22s along with two CV-22s requested
by the Air Force. Additionally, fiscal year 2004 funding supports key
elements of the Department's helicopter master plan. We have requested
procurement of 13 MH-60S platforms (organic mine countermeasures,
combat search and rescue, special operations and logistics missions)
and 6 MH-60R platforms (tactical support missions for surface
combatants and aircraft carriers). Together, these will continue
replacing the Department's aging fleet of H-46, SH-3, SH-60B and SH-60F
helicopters. Fiscal year 2004 will mark the first year of procurement
in the AH-1Z/UH-1Y program. These aircraft improve many capabilities
for the Marine Corps, including increased payload, range and time on
station, improved sensors and lethality, and 85 percent component
commonality.
Weapons
The fiscal year 2004 budget request supports the Department's
objective to develop, upgrade and replace weapons and weapon systems to
ensure we maintain our warfighting edge.
Our precision guided munitions inventory will continue to improve
in fiscal year 2004 as the Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM) system ramps up
to full rate production. TACTOM will accelerate the transition of our
land attack missile inventory from the older Tomahawk Land Attack
Missile to the newer, more capable, less costly TACTOM. The budget
request sustains the maximum Department of the Navy production rate for
the Joint Direct Attack Munition of 1,000 units per month while
procuring over 5,000 Laser Guided Bomb kits. Production of the Joint
Standoff Weapon (JSOW) baseline variant (dispenser) increases in fiscal
year 2004, and the JSOW unitary variant (penetrator) enters full rate
production.
Several land attack R&D efforts central to future littoral warfare
continue in fiscal year 2004. Advanced naval gun technologies will
enhance fire support to Marines operating ashore. Evolving toward a
fiscal year 2005 ``shoot-off,'' either the Extended Range Guided
Munition or the Autonomous Naval Support Round will enhance the range
and accuracy of Navy 5-inch guns. The Advanced Gun System will provide
the next generation of surface combatants with a modular, large caliber
gun system including an automated magazine handling system.
Key Warfighting ``Core Competencies''
While the fiscal year 2004 budget request devotes a significant
amount of resources toward recapitalizing and transforming to meet
future requirements, it also provides solid support for our
longstanding naval ``core competencies'' of Anti-submarine Warfare
(ASW), Mine Warfare (MIW), Ship Self Defense (SSD) and Air Defense
(AD).
ASW.--ASW remains a challenging mission area, particularly in the
shallow water littoral regions populated by modern, quiet submarines.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request supports numerous improvements in
ASW. The Improved Extended Echo-Ranging is incorporated into the USQ-
78B Acoustic Processor, which will improve large area acoustic search
capability on our Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Further enhancements to our
capability for large area search will be provided by acquiring the
Automatic Periscope Detection and Discrimination system. Additionally,
the capability for our surface combatants to survive attacks from
threat torpedoes will be enhanced through the Surface Ship Torpedo
Defense effort. The success of the Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion (A-
RCI) program in providing significant improvement in ASW sensor
processing for our submarine force has spawned similar efforts in
submarine combat control, communications, and upgrades to the surface
fleet's SQQ-89 combat suite. These programs validate the Navy's
decision to use commercially available technology to deliver superior
performance at less cost.
MIW.--The Navy continues to make advances in MIW capabilities, and
our emphasis on organic capabilities to counter the growing mine threat
is enhancing our ability to ``get to the fight.'' The fiscal year 2004
budget continues the development and acquisition of the Long-Term Mine
Reconnaissance System (LMRS), which is on track for an fiscal year 2005
IOC on LOS ANGELES Class submarines. LMRS will provide a clandestine
reconnaissance capability for mines and mine-like objects. The fiscal
year 2004 budget also includes funding for the development and
acquisition of the Remote Mine-hunting System (RMS), a surface ship--
launched and recovered semi-submersible vehicle. RMS has an fiscal year
2005 IOC with near-term fielding planned for DDGs 91-96. RMS also is a
strong candidate for future deployment on the Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS). To meet the Department's goal of an organic mine warfare
capability by fiscal year 2005, the fiscal year 2004 budget continues
the development and integration of five Organic Mine Subsystems into
the MH-60S platform.
SSD.--We continue to invest in upgrading our Ship Self Defense
programs. Fiscal year 2004 funding covers the spectrum from electronic
countermeasures to missiles to guns. The Surface Electronic Warfare
Improvement Program (SEWIP) is a spiral development effort initiated to
provide a robust, full spectrum electronic warfare system following
cancellation of the Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System in
fiscal year 2002. SEWIP will build on the legacy SLQ-32 system to field
capabilities against next-generation threats. The current budget
expands procurement of the Close-in Weapons System, Block 1B. The
internationally-procured Rolling Air Frame Missile will provide ship
self-defense against missiles as part of a layered defense.
Additionally, we are pursuing installation of minor caliber guns on our
deploying ships to improve our ability to counteract a small boat
threat in the 0 to 8,000 yards range. We soon will install stabilized
minor caliber guns on two DDGs.
AD.--The fiscal year 2004 budget requests funds to develop the
Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM). ERAM will enable over-the-horizon
engagements against the most advanced anti-ship and land attack cruise
missiles, and represents an important step in projecting area defense
landward from the sea.
Maneuver Warfare
The fiscal year 2004 budget supports the continued development and
fielding of all equipment used by the Marine Corps' maneuver forces.
This year we identify approximately $340 million for R&D and
procurement of the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV). Last
year we procured the first AAAV, which will serve as a full-up system,
live-fire test vehicle. We will procure 186 systems over the remainder
of the fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2009 program. Scheduled for IOC in
fiscal year 2008, the AAAV will provide a unique combination of
offensive firepower, nuclear-chemical-biological protection, and high
speed mobility on land and on sea.
The fiscal year 2004 budget will fund the next 60 Lightweight 155
mm (LW155) Howitzers. These units will provide significant improvements
in Marine Corps fire support over the current M198 system. Compatible
with all United States and NATO 155 mm rounds, the smaller footprint of
the LW155 will reduce strategic sealift requirements while providing
improved accuracy and greater lethality.
C\4\I, Space and Network Initiatives
The Department's Command, Control, Communication, Computers, and
Intelligence (C\4\I) and space programs are an integral part of network
centric operations, enhancing the combat capability of our Naval Forces
and serving as critical enablers of a transforming Navy and Marine
Corps. Our concept of Information Technology for the 21st Century (IT-
21) is providing a common backbone for C\4\I systems to be linked
afloat, ashore, and to the Internet. IT-21 combines satellite and line-
of-sight communication paths with commercial IT hardware and software
to establish secure and unclassified Internet Protocol network
connectivity for ashore and mobile Naval forces. This is a critical
first step toward transformational network centric operations.
Our next major objective is to integrate the successes of IT-21 and
incorporate them across the full spectrum of naval operations to
achieve significant improvement in knowledge management and operational
performance. This full dimensional approach, called FORCEnet, will
provide the operational construct and architectural framework for naval
warfare in the information age. We will address FORCEnet in greater
detail later in this statement.
Support from space is essential to many Navy and Marine Corps
operations today, and grows increasingly important as the force becomes
more network centric. The fiscal year 2004 budget supports the
Department's expanding efforts in space, including assured, high data
rate satellite communications, precision navigation and targeting,
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems and environmental
support.
The fiscal year 2004 budget continues critical enhancements that
will provide our forces with a common tactical picture. Cooperative
Engagement Capability (CEC) will provide real time exchange of fire
control quality data between battle force units and will permit a
single, identical tactical picture. The Block 2 version will reduce
cost, size and weight, with procurement beginning in fiscal year 2006.
The Naval Fires Control System and Joint Fires Network will use
existing fire control infrastructure to serve as the nerve center for
surface land attack by automating shipboard land attack battle
management duties, incorporating improved land attack weapons systems,
and utilizing battlefield digitization.
The Navy/Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) serves as the principal
element of the IT-21 effort ashore and is a key enabler of IT
transformation. Business Case Analyses conducted over the last two
years have demonstrated that the NMCI strategy, characterized by having
a single private sector entity provide IT services under a long-term
commercial seat management contract is, in fact, a sound business
decision compared to the way IT requirements previously were satisfied.
Last year Congress approved a two-year extension to the base
performance period of the original NMCI contract, extending coverage
through fiscal year 2007. Fiscal year 2004 funding of $1.6 billion
continues user seat roll-out and cutover to the NMCI architecture.
Progressing toward a target end-state of 365,700 seats.
Missile Defense Initiatives
The Department of the Navy is poised to contribute significantly in
fielding initial sea-based missile defense capabilities to meet the
near-term ballistic missile threat to our homeland, our deployed
forces, and our friends and allies. We are working closely with the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to upgrade six DDGs in calendar year 2004
and another six in calendar year 2005 for ICBM surveillance and
tracking duties. We also are supporting MDA's procurement of up to 20
Standard Missile interceptors to provide a limited at-sea capability to
intercept ballistic missiles in the ascent and mid-course phases of
flight. Finally, USS LAKE ERIE (CG-70) will be assigned to MDA to
facilitate a more robust testing program for missile defense. Our sea-
based missile defense programs experienced tremendous success on the
test range during 2002, and we look forward to building on these
successes to accelerate development of this vital capability for our
Nation.
Shore Infrastructure
The Department remains dedicated to maintaining and improving the
quality of our support to Sailors and Marines. Maintaining and
improving an aging infrastructure, while recapitalizing our operating
forces, requires disciplined choices and innovative approaches.
The fiscal year 2004 housing program continues the Department's
course toward the goal of eliminating inadequate family housing by
2007. The Navy's three-pronged strategy of improving allowances to
service members, privatizing, and continuing traditional military
construction is proving very successful. Increased Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH) is spurring local communities to provide necessary
housing on the open market. Recent analysis shows we have reduced the
total requirement for government furnished housing by over 9,500 units.
Public/Private housing ventures are allowing us to achieve more
with less commitment of resources. In fiscal year 2003 we will
privatize over 10,400 homes in five locations; in fiscal year 2004 we
are increasing this by another 7,000 units. Where BAH and privatizing
do not apply we are renovating or replacing our inventory.
We are building on our successes in Family Housing to help achieve
our Homeport Ashore Program. Three bachelor housing pilot projects are
being considered that could increase the number of spaces in San Diego,
Norfolk and Camp Pendleton.
The fiscal year 2004 Military Construction and Sustainment program
reflects difficult but necessary trade-offs between shore
infrastructure and fleet recapitalization. The Department remains
committed to achieving a 67-year recapitalization rate by fiscal year
2008. In pursuing that goal we will explore innovative solutions to
provide safe, efficient installations for our service members,
including design-build improvements, more efficient facilities and BRAC
land sales via the GSA Internet.
Business Practices
We have embarked on a mission to improve the business practices of
the Department. Every dollar saved by working smarter or by ending
outdated methods of operations is another dollar that can be used for
our Sailors and Marines to equip, train or fight.
Information is key to improving the way we do business. Better
information makes for better decision making, both on the battlefield
and at the budget table. We have four pilot programs in place utilizing
enterprise resource planning, or ERP, which aim to improve the quality
of information available to our decision makers. These pilot projects
will eliminate dozens of incompatible computer databases and the
business processes that once supported those databases. Even more
importantly, ERP should produce financial and managerial information
that is more complete, more accurate and more timely. Our focus now is
on converging these pilots to achieve even greater synergy of
management information across a broader spectrum of the Department, and
working with the Department of Defense Comptroller to ensure these
efforts are advancing the uniform business management architecture
under development.
In addition to better information, we need flexible and innovative
tools to help manage the Department. Some of these tools, like
strategic sourcing, are being used already. Competition helps achieve
the best quality support to the Sailor and Marine at the lowest
possible cost by introducing the discipline of the marketplace. The
acquisition process still needs considerable reform. We owe it to every
Sailor and Marine to ensure that today's technology arrives in their
hands today, not tomorrow. It still takes too long from lab to live
fire. Finally, the Navy and Marine Corps need better tools to recruit
and manage the civilians who support our warfighter.
This year's budget request includes reforms that will allow us to
continue to improve business practices. These proposed reforms include
increasing Operations and Maintenance appropriations from one-year to
two-year money and consolidating Military Personnel accounts from ten
to four accounts. These initiatives would allow more effective
management and execution of these programs.
NAVAL POWER 21: A TRANSFORMATIONAL VISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Fundamentally, our Navy and Marine Corps exist to control the seas,
assure access, and project power beyond the sea. Our vision, Naval
Power 21, is built upon three pillars:
--We assure access. We assure sea-based access worldwide for military
operations, diplomatic interaction, and humanitarian relief
efforts.
--We fight and win. We project power to influence events at sea and
ashore both at home and overseas.
--We are transforming continually to improve. We are transforming
concepts, organizations, doctrine, technology, networks,
sensors, platforms, weapon systems, training, education and our
approach to people.
Although the Navy and Marine Corps team remains the greatest
maritime force in the world, the emerging challenges of the 21st
Century demand a joint, netted, power projection force that offers
modern and ever-evolving combat capability. Together, under the
supporting service visions of Seapower 21 and Marine Corps Strategy 21,
we will provide funding for a full array of transformational
initiatives in our R&D, investment and operational programs. Evidence
of the scope and magnitude of these changes is highlighted by our
transformation: from a single new class of destroyer to a family of
surface combatants tailored for the full range of 21st Century
missions; from a Cold War force of 18 SSBNs to a 21st Century force of
14 SSBNs and 4 SSGNs; from evolutionary aircraft carrier improvements
to the revolutionary promise of CVN-21; from no ballistic missile
defense (BMD) capability to limited sea-based BMD capability; and from
competing Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation to an integrated
Naval tactical aviation.
Transformational Capabilities to Assure Access and Project Power
The Navy and Marine Corps continue to meet the imperative of
transformation. Our ``way ahead'' for the future capitalizes on
transformational ideas that facilitate our recapitalization goals. The
fiscal year 2004 budget request includes funding for initiatives in
shipbuilding, aviation and C\4\I that promise dramatic improvements in
assuring access and projecting power.
In shipbuilding, we are fulfilling the President's stated goal to
``skip a generation'' of technology by restructuring our previous two-
step (CVNX-1 and CVNX-2) evolutionary acquisition approach into a
single transformational ship design that accommodates continuous
evolution through the life of the class. The new design, named CVN-21,
sustains the original development and construction schedule from CVNX-
1, but accelerates many critical technologies previously planned for
the second step ship, CVNX-2. CVN-21 will feature a new propulsion
plant, a greatly expanded electrical generation and distribution
system, a new/enlarged flight deck, an improved sortie rate generation
over CVNX-1, an electro-magnetic aircraft launching system (EMALS), a
new advanced arresting gear, improved weapons and material handling
systems, and improved survivability features--all with 800 fewer crew
members. In support of this technology acceleration we have added
significant funding across the fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2009
program while providing $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone.
The centerpiece warship of our future surface combatant ``family of
ships,'' the DD(X), is on track to move to an initial construction
contract award in fiscal year 2005. Fiscal year 2004 funding of $1.05
billion will enable further development of key electric drive, power
grid, and combat system components. Through a spiral development
acquisition process, DD(X) will be the principal technology engine that
will feed the entire family of ships.
The fiscal year 2004 budget requests approximately $160 million in
R&D to begin moving out with the next member of our future surface
combatant ``family of ships,'' the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). A
networked, lethal, small, fast, stealthy, and highly maneuverable ship,
LCS will be designed from the keel up as a focused mission ship capable
of employing manned and unmanned mission modules to counter some of the
most challenging anti-access threats our naval forces may encounter
close to shore--mines, quiet diesel submarines and swarming small
boats. Last year, we continued experimenting with a range of innovative
hull forms, and the Congress supported us so we could get the program
moving this year, avoiding a critical one-year delay. The fiscal year
2004 effort will be aimed at defining requirements, improving our
knowledge base for selecting an LCS design, and beginning mission
module development.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request contains nearly $1.2 billion
for SSBN-to-SSGN conversion. This effort will provide a near-term
transformational capability to the Nation by removing four OHIO Class
submarines from their strategic mission, refueling their reactors to
permit an additional 20 years of operation, and converting them into
conventional strike platforms capable of carrying more than 150
Tomahawk missiles and deploying over 60 special operations forces.
Funding to commence the first two conversions was provided in fiscal
year 2003; this year's request supports the conversion of the third
submarine and the advance procurement and planning for the final
overhaul in fiscal year 2005.
The fiscal year 2004 budget provides $2.2 billion to continue
development of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a stealthy, multi-role
fighter aircraft designed to be an enabler for Naval Power 21. JSF
replaces the Navy's F-18A/C Hornet variants and the Marine Corps' AV-8B
Harrier and F/A-18C/D Hornet while complementing the Navy's F/A-18E/F
Super Hornet. JSF offers dramatic improvements in affordability and
supportability. It has completed all major milestones to date on time,
and remains on track to IOC for the Marine Corps in 2010 and for the
Navy in fiscal year 2012.
A critical enabler of transformational intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance, the E-2C Advanced Hawkeye Program will provide a
robust overland capability against current and future cruise missile-
type targets. The fiscal year 2004 budget invests over $350 million for
continued development. IOC is planned for fiscal year 2008 with a total
procurement of 66 systems.
As the Global War on Terrorism has demonstrated, unmanned
technology will play an ever-increasing role in the battleground of the
21st Century. The Department's fiscal year 2004 budget invests more
than $300 million across a series of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
programs, including Tactical UAVs, Maritime Surveillance UAVs and an
Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) initiative, developed in partnership
with the U.S. Air Force. Beneath the sea, we will invest more than $80
million in Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs) that are being developed
to enhance capabilities in minefield reconnaissance and other submarine
missions.
Transformational Organizations and Operational Concepts
Beyond pure technology, transformation also includes revolutionary
methods for achieving dramatically greater utility out of our existing
assets. The Department's initiative to integrate its tactical aviation
capabilities is one such transformational story. Navy and Marine Corps
Tactical Air Integration will maximize forward deployed combat power
and optimize the core capability of naval aviation forces. Its positive
impact will be felt across the Department's entire tactical aviation
enterprise, from leaner, more capable fighting formations to
streamlined procurement requirements (tactical and training) to
manpower savings. In total, this innovative program promises to save
$975 million over the fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2009 program and
provide approximately $19 billion in cost avoidance from fiscal year
2007-fiscal year 2012.
To support the ability of forward based naval forces to respond to
a host of scenarios, the Navy and Marine Corps are exploring more
robust strike capabilities for the ARG/MEU team. The Expeditionary
Strike Group pairs the traditional ARG with surface combatants and an
SSN so the force has greater capability to conduct independent
operations in the ``deter'' and ``swiftly defeat'' scenarios outlined
in our defense strategy.
FORCEnet is the Department of the Navy's catalyst for operational
transformation. In the realm of network centric warfare and operations,
it will enable orders of magnitude increases in combat power to ensure
decisive influence and warfighting success across the full spectrum of
military operations in the information age. FORCEnet is not a system.
It is the architecture by which we will integrate our sensors,
networks, decision aids, weapons and warfighters into a networked,
distributed combat system, scalable across the entire range of conflict
from seabed to space and sea to land. Leveraging powerful network
infrastructure ashore, including NMCI and the various constituents of
IT-21, with legacy and developing tactical networks at sea, including
those as diverse as CEC, Joint Fires Network and the E-2C Advanced
Hawkeye Program, FORCEnet will bring a dramatically expanded
``toolbox'' of capabilities to the joint warfare commander. Through
FORCEnet the Navy and Marine Corps will transform to a joint, netted,
distributed and forward stationed force.
Transformational Initiatives for our People
Sea Warrior is the process of developing 21st Century Sailors.
Curriculum Mapping is the Marine Corps equivalent. These initiatives
identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for mission
accomplishment; apply a career-long training and education continuum;
and employ a responsive, interactive career management system to ensure
the right skills are in the right place at the right time.
Modern Naval Forces are manned by streamlined teams of Sailors and
Marines who fight and manage some of the most complex systems in the
world. We need Sailors and Marines who are highly educated and expertly
trained. They must be creative thinkers and life-long learners, and it
is for them that we undertook the Revolution in Training. They also
deserve a human resource management and detailing system that provides
information and choice, both to the Sailor and gaining commands, so
that informed career decisions can be made. To this end, we are moving
toward an interactive and incentivized distribution system that
includes team detailing, web job listings, an information call center,
and comprehensive and extensive engagement of our detailers with
individual Sailors to help shape their careers.
At sea, we are exploring two initiatives that promise a revolution
in the way we man our ships. First, we have begun an ``Optimal Manning
Experiment'' on board USS MILIUS (DDG-69) and USS MOBILE BAY (CG-53) to
develop a more efficient model for the shipboard manning requirements
of the 21st Century. Also, we have begun a crewing experiment, entitled
``Sea Swap,'' in which we will deploy two destroyers for 18 months
consecutively, rotating the entire crews at six-month intervals. This
initiative will realize significant operational savings by avoiding
multiple six-week transits to and from the deployed operating areas.
Transformational Initiatives for Doing Business
Our ability to recapitalize and transform stems in large measure
from a vigorous divestiture program that forced us to make hard choices
across every facet of the Department's operations. We looked hard at
older systems with their limited capabilities and high infrastructure
costs (maintenance, parts, training, etc.) and ultimately decided to
accelerate retirement of 11 ships and 70 aircraft. We reorganized and
then reduced the Secretary of the Navy Headquarters Staff by 25
percent. We divested ourselves from more than 50 systems and eliminated
70,000 legacy IT applications from an original baseline of 103,000. In
the aggregate, these difficult decisions yielded $1.9 billion for
reinvestment in higher priorities.
In addition to divestiture initiatives, we are transforming the way
we manage the entire Department's internal affairs. Perhaps nowhere is
this more evident than in our shipbuilding programs. Instead of locking
ourselves into ``pre-ordained obsolescence'' through rigid designs for
hull, combat and information systems that take years to execute, we are
capitalizing on computer-aided, design-build strategies in which we
harvest commercial, ``state-of-the art'' technologies and insert them
at the optimum time as the construction process moves from hull to
combat system suite to information systems. We have undertaken some
remarkable initiatives within our acquisition community that have
stabilized key industrial bases, expanded our ability to capitalize on
the best commercial practices, and laid a strong foundation for
controlling the costs of our major acquisition programs.
We are working with industry as partners across the full breadth of
our shipbuilding programs. The tri-partite agreement between Navy,
General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman stabilized both our DDG-51 and
LPD-17 programs, avoided a ``second lead ship'' challenge for the LPD
program, and produced savings sufficient to purchase a third DDG in
fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005. We are working with the software
industry to open all Navy architectures. These efforts are intended to
lead to the development of a truly open architecture that can be shared
between all of our current and future combatant ships. Finally, we have
imposed a discipline on ourselves that severely limits change during
the critical phases of our major shipbuilding programs. This discipline
also has been implemented in the JSF program through a configuration
steering board. By controlling the scope and timing of change, we hope
to implement necessary changes in our programs in a planned fashion
where we know what it will cost and how we will install it in the most
economical manner.
Through these transformational business initiatives and others, our
Department will emerge with an optimal force structure; a healthy
industrial base and an efficient and appropriately sized
infrastructure.
THE WAY AHEAD: POSITIONING TODAY'S NAVY AND MARINE CORPS FOR TOMORROW'S
CHALLENGES
Although the Global War on Terrorism is closer to the beginning
than the end, our Navy and Marine Corps, as members our nation's joint
battle force, have disrupted terrorist networks and freed the people of
Afghanistan. Our Nation can take pride that, in 2002, the Navy-Marine
Corps Team continued its record of combat excellence, improved
operational readiness and retained our magnificent people at historic
rates.
Much has been accomplished, but much remains to be done. The
Department's fiscal year 2004 budget request positions today's Navy and
Marine Corps to support tomorrow's joint warfighting environment by
sustaining hard-fought advances in personnel and operational readiness,
investing in critical shipbuilding and aircraft programs, fueling
transformational capabilities, and building a global, agile and fully
networked force. As our Navy and Marine Corps Team confronts a future
with challenges already visible on the horizon, we thank you for your
terrific support of our Naval Forces, and urge your continued support
for the course upon which we have embarked to fight and win our
nation's wars while preparing to meet the demands of an uncertain
tomorrow.
Senator Stevens [presiding]. Yes, sir. Who is next, Admiral
Clark?
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL VERNON E. CLARK
Admiral Clark. Thank you, Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye,
Senator Cochran. Good morning. I am privileged to be here this
morning to talk about our Navy and to talk about it in the
context of the Navy-Marine Corps team. Mr. Chairman, I like to
tell folks that the man sitting at the other end of the table
is my number one joint partner, and I am extremely pleased and
honored to be able to serve along General Mike Hagee, and
especially at a time like this with what the Marine Corps is
accomplishing in the theater of operations.
This morning, Mr. Chairman, 54 percent of my Navy is
forward deployed. As Secretary Johnson just talked about, they
are forward deployed, they are at the tip of the spear, and
they are doing what they are supposed to be doing and that is
carrying out the orders of the President of the United States.
And of course, most of them are engaged in Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM. They are striking the enemy. They are providing close
air support for Marines and Army troops, for coalition
partners. They are clearing the sea lanes. They are providing
supplies and logistics and are protecting our joint coalition
forces at sea and on land. They remain ready, they are ready,
and they are part of a very effective joint combined force.
On the night before hostilities commenced, I passed a note
to Secretary Rumsfeld and I said to him, Mr. Secretary, I have
never seen our Navy as ready as it is today. And I never have.
And I would just want to say to this committee that I am
extraordinarily appreciative of the partnership that has been
crafted by the leaders of America who have put the resources in
place to see to it that we have the kind of ready Navy that we
have today. And I can tell you that earlier in my career, I
have not seen a time that we would have been able to surge this
force forward with the kind of readiness statistics that we are
realizing today, and I believe that the return on investment is
showing itself on the battlefield and on the oceans in
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.
Of course as Senator Inouye said, today we are here to talk
about the 2004 investment strategy. What we are seeing in Iraqi
Freedom is the return on investment from previous investments.
Today we are here to talk about the 2004 investment plan.
I would like to focus on two areas, two areas for
investment.
Number one, people. Secretary Johnson talked about the
things that are going on in our Navy. Seventy-seven thousand of
our sailors are deployed in the theater of operations and about
10,500 reserves, and they are taking the fight to the enemy. I
just want to say that Congress' attention to their pay, to
allowances, to housing, to infrastructure and the things, the
tools that allow them to do the job, have made a difference,
and the quality of life and quality of work for our sailors and
families is good and improving.
I just want to also say that our sailors are responding to
the signals that they are receiving from the citizens of the
United States and from the Congress. We are enjoying as I sit
here this morning, the best retention, the best manning that I
have ever witnessed in my career. Three straight years now of
record retention, never better in our 227-year history of our
institution. Last month, first-term retention in my Navy was 79
percent, and for this fiscal year it has been 76 percent. Never
in our history have we had anything like this.
I want to say that at the heart of our readiness is our
manpower readiness, the readiness of our people. It did not
happen by accident, it happened because of actions by leaders
of America. Our ships and squadrons are fully manned. They have
been able to surge forward on a moment's notice.
Most noteworthy, the response by the United States Marine
Corps and Amphibious Task Force East and West are great
indicators of how ready the Navy and the Marine Corps team were
at the time and are now in the battlefield.
But I would like to say that numbers alone is not enough,
and we have struck out on programs committed to the growth and
the development of our people, of our skilled work force, and
it is making a difference. We are focusing on something called
sea warrior, I detailed it my written testimony. It is about a
21st century revolution, and it is about new and innovative
techniques in growing and developing people. It is about
getting the right skills in the right place and at the right
time.
And so, my conclusion of all this is that the unprecedented
success that we are realizing in the battle for people has been
spearheaded by the incredible readiness postures that we
realize today. The challenge for us is to sustain the gains
that we have achieved in the past couple of years in readiness
and manpower, while focusing on the second thing I want to talk
to you about, and that is, it is time to focus on our future
and that is modernizing and transforming the force.
That leads us to capital investments in hardware, ships,
airplanes, submarines. Programs that needed to mature, that
were not where we wanted them to be. And I want to say that
this committee specifically helped us deal with the very
difficult problem in prior year shipbuilding costs, you helped
us fix it, and it is paying dividends this morning. Building
approaches to improve the industrial base. We are grateful for
the way this committee has helped us put ourselves on a solid
foundation so that we can move forward with transforming the
United States Navy.
Our strategy for the future is detailed in our vision for
the Navy, Sea Power 21, and again, it is detailed in my written
testimony which is a matter of record and I will not go into
detail with it this morning, except to say this: It is about
the commitment to being on the offense. I call that sea strike,
projecting offensive power.
It is happening this morning with long range tac air, and
Tomahawks launched a thousand miles or more. And it is about
the United States Marine Corps and what they are doing
projecting power. It is about sea shield, and that is
projecting defensive power, a new strategic capability,
tracking missiles over land. This morning we are operating in
concert with the United States Army on those missiles that have
been launched on our forces. The capability that we have seen
in testing over the last year in missile defense is, in fact,
in place on the battlefield providing tracking, and in
partnership with the United States Army.
And of course we cannot forget that it is about clearing
the Littoral, of mine threats, and the humanitarian assistance
that is going on right now, and has been seen on television.
One of the reasons it is happening is because the mine warfare,
the people executing the mine warfare function and application
have been performing superbly.
And then it is about sea basing. I call that projecting
American sovereignty from the sea, going where we need to go,
where we want to go. The operational independence that comes
from operating from the maritime domain. And so, the Marine
Corps and the Navy are committed to exploiting the maritime
battle space to the advantage of U.S. joint and combined forces
in the future. This year's investment strategy is committed to
building toward that vision of tomorrow.
Starting with the family of ships for the 21st century. The
Secretary mentioned it, DDX, the heart of the family of ships.
And the Littoral combatant ship that is designed to deal with
the kind of threats that we are facing in the first part of the
21st century, designed to deal with the asymmetric threats that
are going to come after us. Built with plug and play technology
from the beginning, built and conceived for unmanned vehicles,
unmanned air vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles, unmanned
underwater vehicles. That is the family of ships spiraling to
CGX.
And of course the Secretary mentioned EA-18G, a very
important development in this program. And the new carrier. And
there is an exciting future detailed for the Navy and the
Marine Corps with the family of ships there, the replacement
LHA and maritime preposition forces for the future, and the
importance of LPD-17 that is now a healthy robust program, with
the first ship soon to be launched here in a couple months.
Submarine programs, the exciting Virginia class and the new
SSGN.
So the challenge for us is figuring out how to find the
resources, and of course that is what this committee is all
about. And I just want you to know that we are trying to do our
part. We are trying, we are working to find resources and make
sure that we are putting resources in the right place to make
our readiness what it needs to be today and for the future.
We are challenging our people to innovate and to find
deficiencies, and to get as much combat readiness as we can out
of every dollar that is given to us by the taxpayers of the
United States of America. And I would just say that the biggest
example of that is Navy-Marine Corps tac air integration. This
is a story that, you know, we could talk about for 30 minutes,
but the bottom line is this program, this partnership between
the Navy and Marine Corps will save billions of dollars and
make us more combat ready in the future.
So Mr. Chairman and committee members, in summary, your
Navy is ready today. It is forward deployed, it is on scene,
and it is carrying out in concert with the other services and
our coalition partners Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. We are focused
on the future while prepared for today, and the young men and
women of our Nation's Navy are serving on the point today with
distinction, and I am extremely proud of them.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I thank you again for your continued support and for your
roles as leaders of America in helping us create today's Navy,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Vernon E. Clark
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear today. The investment you've made in America's
Navy has been vital to the nation's security and your Navy's ability to
project more power, more protection and more freedom to the far corners
of the earth. I speak for the entire Fleet in thanking you for your
exceptional and continuous support.
I: Your Navy Today--Enhanced Capabilities for the Joint Force
This is a time of tremendous challenge and accomplishment for our
Navy. Our men and women have been waging the Global War on Terrorism
for well over a year and now they are in combat in Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF). They are on the front lines of the first wars of the
21st Century, serving with determination and distinction, leading the
defense of America away from our own shores and our own homes.
Today, there are 164 ships on deployment, over half of the Navy;
this includes seven of twelve aircraft carriers, and nine of our twelve
big deck amphibious ships (LHA/LHD). They are deployed in support of
the nation's interests in the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean, the
Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific. Still others are preparing for
deployment or continuing operations like strategic deterrent and
counter-drug patrols in support of other national imperatives.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Our Navy is ready for these missions today and is preparing for the
difficult future challenges that lie ahead. After all, this new century
is fraught with profound dangers: rogue nations in possession of
weapons of mass destruction, potential conflict between regional
competitors, widely dispersed and well-funded terrorist organizations,
and failed states that deliver only tyranny and despair to their
people.
We frequently talk about the asymmetric challenges such enemies
might present, assuming these advantages belong only to potential
adversaries. Your Navy possesses asymmetric strengths all its own: its
persistence, precision, independence and agility are but a few.
More importantly, our naval strengths are critical to our joint
combat effectiveness. Our forward deployed, combat ready naval forces--
sustained by naval and civilian shipmates around the world--are proving
every day the unique and lasting value of sovereign, lethal forces
projecting offensive and defensive power from the sea.
There are numerous recent examples of the enhanced capability our
Navy brings to the joint force.
--In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the ABRAHAM LINCOLN, CONSTELLATION,
KITTY HAWK, THEODORE ROOSEVELT and HARRY S. TRUMAN battle
groups are providing persistent and credible combat power to
the joint force commander. The USS NIMITZ is speeding to the
Central Command's area of responsibility and is ready to
conduct combat operations. The CARL VINSON stands watch in the
Western Pacific. Our widely dispersed Tomahawk equipped ships
and submarines and our carrier-based aircraft--in combination
with land-based Air Force tankers and bombers and our Marine
Corps and Army ground forces--are delivering precise, time-
sensitive strikes ashore and conducting decisive combat
operations deep inland in OIF.
--The Navy's Military Sealift Command (MSC), is actively providing
combat logistics support to U.S. Navy ships; is prepositioning
joint military supplies and equipment at sea; and is providing
sealift and ocean transportation of defense cargo. MSC's high
quality shipping, augmented by charters, continues its sealift
of the Army's 4th Infantry Division. MSC is also delivering
fuel and aviation support equipment and supplies to deployed
Army and Air Force units. All eight of our Fast Sealift Ships
and nineteen of our twenty new large, medium speed roll-on/
roll-of ships are employed. Over half of our ready reserve
ships have been activated, and when combined with other
chartered shipping, MSC has more than 130 ships committed to
the sealift of the joint team, and nearly 210 ships under their
control. This includes the eleven of our fifteen deployed
Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS) that have offloaded
supplies and equipment for our Marine force. In all, 95 percent
of all equipment and supplies needed by U.S. forces in time of
crisis moves by sea on MSC controlled ships.
--Working alongside the Marine Corps, our Amphibious Ready Groups,
including 7 big decks (LHA/LHD) in the Persian Gulf area, are
supporting over 60,000 Marines ashore in OIF. Permanently
installed command, control, communications, computers,
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) suites
and information technologies on these ships are enhancing the
entire joint team's knowledge superiority picture. Troops
ashore are supported with sustained logistic support and we are
hosting, operating and maintaining Marine aircraft--all from
the security our ships enjoy in the maritime domain. Most
importantly, these ships fully utilize the vast maneuver area
of the world's oceans, leveraging our asymmetric advantage and
improving our ability to bring decisive power to the point of
attack.
--The AEGIS cruiser USS LAKE ERIE (CG 70) completed three medium
range ballistic missile defense tests last year, successfully
acquiring, tracking and hitting target ballistic missiles in
the mid-course or ascent phases with a Standard Missile 3 (SM-
3) in all three tests. LAKE ERIE and the AEGIS destroyer USS
JOHN PAUL JONES also supported three successive Missile Defense
Agency intercontinental class ballistic missile tests; the
AEGIS system performed exactly as predicted in each of these
tests, acquiring the targets immediately and passing high
fidelity digital track data to national nodes ashore. These
cruisers' and destroyers' organic AEGIS Weapons System and
their SPY-1 multi-function, phased array radars, demonstrate
the capability and capacity to conduct a sea based missile
defense against those ballistic missiles that can target our
homeland, allies, forward operating bases, and joint forces
ashore. They could also provide important surveillance and
cueing of intercontinental class weapons directed at our
homeland.
--The USS FLORIDA (SSBN 728), an Ohio-class fleet ballistic missile
submarine, successfully launched two Tomahawk missiles,
confirming the ability to launch a Tomahawk from a
configuration similar to the tightly packed cluster of Tomahawk
All-Up-Rounds (AUR) we will use in the SSGN. This experiment
was conducted in support of the SSGN program's Sea Trial
experiment, Giant Shadow, which also explored how a network of
forces, including special warfare forces, and various unmanned
aerial, underwater and ground vehicles and sensors could be
used to provide surveillance, collect real-time intelligence,
and develop and launch a time critical strike in support of the
joint force commander. This included the first vertical launch
of a UUV, testing of nuclear-biological-chemical sensors, and
the insertion of SEALs from one of the submarines we will
convert to an SSGN.
These examples represent the return on investment the American
people have made in our Navy: an agile, connected fleet that enhances
deterrence, sustains our access, conducts precision strikes, exercises
joint command and control, enhances knowledge superiority, responds to
crisis, projects, sustains and operates with the joint force ashore,
and leverages the priceless advantage of our command of the seas. It is
why we are a critical component of the nation's joint defenses in
peace, in crisis, and in conflict.
None of the foregoing would be possible without the energy,
expertise, and enthusiasm of our active and reserve Sailors, and our
Marine and civilian shipmates in the Department of the Navy. After all,
it is people that put capability to practice, and it is their dedicated
service that makes these capabilities ready--around the world and
around the clock.
II: A Culture of Readiness--A Commitment to Transformation
This century's dangerous and uncertain strategic environment places
a premium on credible combat forces that possess speed of response,
immediate employability, and the flexible force packaging that brings
the right capability to bear at the right time. It demands forces that
can pair this capability with readiness, both today and in the future.
Readiness is the Navy's watchword. Readiness is the catalyst that
brings combat power, speed of response, and the ability to disrupt an
enemy's intentions in both crisis and conflict. Readiness brings
capability to bear wherever and whenever it is needed. We are making
readiness a key element of our Navy's culture.
The forces we've placed forward today are the most ready force in
our history; properly manned, superbly trained and well provisioned
with ordnance, repair parts and supplies so they can provide both
rotational deployment and surge capability. Our operational forces are
ready earlier and are deploying at a higher state of readiness than
ever before.
A greater percentage of our ships are underway today than at any
time in the last dozen years. Our ability to do so is the direct result
of two things: the investment of the American people and the
extraordinary commitment and accomplishment of our men and women in the
Navy this past year. We made a concerted effort in last year's budget
request to improve our current readiness and reduce our immediate
operational risk and I am proud to report to you today that this force
is ready to fight and win!
At the same time, it is apparent that the 21st century sets the
stage for tremendous increases in precision, reach, and connectivity,
ushering in a new era of joint operational effectiveness. We clearly
will be able to integrate sea, land, air, and space through enhanced
network technology to a greater extent than ever before. And in this
new, unified battlespace, the sea will provide the vast maneuver area
from which to project direct and decisive power.
To navigate the challenges ahead and realize the opportunities, we
developed this past year a clear, concise vision--Sea Power 21--for
projecting decisive joint capabilities from the sea. It is a vision
that stresses our asymmetric strengths of information dominance,
advanced technology, and highly skilled and motivated professionals.
Sea Power 21 advances American naval power to a broadened strategy
in which naval forces are fully integrated into global joint operations
across this unified battlespace and against both regional and
transnational aggressors. It provides the transformational framework
for how we will organize, align, integrate, and transform our Navy to
meet the challenges that lie ahead.
It also includes the transformed organizational processes that will
accelerate operational concepts and technologies to the fleet; shape
and educate the workforce needed to operate tomorrow's fleet; and
harvest the efficiencies needed to invest in the Navy of the future.
The capabilities needed to fulfill this broadened strategy are
grouped into three core operational concepts: Sea Strike, Sea Shield,
and Sea Basing, which are enabled by FORCEnet. The triad of transformed
organizational processes that supports these concepts is: Sea Warrior,
Sea Trial, and Sea Enterprise.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Together, these concepts will provide increased power, protection,
and freedom for America.
--Sea Strike is the projection of precise and persistent offensive
power. Sea Strike operations are how the 21st century Navy will
exert direct, decisive and sustained influence in joint
campaigns. Sea Strike capabilities will provide the Joint Force
Commander with a potent mix of weapons, ranging from long-range
precision strike, to clandestine land-attack in anti-access
environments, to the swift insertion of ground forces.
--Sea Shield is the projection of layered, global defensive
assurance. It is about extending our defenses beyond naval
forces, to the joint force and allies and providing a defensive
umbrella deep inland. Sea Shield takes us beyond unit, fleet
and task force defense to provide the nation with sea-based
theater and strategic defense.
--Sea Basing is the projection of operational independence. Sea
Basing will use the fleet's extended reach of modern, networked
weapons and sensors to maximize the vast maneuver space of the
world's oceans. It is about extending traditional naval
advantages to the joint force with more security, connectivity,
and mobility from netted forces at sea.
--FORCEnet is the enabler of our knowledge supremacy and hence, Sea
Strike, Sea Shield, and Sea Basing. It is the total systems
approach and architectural framework that will integrate
warriors, sensors, networks, command and control, weapons, and
platforms into a networked, distributed force and provide
greater situational awareness, accelerated speed of decision,
and greatly distributed combat power.
Our transformed organizational processes are:
--Sea Warrior is our commitment to the growth and development of our
Sailors. It serves as the foundation of warfighting
effectiveness by ensuring the right skills are in the right
place at the right time.
--Sea Trial is a continual process of rapid concept and technology
development that will deliver enhanced capabilities to our
Sailors as swiftly as possible. The Commander, U.S. Fleet
Forces Command is leading this effort and developing new
concepts and technologies, such as the Joint Fires Network and
High Speed Vessels.
--Sea Enterprise is our process to improve organizational alignment,
refine requirements, and reinvest the savings to buy the
platforms and systems needed to transform our Navy. It is the
means by which we will capture efficiencies and prioritize
investments. Sea Power 21 is dedicated to a process of
continual innovation and is committed to total jointness. It
extends American naval superiority from the high seas,
throughout the littorals, and beyond the sea. It both enhances
and leverages persistent intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance capabilities and precision weaponry to amplify
the nation's striking power, elevate our capability to project
both defense and offense, and open the door to the afloat
positioning of additional joint capabilities, assets and
forces.
Sea Power 21 will extend the advantages of naval forces--speed of
response, agility, immediate employability, and security--to the
unified, joint warfighting team. It will increase our deterrence,
crisis control and warfighting power. It will ensure our naval forces
are fully integrated into global joint operations to bring more power,
more protection, and more freedom to America.
We will put our Sea Power 21 vision into practice through a new
Global Concept of Operations (CONOPs) to distribute our combat striking
power to a dispersed, networked fleet. This will optimize our flexible
force structure and create additional, scaleable, independent operating
groups capable of responding simultaneously around the world. This
distribution of assets will take us from 19 strike capable groups to 37
strike capable groups with the full implementation of the Global
CONOPs.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
--Carrier Strike Groups will remain the core of our Navy's
warfighting strength. No other force package matches their
sustained power projection ability, extended situational
awareness, and survivability.
--Expeditionary Strike Groups will augment our traditional Amphibious
Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit team with strike-capable
surface combatants and submarines to prosecute Sea Strike
missions in lesser-threat environments. When combined with a
Carrier Strike Group, the resulting Expeditionary Strike Force
will possess the full range of our netted, offensive and
defensive power. We will deploy at least one pilot ESG this
year.
--Missile-Defense Surface Action Groups will increase international
stability by providing security to allies and joint forces
ashore from short and medium range ballistic missile threats.
--Our future SSGN forces--specially modified Trident submarines--will
provide large volume clandestine strike with cruise missiles
and the capability to support and insert Special Operations
Forces.
--An enhanced-capability Combat Logistics Force and Maritime
Prepositioned Force will sustain a more widely dispersed and
capable Navy/Marine Corps team.
It is our intention to continue to nurture this culture of
readiness and invest in this vision in the years ahead.
III. Our Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request
This past year the Navy improved its current readiness by properly
funding our current readiness accounts, deepening the growth and
development of our people, and developing innovative operational
concepts and capabilities.
This year, we intend to:
--Sustain our current readiness gains to support the war on terror;
--Deepen the growth and development of our people into the 21st
Century, high-technology personnel force that is our future;
and
--Invest in our bold new Navy vision--Sea Power 21--to recapitalize
and transform our force and improve its ability to operate as
an agile, lethal and effective member of our joint, networked
warfighting team.
At the same time, we will continue to actively harvest the
efficiencies needed to fund and support these priorities in both fiscal
year 2004 and beyond. Our Navy budget request for fiscal year 2004
supports this intent and includes:
--7 new construction ships, two more SSBN-to-SSGN conversions, one
cruiser conversion and 100 new aircraft;
--Investment in accelerated transformational capabilities, including
the next-generation aircraft carrier (CVN-21), the
transformational destroyer (DD(X)) and Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS), the Joint Strike Fighter, the Advanced Hawkeye (E-2C
RMP) Upgrade Program and the EA-18G Electronic Attack aircraft;
--An 4.1 percent average pay increase in targeted and basic pay
raises, and a reduction in average out-of-pocket housing costs
from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent;
--Investment in housing and Public Private Venture that will help
eliminate inadequate family housing by fiscal year 2007 and
enable us to house shipboard Sailors ashore when their vessel
is in homeport by fiscal year 2008;
--Continued investment in key operational readiness accounts that
includes an increase in aviation depot maintenance funding,
improvement in our annual deferred maintenance backlog for our
ships, submarines and aircraft carriers, and sustained funding
for our ordnance, ship operations and flying hours accounts;
--Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Aviation Integration, a process that
will maximize our forward-deployed combat power, optimize the
core capability of naval aviation forces, introduce 200 modern
aircraft across the fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2009 program
and save billions of dollars;
--Divestiture of aging, legacy ships, systems and aircraft, producing
nearly $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2004 for reinvestment in
recapitalization;
--Improvements in the quality of our operational training through a
Training Resource Strategy; and
--Investment in transformational unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV),
unmanned aviation vehicles (UAV), experimental hull forms and
other technologies.
A. Sustaining our Current Readiness
Your investment last year produced the most ready force in our
history. Training, maintenance, spare parts, ordnance, and fuel
accounts enabled our Fleet to be ready earlier, deploy at a higher
state of readiness, and as we are witnessing today, build a more
responsive surge capability. These investments were vital to sustaining
the war on terrorism, assuring friends and allies and leading the
nation's global response to crisis.
--Ship Operations and Flying Hours requests funds for ship operations
OPTEMPO of 54.0 days per quarter for our deployed forces and 28
days per quarter for our non-deployed forces. The flying hours
request receives an additional $137 million this year to
sustain the investment level we established in support of last
year's budget. This level of steaming and flying hours will
enable our ships and airwings to achieve required readiness six
months prior to deployment, sustain readiness during deployment
and increase our ability to surge in crisis. However, sustained
OPTEMPO at levels above this force-wide target, as is beginning
to occur during fiscal year 2003's time of accelerated and
extended deployments, will cause our current year execution to
run both ahead and in excess of the existing plan.
--Ship and Aviation Maintenance. Last year, we reduced our major ship
depot maintenance backlog by 27 percent and aircraft depot
level repair back orders by 17 percent; provided 32 additional
ships with depot availabilities; ramped up ordnance and spare
parts production; maintained a steady ``mission capable'' rate
in deployed aircraft; and fully funded aviation initial
outfitting. Our request for fiscal year 2004 aviation
maintenance funding adds over $210 million to fiscal year
2003's investment and will increase the number of engine
spares, improve the availability of non-deployed aircraft, and
meet our 100 percent deployed airframe goals.
Our ship maintenance request continues to ``buy-down'' the annual
deferred maintenance backlog and sustains our overall ship
maintenance requirement. The aggregate level of funding for
ship maintenance actually declines from fiscal year 2003 to
fiscal year 2004, due in part to the positive effects of the
additional maintenance funding provided in supplemental
appropriations in the previous year, in part to the accelerated
retirement of the oldest and most maintenance-intensive surface
ships, and as a result of scheduling and timing.
--Shore Installations. The fiscal year 2004 request provides 93
percent of the modeled sustainment cost for facilities, an
increase from fiscal year 2003's 84 percent. Although the
overall investment in facility recapitalization has reduced
from last year, slowing the replacement rate of facilities, our
increased investment in sustainment will better maintain
existing facilities as we continue to pursue innovations to
improve our base infrastructure. Our Base Operations Support
funding request is based on sustaining the current level of
common installation and important community and personnel
support functions; we have factored in management and business
efficiencies to reduce the cost of providing these services. We
continue to support a Base Realignment and Closure effort in
fiscal year 2005 to focus our future investment and improve our
recapitalization rate in the years ahead.
--Precision Guided Munitions receive continued investment in our
fiscal year 2004 request with emphasis on increasing inventory
levels for the Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW), optimizing the
Navy's Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) production rate and
commencing full rate production under multi-year procurement
for the Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM). Our partnership with the
Air Force in several of our munitions programs will continue to
help us optimize both our inventories and our research and
development investment.
--Training readiness. The Training Resource Strategy (TRS) has been
developed to provide for more complex threat scenarios, improve
the training of our deploying ships, aircraft, Sailors and
Marines, and support the range and training technology
improvements necessary to ensure the long-term combat readiness
of deploying naval forces. The TRS has identified the training
facilities necessary to provide this superior level of training
as well. Their dispersed character is more like the battlefield
environment our forces will face today and tomorrow and will
better challenge our deploying forces--before they are
challenged in combat. Our fiscal year 2004 request includes $61
million to support the Training Resource Strategy.
At the same time, encroachment and environmental issues continue
to impact our ability to maintain an acceptable level of access
to our valuable testing and training ranges and operating
areas. As a result, we are looking for a balanced approach that
would protect our environmental obligations and our ability to
both train in realistic scenarios and develop transformational
systems for our future. Our approach would be limited to only
the most critical issues, such as the designation of critical
habitat on military lands designated for military training, and
the scientific measurements that achieve an appropriate balance
between our environmental concerns and our obligation to ensure
our Sailors are properly trained and our transformational
systems are properly tested. We will focus the use of our
ranges for these purposes while continuing to be an excellent
steward of these environmental resources. We look forward to
working with the Congress and the American people on this
important and urgent issue impacting our Sailors and Marines.
B. Deepening the Growth and Development of our People
We are winning the battle for people. Thanks to superb leadership
in the fleet and the full support of the American people and Congress,
we are making solid progress in addressing long-standing manpower and
quality of service issues vital to having what it takes to win the
competition for talent today and tomorrow.
We are enjoying now, the best manning I have witnessed in my
career. With few exceptions, we achieved C-2 manning status for all
deploying battle group units at least six months prior to deployment.
These accomplishments enabled our Navy to develop a more responsive
force--one that surged forward with the right people, at the right time
to fulfill our national security requirements.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Retention is at record levels and recruiting has never been better.
We achieved a 58.7 percent Zone A (<6 Years of service (YOS))
reenlistment rate, 74.5 percent Zone B reenlistment rate (6-10 YOS),
and a Zone C (10-14 YOS) reenlistment rate of 87.4 percent in 2002.
While we are also off to a great start in fiscal year 2003, we are
instituting measures to ensure our annualized reenlistment rate meets
our established goals (Zone A--56 percent, B--73 percent, C--86
percent).
Additionally, attrition for first term Sailors was reduced by 23
percent from fiscal year 2001 levels. 92 percent of our recruits are
high school graduates and 6 percent of them have some college
education.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
These tremendous accomplishments allowed us to reduce at-sea
manning shortfalls last year and reduce our recruiting goals. We were
also able to increase the overall number of E-4 to E-9s in the Navy by
1.3 percent to 71.5 percent working toward a goal of 75.5 percent by
fiscal year 2007. This healthy trend allows us to retain more of our
experienced leaders to manage and operate the increasingly technical
21st century Navy.
Targeted pay raises, reenlistment bonuses, improved allowances,
enhanced educational benefits, retirement reforms, support for improved
family services, and better medical benefits are making a difference
and can be directly attributed to Congressional support and the
outstanding work of our Navy leaders in our ships, squadrons, bases and
stations.
Our fiscal year 2004 request capitalizes on last year's
accomplishments and provides the opportunity to align our manpower and
skills mix to balance our end strength and shape our 21st century
workforce. As part of Sea Power 21's transformed organizational process
improvements we will begin our Sea Warrior process.
Our goal is to create a Navy in which all Sailors are optimally
assessed, trained, and assigned so that they can contribute their
fullest to mission accomplishment. It is important that we sustain our
manpower progress by furthering our supporting initiatives, to include:
--Perform to Serve will align our Navy personnel inventory and skill
sets through a centrally managed reenlistment program. This
initiative makes Commander, Navy Personnel Command the final
authority for first term reenlistments and extensions and will
steer Sailors in over manned ratings into skill areas where
they are most needed. It provides the training necessary to
ensure these sailors will succeed in their new rating. Most
importantly, it will help us manage our skills profile.
--Navy Knowledge Online introduces our integrated web-based lifelong
learning initiative for personnel development and learning
management. It connects Sailors to the right information in a
collaborative learning environment; tracks their individual
skills and training requirements; and provides lifelong support
between our rating, leadership and personal development
Learning Centers and our Sailors.
--Task Force EXCEL (Excellence through our Commitment to Education
and Learning) is transforming the way we train and educate our
people. A more responsive organizational structure has been
established to include the Navy Chief Learning Officer, Naval
Personnel Development Command, and Human Performance Center. We
also partnered with Fleet, industry, and academia to improve
individual training and education; and with colleges, through
the Commissioned Navy College Program, to provide rating-
related Associate and Bachelor degrees.
--Project SAIL (Sailor Advocacy through Interactive Leadership), will
web-base and revolutionize the personnel assignment process by
putting more choice in the process for both gaining commands
and Sailors. It will empower our people to make more informed
career decisions and for the first time, create a more
competitive, market-oriented process.
Our Sea Swap initiative is underway now, with the first crew-change
on USS FLETCHER taking place in the Western Australia port of Fremantle
last month. We will continue this pilot with another crew change this
summer and we intend to continue to examine pilot programs in optimal
manning, rotational crewing, assignment incentive pay, rating
identification tools, and rate training.
Your support of our fiscal year 2004 request for a targeted pay
raise that recognizes and reaffirms the value of our career force and
acts as an incentive to junior personnel to stay Navy is critical to
staying the course. So, too, is continuing the reduction of average
out-of-pocket housing expenses and the extension and enhancement of
essential special pay and bonus authorities. All these efforts enable
our Navy to sustain our forces in the war on terrorism, continue the
increase in our Top 6 (E4 to E9), and develop the 21st Century, high-
technology personnel force that is our future.
C. Investing in Sea Power 21
Our 21st Century Navy will be a joint, netted, dispersed power
projection force and Sea Power 21 is the framework for how our Navy
will organize, integrate, and transform. It prescribes a strategy-to-
concepts-to-capabilities continuum by which current and future Naval
Forces will exploit the opportunity that information dominance and
rapid, highly accurate power projection and defensive protection
capabilities bring to us.
Together, these concepts will compress our speed of response and
provide the nation with immediately employable, secure and sovereign
forward ``capability sets'' from which to project firepower, forces,
command and control, and logistics ashore.
The following describes the core capabilities, and our initial
investments in our highest priority programs that support this vision.
Sea Strike is the projection of precise and persistent offensive
power. The core capabilities include Time Sensitive Strike;
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Ship to Objective
Maneuver; and Electronic Warfare and Information Operations. We are
already investing in impressive programs that will provide the
capabilities necessary to support Sea Strike; these include the
following fiscal year 2004 priorities:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
--F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.--The F/A-18E/F is in full rate production
and when combined with this year's request for the EA-18G, will
be the backbone of Navy sea-based precision and time-critical
strike, electronic attack and airborne tactical reconnaissance.
It is in the fifth of a five-year multi-year procurement (MYP)
contract (fiscal year 2000-04) that will yield $700 million in
total savings. The second multi-year contract for 210 aircraft
will yield approximately $1 billion in savings as compared to
the single-year price. The Super Hornet employs new knowledge
dominance technologies, such as the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing
System, Advanced Tactical Forward Looking Infrared System,
Shared Reconnaissance System, and Multi-Informational Display
System data link. It provides 40 percent increase in combat
radius, a 50 percent increase in endurance, 25 percent greater
weapons payload, 3 times the ordnance bring back, and is more
survivable than our older Hornets; most importantly, it has the
growth capacity to remain a mainstay of our tactical aviation
for years to come. Three of these squadrons are already
deployed today at one-third the operational cost of our legacy
F-14 aircraft. Fiscal year 2004 budgets for 42 E/F aircraft;
this program maximizes the return on our procurement dollars
through a multi-year procurement contract and a minimum
economic order quantity buy.
--EA-18G.--The EA-18G will replace the aging EA-6B Prowler for joint
force electronic attack. Using the demonstrated growth capacity
of the F/A-18E/F, the EA-18G Growler will quickly recapitalize
our Electronic Attack capability at lower procurement cost,
with significant savings in operating and support costs and
three years earlier than previously planned; all while
providing the growth potential for future electronic warfare
(EW) system improvements. It will use the Improved Capability
Three (ICAP III) receiver suite and provide selective reactive
jamming capability to the war fighter. This will both improve
the lethality of the air wing and enhance the commonality of
aircraft on the carrier deck. It will dramatically accelerate
the replacement of our aging Airborne Electronic Attack
capability. Engineering and developmental efforts commence with
our fiscal year 2004 budget request.
--JSF.--The Joint Strike Fighter will enhance our Navy precision with
unprecedented stealth and range as part of the family of tri-
service, next-generation strike aircraft. It will maximize
commonality and technological superiority while minimizing life
cycle cost. The fiscal year 2004 budget requests $2.2 billion
in accelerated development funds; initial production is planned
for fiscal year 2006.
--MV-22.--The Joint Service MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor, Vertical/Short
Take-Off or Landing (V/STOL) aircraft represents a
revolutionary change in aircraft capability. It will project
Marines and equipment ashore from our amphibious shipping,
operationalizing Ship to Objective Maneuver from the Sea Base
and improving our expeditionary mobility and force entry needs
for the 21st century. The MV-22 program has been restructured,
redesigned, rebuilt and is undergoing testing to deliver an
operationally deployable aircraft on the restructured schedule.
The MV-22 will replace the Vietnam-era CH-46E and CH-53D
helicopters, delivering improved readiness, upgraded
capability, and significantly enhanced survivability. It is
overwhelmingly superior to our legacy CH-46E providing twice
the speed, five times the range, and three times the payload
capacity.
--Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV).--We increased our commitment to a
focused array of unmanned air vehicles that will support and
enhance both Sea Shield and Sea Strike missions with
persistent, distributed, netted sensors. We are initiating the
Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV this year to
develop a persistent, multi-mission platform capable of both
Sea Shield and Sea Strike surveillance and reconnaissance of
maritime and land targets, communications relay and some
intelligence collection. We have provided funding for testing,
experimentation and/or demonstration of the Fire Scout
Demonstration Systems, Global Hawk Maritime demonstration and
the Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle--Navy (UCAV-N) demonstration
vehicle as well.
Sea Shield is the projection of layered, global defensive power. It
will soon enhance deterrence and warfighting power by way of real-time
integration with joint and coalition forces, high speed littoral attack
platforms setting and exploiting widely distributed sensors, and the
direct projection of defensive powers in the littoral and deep inland.
It will enhance homeland defense, assure, and eventually sustain our
access in the littorals and across the globe. Sea Shield capabilities
include, Homeland Defense, Sea and Littoral Control, and Theater Air
and Missile Defense.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Our highest priority Sea Shield programs this year include:
--Missile Defense.--Our Navy is poised to contribute significantly in
fielding initial sea based missile defense capabilities to meet
the near-term ballistic missile threat to our homeland, our
deployed forces, and our friends and allies and we are working
closely with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to that end. As
partners, USS LAKE ERIE will be transferred to MDA to
facilitate a more robust testing program for missile defense.
In turn, MDA is requesting funds to upgrade three AEGIS guided
missile destroyers (DDG) for ICBM surveillance and tracking
duties and procurement of up to 20 Standard Missile
interceptors to help us provide a limited at sea capability to
intercept short and medium range ballistic missiles in the
boost and ascent phases of flight. Our sea-based missile
defense programs experienced tremendous success on the test
range during 2002, and we look forward to building on these
successes and developing a vital capability for our Nation.
--CG Conversion.--The first Cruiser Conversion begins in fiscal year
2004. The Cruiser Conversion Program is a mid-life upgrade for
our existing AEGIS cruisers that will ensure modern, relevant
combat capability well into this century and against evolving
threats. These warships will provide enhanced land attack and
area air defense to the joint force commander. Core to these
conversions is installation of the Cooperative Engagement
Capability, which enhances and leverages the air defense
capability of these ships, and the 5 inch/62 Gun System with
Extended Range Guided Munitions to be used in support of the
Marine Corps Ship-to-Objective-Maneuver doctrine. These
converted cruisers could also be available for integration into
ballistic missile defense missions when that capability
matures.
--Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV).--We will continue development
of UUVs for minefield reconnaissance in the littoral and other
surveillance missions; including funding that will result in
initial operating capability for the Long-term Mine
Reconnaissance System (LMRS) in fiscal year 2005.
Sea Basing is the projection of operational independence. Our
future investments will exploit the largest maneuver areas on the face
of the earth: the sea. Sea Basing serves as the foundation from which
offensive and defensive fires are projected--making Sea Strike and Sea
Shield a reality. Sea Basing capabilities include, Joint Command and
Control, Afloat Power Projection and Integrated Joint Logistics. Our
intent is to minimize as much as possible, our reliance on shore-based
support nodes.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
At the top of my list is the surface combatant family of ships--
centered on the next-generation multi-mission destroyer DD(X), the
next-generation cruiser (CG(X)), and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)--
this combination of ships will provide joint force commanders with a
robust range of transformational capabilities across the spectrum of
warfare. From the long-range precision strike and volume-fires of
DD(X), to the overland, theater and strategic ballistic and cruise
missile defensive reach of the CG(X), to the ability to clear the way
for the joint force in the tough littoral environment with LCS, the
Navy's future surface warships will be designed from their keels up to
operate as critical elements of our dispersed, networked, joint force.
At the heart of this family is DD(X). Our DD(X) research and
development effort is the baseline that will enable us to keep pace
with today's rapid technological advances; it will spiral promising
technologies to both CG(X) and LCS, and hence, permit us to both lead
the threat and leverage the capabilities needed for the 21st Century.
It will also enable us to upgrade in-service Aegis cruisers and
destroyers with selected leading-edge technologies to ensure this vital
core of our legacy, multi-mission fleet will maintain operational
effectiveness throughout their lifetimes and until the DD(X) and CG(X)
program comes to fruition. Specific highlights include:
--Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).--Our most transformational effort and
number one budget priority, the Littoral Combat Ship will
counter anti-access threats, namely small, fast surface craft
carrying anti-ship missiles, torpedo-armed ultra-quiet diesel
submarines, and large numbers of inexpensive mines. It will be
the first Navy ship to separate capability from hull form and
will provide a robust, affordable, focused-mission ship to
enhance our ability to establish sea superiority not just for
our Carrier Strike Groups and Expeditionary Strike Groups, but
for all the joint logistics, command and control and pre-
positioned ships that must transit the critical littoral threat
area to move and support forces ashore. They will be dispersed
and netted, both leveraging and enhancing the knowledge
superiority and defense of the theater joint force. They will
be the backbone of our organic battle group mine warfare
capability.
We will separate capability from platform by developing
``tailorable'' mission modules that can be rapidly changed in
forward locations. This kind of ``forward fit and fight''
capability will enable us to distribute these small, minimally
manned, persistent, high-speed vessels across the globe and it
will permit us to use innovative crewing techniques. By
employing networked sensors, modular mission payloads, a
variety of manned and unmanned vehicles, and an innovative hull
design, they will also have the inherent capacity for further
transformation. We will capitalize on DOD initiatives, spiral
development, and new acquisition methods to streamline the
acquisition process and begin construction of the first LCS by
2005. The fiscal year 2004 budget accelerates development and
construction of 9 LCS in the FYDP, key to ramping surface force
structure to Global CONOPs levels outside the FYDP.
--DD(X).--The DD(X) advanced multi-mission destroyer will be armed
with an array of land attack weapons to provide persistent,
distributed offensive fires in support of joint forces ashore.
Transformational and leap ahead technologies include an
integrated power system and electric drive; the Advanced Gun
System with high rate of fire and magazine capability; the new
Multi-Function Radar/Volume Search Radar suite; optimal manning
through advanced system automation, stealth through reduced
acoustic, magnetic, IR, and radar cross-section signature; and
enhanced survivability through automated damage control and
fire protection systems. The capacity in both hull form and
integrated electric power system, and the revolutionary radar
development work will allow us to spiral DD(X) to both an
entirely new class of ships--our robust, sea-based missile
defense CG(X) platform of the future--as well as other
potential systems, like the electro-magnetic rail gun, in the
years ahead.
In addition to the surface combatant family of ships, our other
high priority efforts include:
--CVN-21.--We have accelerated transformational technologies from the
CVNX development plan into CVN-21 while sustaining the CVNX-1
development schedule submitted last year. This is the first new
carrier design since 1967. The fiscal year 2004 budget request
provides $1.5 billion in RDT&E and advanced procurement for the
first CVN-21 and programs for split-funded construction for two
years beginning in fiscal year 2007. The transformational
technologies include a new electrical generation and
distribution system, improved flight deck design with Electro-
Magnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS), improved sortie
generation, enhanced survivability, reduced manning, and
incorporation of a flexible infrastructure that will allow the
insertion of new capabilities as they evolve. CVN-21 will be
the centerpiece of our Carrier Strike Groups in the future and
will replace USS ENTERPRISE in fiscal year 2014.
--VIRGINIA-class submarine (SSN-774).--The first four ships of this
class are under construction: Virginia will commission in 2004;
the keel was laid for Texas (SSN-775) in July 2002; Hawaii
(SSN-776) was begun in 2001; and North Carolina (SSN-777) in
2002. This class will replace LOS ANGELES-class (SSN-688)
attack submarines and will incorporate new capabilities,
including an array of unmanned vehicles, and the ability to
support Special Warfare forces. It will be an integral part of
the joint, networked, dispersed fleet of the 21st Century.
--SSGN Conversions.--We have requested two additional conversions in
fiscal year 2004; these ships will be configured to carry more
than 150 Tomahawk missiles, enabling covert, large-volume
strike. The SSGN will also have the capability to support
Special Operations Forces for an extended period, providing
clandestine insertion and retrieval by lockout chamber, dry
deck shelters or the Advanced Seal Delivery System, and they
will be arrayed with a variety of unmanned systems to enhance
the joint force commander's knowledge of the battlespace. We
will leverage the existing TRIDENT submarine infrastructure to
optimize their on-station time. The first two ships, the USS
OHIO and USS FLORIDA, enter the shipyard in fiscal year 2003 to
begin their refueling and conversion. USS MICHIGAN and USS
GEORGIA will begin their conversion in fiscal year 2004. We
expect this capability to be operational for the first SSGN in
fiscal year 2007.
--Maritime Prepositioning Force Future (MPF(F)).--Our vision for the
future Maritime Prepositioning Force and tomorrow's Amphibious
force continues to develop. This fiscal year's budget and the
Joint Forcible Entry Operations study will refine our effort
and posture us for enhanced sea basing of Navy and Marine Corps
assets. I expect MPF(F) ships will serve a broader operational
function than current prepositioned ships, creating greatly
expanded operational flexibility and effectiveness. We envision
a force of ships that will enhance the responsiveness of the
joint team by the at-sea assembly of a Marine Expeditionary
Brigade that arrives by high-speed airlift or sealift from the
United States or forward operating locations or bases. These
ships will off-load forces, weapons and supplies selectively
while remaining far over the horizon, and they will
reconstitute ground maneuver forces aboard ship after
completing assaults deep inland. They will sustain in-theater
logistics, communications and medical capabilities for the
joint force for extended periods as well.
Other advances in sea basing could enable the flow of Marine and
Army forces at multiple and probably austere points of entry as a
coherent, integrated combined arms team capable of concentrating lethal
combat power rapidly and engaging an adversary upon arrival. The
ability of the Naval Services to promote the successful transformation
of deployment practices of the other Services will dramatically improve
the overall ability of the Joint Force to counter our adversaries'
strategies of area-denial and/or anti-access. We are programming RDTE
funds to develop the future MPF and examine alternative sea basing
concepts in fiscal year 2008.
FORCEnet is the enabler of the foregoing capabilities, and the
operational construct and architectural framework for naval warfare in
the joint, information age. It will allow systems, functions and
missions to be aligned to transform situational awareness, accelerate
speed of decisions and allow naval forces to greatly distribute its
combat power in the unified, joint battlespace. It puts the theory of
network centric warfare into practice. We are just beginning this
effort and we have requested $15 million in funds to administer the
development of FORCEnet, the cornerstone of our future C\4\I
architecture that will integrate sensors, networks, decision aids,
warriors and weapons. Programs that will enable the future force to be
more networked, highly adaptive, human-centric, integrated, and enhance
speed of command include:
--E-2C Advanced Hawkeye Radar Modernization Program.--E-2 Advanced
Hawkeye (AHE) program will modernize the E-2 weapons system by
replacing the current radar and other aircraft system
components to improve nearly every facet of tactical air
operations. The modernized weapons system will be designed to
maintain open ocean capability while adding transformational
surveillance and Theater Air and Missile Defense capabilities
against emerging air threats in the high clutter and jamming
environment. The advanced Hawkeye will be a critical
contributor to Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air, and
to Sea Strike and Shield. The fiscal year 2004 budgets over
$350 million for continued development with first production
planned for fiscal year 2008.
--Navy and Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI).--NMCI continues to bring
together Navy personnel, government civilians and contractors
into a single computing environment. This program is fostering
fundamental changes in the way we support critical war fighting
functions, conduct Navy business, and train and advance
Sailors. Fiscal year 2004 funding of $1.6 billion continues
user seat rollout and cutover to the NMCI architecture,
progressing toward a target end-state of 365,000 seats.
Although NMCI seat cutover was slowed initially by the need to
resolve the challenges of numerous, disparate legacy
applications, the transition to NMCI has succeeded in
eliminating more than 70,000 legacy IT applications and we are
on track for the future.
Sea Trial.--Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (CFFC) is now in
charge of our Navy's revitalized process of experimentation, and is
rapidly developing emergent concepts and experimenting with new
technologies to speed delivery of innovation to the fleet. CFFC will
reach throughout the military and beyond to coordinate concept and
technology development in support of future warfighting effectiveness.
Embracing spiral development, the right technologies and concepts will
then be matured through targeted investment and rapid prototyping.
CFFC is working in concert with the U.S. Joint Forces Command to
refine the Sea Trial process and integrate select wargames,
experimentation and exercises. We are already testing new operational
concepts and technologies like the Collaborative Information
Environment, Joint Fires Initiative, and the Navy Joint Semi-Automated
Force Simulation in operations and exercises. We will continue to
pursue evaluation of multiple platforms and systems, including
experimental hull forms and electro-magnetic rail guns, among others.
The Systems Commands and Program Executive Offices will be integral
partners in this effort, bringing concepts to reality through
technology innovation and application of sound business practices.
IV. Harvesting Efficiencies for Transformation
We are working hard to identify and harvest the efficiencies needed
to balance competing priorities and invest in our Sea Power 21 vision.
Called Sea Enterprise, this process is intended to ensure our
warfighting capability both now and in the future. It will help
identify and produce those initiatives that both optimize our
warfighting capability and streamline our organization and processes;
to make it operate more efficiently, to reduce our overhead and to
produce the savings needed for investment in recapitalization and our
future. We have already identified several initiatives that have
produced over $40 billion in savings and cost avoidance across the
defense program--and many more billions outside the FYDP--to help fund
our future. A few of the highlights include:
--USN-USMC Tactical Aviation (TACAIR) Integration plan shows the
promise of cross-service partnerships. It will maximize forward
deployed combat power, enhance our interoperability, more fully
integrate our services, and save $975 million across the FYDP.
This aggressive effort introduces 200 modern aircraft in the
next six years while retiring legacy F-14, F/A-18A/B, S-3, and
EA-6B airframes, and it reduces our F/A-18 E/F and JSF total
buy requirements by 497 aircraft while enhancing our
warfighting capability. There is more than $30 billion in
projected cost avoidance outside the FYDP as well.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
--Partnerships. We are pursuing other promising partnerships to
include new munitions with the U.S. Air Force, common
communications and weapons systems with the U.S. Coast Guard's
Deepwater Integrated Systems program, and joint experiments
with high-speed vessels with the U.S. Army. We will continue to
leverage the gains made in programs like joint weapons
development (JDAM, JSOW, AMRAAM) as well.
--Identifying savings within the force for recapitalization. Last
year we promised we would sharpen our focus on our force
structure in the years ahead--to buy the ships, aircraft and
the capabilities needed for tomorrow's Navy. At the same time,
we cannot overlook the important gains our focus on current
readiness made these last few years; it produced the more
responsive force on deployment today. As a result, we are
obligated to look hard at the ways we could balance these
priorities and our discretionary investments to both satisfy
the near term operational risks and prepare for the long term
risks of an uncertain future. This year we made some hard
choices across the Fleet to do more to address our future risk,
sustain our current readiness gains and strike this balance. We
looked hard at older systems with limited growth potential and
high operating and support costs (maintenance, parts, training,
etc.), and ultimately decided to accelerate the retirement of
11 ships and 70 aircraft, divest more than 50 systems and
eliminate 70,000 legacy IT applications from an original
baseline of 103,000.
Accelerating the retirement of these ships was a difficult
decision. However, our analysis indicates that our proposed
near-term inactivations and our remaining warfighting
capability provide an acceptable level of risk without
compromising our ability to accomplish our mission. Vertical
cuts in our least capable type-model series, both in ships and
in aircraft, allowed us to use the savings to recapitalize,
modernize other legacy platforms, and invest in Sea Power 21.
In all, these difficult decisions yielded $1.9 billion for
reinvestment and will do much to help reduce our future risk.
--Improved business operations and processes. We are improving both
the way we run the Fleet and our ability to control costs. The
LPD-DDG swap produced savings sufficient to purchase a third
guided missile destroyer in fiscal year 2004. We are using
multi-year procurement contacts and focusing where possible on
economic order quantity purchase practices to optimize our
investments. We conducted the Workload Validation Review, and
made Performance Based Logistics improvements. Other
initiatives like piloting mission funding for two of our public
shipyards, Enterprise Resource Planning, strategic sourcing,
NMCI and eBusiness are helping us find the funds necessary to
emerge with the optimal force structure, a healthy industrial
base and an efficient and appropriately sized infrastructure.
--Installation Claimant Consolidation. In October 2003 we will
establish a single shore installation organization, Commander,
Navy Installations Command (CNIC), to globally manage all shore
installations, promote ``best practices'' development in the
regions, and provide economies of scale, increased efficiency,
standardization of policies where practicable and improved
budgeting and funding execution. This initiative has the
potential to save approximately $1.6 billion in the next six
years.
We will continue to pursue the efficiencies that improve our
warfighting capability. We are committed to producing the level
investment stream that will help implement our bold new Navy vision and
produce the number of future ships, aircraft and systems we need to
counter the 21st Century threat. Harvesting savings for reinvestment is
an important part of that effort, and we will continue to examine the
potential efficiencies while weighing the operational risks, both now
and in the future.
V. Conclusion
The President has called upon us to ``be ready to strike at a
moment's notice in any dark corner of the world.'' We are answering
that call in the Global War on Terrorism and in the opening salvos of
Operation Iraqi Freedom. We will also prepare our force for the battles
of tomorrow by integrating Sea Strike, Sea Shield, and Sea Basing into
the Joint Force; capturing the funds needed to build the 21st century
Navy; and developing our workforce. We are creating the future
capabilities and force structure required to counter these 21st century
threats. In pursuing victory, the United States Navy--forward deployed,
highly capable, and poised for action--will continue to provide our
nation persistent combat power.
At the same time, our people remain at the heart of all we do; they
are the real capital assets in our Navy. We have invested heavily to do
what is right for the people who are investing themselves in our Navy.
``Growth and development'' is our byline. As we look to the future, we
will build on the impressive progress we have made in recruiting,
assigning, and retaining our military and civilian professionals.
Active leadership is making it happen today and will do so in the years
to come.
I thank the Committee for your continued strong support of our
Navy, our Sailors, and our civilian shipmates. Working together, I am
confident we will win the Global War on Terrorism, make our great Navy
even better, and provide our Nation with more power, more protection,
and more freedom in the years ahead.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. All this paper work
is about what is going on on the floor. General Hagee.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL MICHAEL W. HAGEE
General Hagee. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, Senator
Cochran, other distinguished members of this committee, it is
indeed an honor for me to be here today representing your
Marine Corps. I would like to thank this committee for its
strong support for the issues and programs that are of such
vital importance to the readiness of the Marine Corps and the
Navy-Marine Corps team.
I would also like to thank my good friend, Admiral Vern
Clark, for his leadership of the Navy and his participation in
truly making the Navy-Marine Corps team a reality. And as he
mentioned, nothing reflects that more in my opinion, than these
14 amphibious task force ships, 7 from each coast, that left
within about a 2 to 3-week alert, carrying approximately 6,000
to 7,000 Marines on each task force, and all of them arrived in
the Gulf on time and on target. Now, Admiral Clark would say it
is because of the sailors that he has in his Navy, and he is
absolutely correct, but it takes leadership and vision, and
that comes from the top, and I thank him for that.
The actions of your Marines in Iraq attests to their
morale, readiness and warfighting capability better than any
words that I could say here today. They are performing
magnificently. In addition to the events that constantly scream
from our televisions, radios and newspapers, the Navy-Marine
Corps team continues to play a key role in the global war on
terrorism and in the establishment of stability and security in
many of our world's other trouble spots.
Active and reserve Marines are operating alongside
soldiers, sailors, airmen, non-governmental officials (NGOs)
and diplomats in diverse locations around the globe, from
Afghanistan to the Arabian Gulf, to the Horn of Africa, to the
Georgian Republic, Colombia, Guantanamo Bay, and the
Philippines. Today Marines are flying from Baghram Air Base in
Afghanistan and from Navy carriers at sea. Currently 67 percent
of the Marine Corps operating forces are forward deployed and
almost 80 percent of our operating forces are either forward
deployed, forward stationed, or forward based.
Marine Corps operations continue to highlight the
versatility of our expeditionary forces. We have had one of our
busiest years in terms of operational deployments,
participation in realistic worldwide exercises and training
events. To that end we have a thoroughly trained, ready and
capable force for the Nation.
Though the Nation is focused on current operations in Iraq,
we continue to develop the capabilities we will need for
tomorrow's challenges as well. Along with the Navy, we are
moving out with new organizational concepts mentioned by the
Chief of Naval Operations. These include tac air integration,
carrier and expeditionary strike groups, and our concept of
enhanced networked sea bases. These concepts will make us more
responsive, flexible and effective in the future.
The fiscal year 2004 budget continues our efforts to
modernize and transform the force. The support that you have
provided over the last 2 years has helped us make real progress
in our modernization, transformation, personnel and readiness
accounts. While Marines and their families have benefitted from
increased appropriations for targeted pay raises and improved
family housing and barracks, this committee's support for
important procurement programs has also ensured that our
Marines are better equipped and more likely to survive on the
battlefield today.
With regard to transformation and modernization, I am happy
to report that our top Marine Corps ground programs are
adequately funded over the near term. Among these are the
advanced amphibious assault vehicle, the high mobility
artillery rocket system and the lightweight 155 howitzer. On
the aviation side, we are on track for funding for the V-22,
the joint strike fighter, Short-Take-Off/Vertical Landing
(STOVL), and the four-bladed Cobra and Huey airframes.
Finally, we continue to make needed progress in readiness.
Having recently come from the operating forces, I can tell you
that there is a marked positive improvement in the way we are
funding for readiness now compared to just a few years ago.
Much of that improvement can be directly attributed to the
welcome attention readiness has received from this subcommittee
over the last few years. I know you are actually working on the
much needed supplemental and I thank you very much for that,
sir.
My main funding concern is the cost of reconstituting our
forces. We are making a concerted effort to capture these costs
and ensure we know what will be required to maintain the future
readiness of our Corps. We are currently doing what we have
been trained to do, and we are ready to support our Nation to
whatever challenges may lie ahead. We are on solid ground
regarding our mission and our direction. We will remain your
own only sea-based, rotational, truly expeditionary combined
armed force ready to answer the call as part of the integrated
joint force.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you again, sir, on behalf of all your Marines, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of General Michael W. Hagee
Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, distinguished members of the
Committee; it is my honor to report to you on the state of your United
States Marine Corps. First, on behalf of all Marines, I want to thank
the Committee for your continued support. Your sustained commitment to
improving the warfighting capabilities of our Nation's armed forces and
to improving the quality of life of our Service men and women and their
families is vital to the security of our Nation, especially now, while
our Nation is at war.
INTRODUCTION
The Navy-Marine Corps Team continues to play a key role in the
global war on terrorism and in the establishment of stability and
security in many of the world's trouble spots. Marines, both Active and
Reserve, are operating side-by-side in Iraq, as well as in diverse
locations, from Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Turkey, the Georgian
Republic, Colombia, Guantanamo Bay, and the Philippines. The actions of
your Marines--along with Navy Corpsmen and SeaBees--attest to their
morale and readiness better than any words I could say here today.
Marine Corps operations throughout the past year have highlighted
the versatility and expeditionary nature of our forces. Missions in
support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle marked the most
visible accomplishments of our forward-deployed forces. Marine Air
Control Squadrons continue to provide air control, surveillance, and
air traffic control support to Operation Enduring Freedom during their
deployments to the Central Command area of responsibility. Elsewhere,
the Marine Corps continues to support Operation Joint Forge in the
Balkans by sending Civil Affairs teams to Bosnia.
Even as the Marine Corps saw one of our busiest years in terms of
operational deployments, participation in realistic, worldwide
exercises remained critical to supporting the Combatant Commander's
Theater Security Cooperation Plans and ensuring that we maintained a
ready and capable force. Over the last year, Marines participated in
more than 200 service, joint, and combined exercises. These included
live fire, field training, command post, and computer-assisted
exercises. Participants varied in size from small units to Marine
Expeditionary Forces. Overseas, Marine Expeditionary Units (Special
Operations Capable) conducted exercises in Jordan, Italy, Croatia,
Tunisia, the Philippines, Australia, Thailand, and Kuwait.
At home, Marine reserve units were designated as ``on call'' forces
to support the Federal Emergency Management Agency's role in homeland
security. In addition, the Marine Corps also conducted numerous
training operations and internal exercises. This important training
helps develop individual and unit proficiency and competency. It also
allows the Marine Corps to examine unit operational skills and ensures
that each unit has the capabilities required to execute our full range
of missions.
The Marine Corps continues to contribute to the Nation's counter
drug effort, participating in numerous counter-drug operations in
support of Joint Task Force Six, Joint Interagency Task Force-East, and
Joint Interagency Task Force-West. These missions are conducted in the
Andean region of South America, along the U.S. Southwest border, and in
several domestic ``hot spots'' that have been designated as High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. Individual Marines and task-organized
units are assigned to these missions in order to provide support for
domestic drug-law enforcement throughout the United States, and to
provide conventional training to military forces in South America that
execute counter-narcotics missions. Marine operational and intelligence
teams also support Colombian military efforts to combat narco-
terrorism. Marines of our reserve forces have executed the majority of
these missions.
Our successes in these global operations and exercises have not
been achieved alone. We have worked closely alongside the Navy, our
sister Services, and Federal agencies to realize the true potential of
joint, interoperable forces in the new environment of 21st Century
warfare. The operational and personnel readiness levels we have been
able to maintain directly reflect the strong, sustained support of the
Congress in last year's National Defense Authorization and
Appropriations Acts. In fiscal year 2004, we seek your continued
support for the President's Budget so we can consolidate the gains made
to date, improve those areas where shortfalls remain, and continue
transforming the way the Navy-Marine Corps Team will fight in the 21st
century.
BUILDING ON SUCCESS
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget, together with your
support, will provide a strong foundation on which we can continue
building on our successes. Our focus is on improving our ability to
operate as an agile, lethal, ready, and effective member of a broader
joint force that takes the complementary capabilities provided by each
Service, and blends them into an integrated and effective force for
meeting future challenges.
Increases in our Military Personnel accounts have a positive effect
on the retention of our most valued assets--our Marines. Given the
increasing pressure to modernize and transform the force, the Marine
Corps is constantly working to identify and assess program tradeoffs to
enable the most effectively balanced approach between competing demands
and programs. These tradeoffs occur within a larger context of the
Department's overall program tradeoff decisions, which is driving the
Navy and Marine Corps to work more closely than ever before in our
planning, budgeting, and decision making. An additional concern that
complicates this process is the sizeable unfunded cost of the ongoing
global war on terrorism.
Challenges also arise from the changing realities of our National
security environment. The Marine Corps is committed to the idea that we
will fight as an integral part of a joint team. We continue to place
high priority on interoperability, shared concept development, and
participation in joint exercises with our sister services.
Additionally, the security environment now demands that we pay more
attention to our role in Homeland Defense, our critical infrastructure,
and force protection--even as we deploy more forces overseas. These
challenges demand that we balance competing priorities while remaining
focused on maintaining excellence in warfighting.
Adapting to a Changing, Dynamic World
While we adapt the advantages of technology to meet the changing
face of warfare, we draw strength from the unique culture and core
values that make us ``Marines.'' We look for innovation in four broad
areas to address future challenges: Transformational technology; New
operational concepts; Refined organizations; and Better business
practices.
Innovative approaches culled from these efforts should provide
insight into new capabilities that we can adapt for future warfighting.
In this regard, we are currently engaged in an immediate and critical
tasking to define how we, along with our partners in the Navy, intend
to project Naval power ashore in the 2015-2025 timeframe. This effort
requires the intellectual rigor and participation of all the elements
of our Marine Air-Ground Task Forces and is influencing the entire
Marine Corps--from our structure and training to the way we will fight
on future battlefields as an integral component of a joint force.
Technology and Experimentation
The plan for realizing future joint concepts consists of three
closely related processes: (1) Joint Concept Development, (2) Joint
Experimentation & Assessment, and (3) Joint Integration &
Implementation. The overall process is more commonly known as Joint
Concept Development & Experimentation. In order to ensure support and
engagement throughout this process, the Marine Corps reorganized to
establish three Joint Concept Development & Experimentation divisions
under the cognizance of the Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat
Development Command. These three organizations are key elements of
Marine Corps Transformation and enable full Marine Corps involvement in
Joint Experimentation and Transformation as well as the Navy's Sea
Trial process for Naval Experimentation and Transformation.
The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory maintains cognizance over
Marine Corps-specific experimentation--with a focus on the tactical
level--to develop enhanced warfighting capabilities for the future.
Technologies and procedures are field tested in experiments conducted
with the operating forces. In addition, the Lab coordinates closely
with the Office of Naval Research to identify promising technologies
that support the next generation of warfighting capabilities.
New Concepts and Organizations
The Marine Corps is streamlining force development from concept to
acquisition under the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development. Our
Expeditionary Force Development System is a single system of dynamic
functions integrated into a process that produces and sustains
capabilities to meet the needs of the Marine Corps and the Combatant
Commanders. The Marine Corps advocates for ground combat, aviation
combat, command and control, and combat service support, as well as the
Marine Requirements Oversight Council, are key participants in the
process. The Expeditionary Force Development System continuously
examines and evaluates current and emerging concepts and capabilities
to improve and sustain a modern Marine Corps. The system is compatible
with and supports Naval and joint transformation efforts and integrates
transformational, modernization, and legacy capabilities and processes.
This integrated, concept-based driver for transformation is currently
working on several ideas that will influence the future Marine Corps.
Expeditionary Strike Groups.--The Marine Corps and Navy are engaged
in a series of experiments that will explore the Expeditionary Strike
Group concept. This concept will combine the capabilities of surface
action groups, submarines, and maritime patrol aircraft with those of
Amphibious Ready Groups and Marine Expeditionary Units (Special
Operations Capable), to provide greater combat capabilities to Regional
Combatant Commanders. In the near future, the Navy-Marine Corps Team
will conduct a pilot deployment on the west coast to test the
Expeditionary Strike Group concept. Navy combatants have already been
incorporated within the existing training and deployment cycle of the
Amphibious Ready Group. This experiment will also allow us to test
command-and-control arrangements for the Expeditionary Strike Group. It
will provide critical information to support the future implementation
of the concept and highlight any needed changes in service doctrine,
organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel,
and facilities.
Tactical Aviation Integration.--The Navy and Marine Corps Team has
embarked on a Tactical Aircraft (Strike-fighter) Integration plan that
will enhance core combat capabilities and provide a more potent,
cohesive, and affordable fighting force. This integration is the
culmination of a long-term effort to generate greater combat capability
from Naval fixed-wing strike and fighter aircraft, and represents a
shared commitment to employ the Department of the Navy's resources as
judiciously as possible. This integration has been ongoing for several
years, with four Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornet squadrons operating as part
of embarked carrier air wings. This Navy-Marine Corps effort will
guarantee that Naval aviation will be integrated as never before, and
will effectively support the Marine Air-Ground Task Force and the joint
warfighter. Specifically, the integration plan:
--Reinforces our expeditionary ethos
--Provides a smaller, more capable, more affordable force for the
Department of the Navy
--Integrates Marine strike fighters in ten Navy Carrier Air Wings
--Integrates three Navy strike fighter squadrons into the Marine Unit
Deployment Program
--Includes the global sourcing of all DoN strike fighter assets and
ensures their support to Marine Air-Ground Task Forces and
Regional Combatant Commanders
--Provides increased combat capability forward
--Complements the enhanced seabasing concept.
A cornerstone of this plan is Department of the Navy funding and
maintenance of legacy aircraft at the highest levels of readiness until
the Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18E/F replace them. This requires an
unwavering commitment to level funding of strike fighter readiness
across the Department of the Navy. These integration-driven readiness
levels will allow the Navy-Marine Corps Team to surge more aircraft
than what is possible today.
Enhanced Networked Seabasing.--Fully networked, forward-deployed
Naval forces and platforms that are integrated into our seabasing
capability will provide Naval power projection for Joint Force
commanders. These forces will use the sea as a means of maneuver,
enabling a broad range of joint campaign operations. Sea-based
operations incorporate, integrate, protect, and sustain all aspects of
Naval power projection, from space to the ocean floor, from blue water
to the littorals and inland--without dependence on land bases within
the Joint Operating Area. Seabasing will provide enhanced capabilities
to the Naval force, such as rapid force closure, phased arrival and
assembly at sea, selective offload of equipment tailored for individual
missions, and force reconstitution for follow-on employment. The
traditional Naval qualities of persistence and sustainment--enhanced by
advanced force-wide networks--underpin the staying power and
flexibility of the sea base. Naval platforms can stay on-station, where
they are needed, for extended periods of time. The at-sea
maneuverability of the seabase, coupled with advanced underway
replenishment technologies and techniques, will ensure force readiness
over time.
Integrated Logistics Capabilities.--The Integrated Logistics
Capabilities effort began as a unique collection of military, industry
and academic organizations collaborating to develop a future vision of
Marine Corps logistics processes. The product is a set of
transformational initiatives that will provide better support to the
warfighter. The purpose of the Integrated Logistics Capabilities
concept and process is to implement a transformation strategy, based on
best practices, that provides the framework for the execution of agile,
effective logistics support to the Marine Air-Ground Task Force, with
the focus of streamlining the logistics chain.
Capabilities are being conceptually refined and incrementally
validated in the Operating Forces as they are identified and
recommended. An assessment of the Proof-of-Concept, published in
November 2002 by the Center for Naval Analysis, reflected improved
supply response time (68 percent reduction in time) and overall repair
cycle time (33 percent reduction).
Over both the mid- and long-term, improved combat effectiveness and
efficiencies in the logistics chain are expected. However, efficiencies
cannot be fully realized until the people, process and technology
changes are applied across the entire operating force. The logistics
transformation and process modernization, together with the cutting
edge suite of technologies provided by the Global Combat Support
System, will greatly enhance the combat capabilities of Marine forces.
Reestablishment of Air-Naval Gunfire Liaison Companies.--We have
validated the requirement to reestablish our Air-Naval Gunfire Liaison
Companies (ANGLICO). These Companies will provide our Commanders a
liaison capability with foreign area expertise to plan, coordinate, and
employ terminal control of fires in support of joint, allied, and
coalition forces. ANGLICO will be reestablished with a company on each
coast, and a separate brigade platoon in Okinawa. Each company will
have a habitual relationship with the reserves. Full operational
capability is expected by late summer 2004.
Marine Corps--U.S. Special Operations Command Initiatives.--Today,
105 Marines are filling Special Forces billets around the world. In
addition to providing the current Chief of Staff to U.S. Special
Operations Command (US SOCOM), the Marine Corps provides support to and
ensures interoperability with Special Forces through the actions of the
SOCOM-Marine Corps Board. That board met twice in 2002 and developed
initiatives in the areas of Operations, Training and Education,
Communications/C\4\, Information Operations, Psychological Operations,
Civil Affairs, Intelligence, Aviation, Future Concepts, and Equipment &
Technology. One of the initiatives, pursued in coordination with the
Naval Special Warfare Command, is the Marine Corps' first sizeable
contribution of forces to the Special Operations Command. Consisting of
81 Marines and 5 Sailors, a detachment has been organized, trained and
equipped to conduct special reconnaissance, direct action, coalition
support, foreign internal defense and other special operations
missions, and will begin training at Camp Pendleton California in June
2003. They will subsequently transfer to the operational control of US
SOCOM during October 2003, and deploy in April 2004 as augmentation to
a Naval Special Warfare Squadron supporting both U.S. Pacific Command
and U.S. Central Command.
Better Business Practices
We continue to seek out and use better business practices to
achieve greater cost-effectiveness, improve performance, and sharpen
our focus on our warfighting core competencies. In line with the
competitive sourcing initiatives in the President's Management Agenda,
we are increasing emphasis across our Supporting Establishment on
competing our commercial activities with the private sector. We are
complementing this initiative with continued development of an
effective Activity-Based Costing and Management initiative across our
installations. This allows us to focus on the true cost of various
functions and services and to develop benchmarks that enable us to
improve performance and to focus analyses on cost-saving initiatives.
This will occur both in commercial areas that we compete, and in non-
commercial areas that cannot be competed. Competitions completed to
date have resulted in saving millions of dollars annually and returning
almost 900 Marines to the operating forces. We will continue to seek
additional competition candidates. Activity-Based Costing and
Management initiatives provided our installation commanders with cost
and performance information that enabled them to save over $37 million
last year. As we refine our databases, we expect continuing increases
both in performance and cost effectiveness.
Through all of the efforts outlined above, the Marine Corps is
building on today's success. As we build on our current capabilities,
embrace innovation, and transform to meet the daunting conventional and
asymmetric threats to U.S. security in the 21st century, we will
continue to be the Nation's Total Force in Readiness, fielding warriors
whose unique seabased expeditionary and combined-arms capabilities will
be critical to success in crisis and conflict. In the process of
balancing our programs to meet these goals, we will focus on two
primary objectives: (1) our main effort-maintaining excellence in
warfighting, and (2) taking care of our Marines and families.
TAKING CARE OF OUR OWN
Providing for the needs of our Marines, their families and our
civilian Marines remain among our top priorities. The most advanced
aircraft, ship, or weapons system is of no value without highly
motivated and well-trained people. People and leadership remain the
real foundations of the Corps' capabilities. It is important to note
that the Marine Corps operates as a Total Force, including elements of
both active and reserve components. We continue to strengthen the
exceptional bonds within our Total Force by further integrating the
Marine Corps Reserve into ongoing operations and training.
Human Resources
End Strength.--The Congressionally authorized increase in Marine
Corps end strength to 175,000 in response to the global war on
terrorism is very much appreciated. This increase of 2,400 Marines
allows us to sustain the increased missions associated with the
activation of the 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (Anti-Terrorism),
enabling us to replace Marines in the active units that we ``borrowed''
in standing up the Brigade, and continue to provide the Nation with a
robust, scalable force option specifically dedicated to anti-terrorism.
Recruiting.--Sustaining our ranks with the highest quality young
men and women is the mission of the Marine Corps Recruiting Command.
Recruiting Command has consistently accomplished this mission for more
than the past seven years for enlisted recruiting and twelve years for
officer recruiting. These achievements provide the momentum fueling the
continuous pursuit to improve the recruiting process and enhance the
quality of life for our recruiters. To continue to attract America's
finest youth, Recruiting Command has provided recruiters with the best
tools available to accomplish their mission. The Marine Corps supports
the National Call to Service Act and continues to work closely with DOD
in developing an implementation policy. We expect to commence enlisting
individuals under this program commencing October 1, 2003. The Marine
Corps Reserve achieved its fiscal year 2002 recruiting goals,
accessioning 5,904 Non-Prior Service Marines and 4,213 Prior Service
Marines. With regard to our Reserve Component, our most challenging
recruiting and retention issue is the ability to fill out our Selected
Marine Corps Reserve units with qualified officers. The Marine Corps
recruits Reserve officers almost exclusively from the ranks of those
who have first served a tour as an active duty Marine officer.
While this practice ensures our Selected Marine Corps Reserve unit
officers have the proven experience, knowledge and leadership abilities
when we need it the most--during mobilization--it limits the recruiting
pool that we can draw from to staff our units. As a result, the
Selected Reserve currently has a shortage of company grade (Second
Lieutenant to Captain) officers. We are exploring methods to increase
the reserve participation of company grade officers through increased
recruiting efforts, increased command focus on emphasizing reserve
participation upon leaving active duty, and reserve officer programs
for qualified enlisted Marines. We are also pursuing the legislative
authority to provide an affiliation bonus to reserve officers as an
additional incentive for participation in the Selected Marine Corps
Reserve.
Retention.--Retaining the best and the brightest Marines has always
been a major goal of the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps is by design a
youthful service, however, it is of paramount importance to retain the
highest quality Marines to lead our young force. History has proven
that leadership in the Staff Noncommissioned Officer ranks has been the
major contributor to the combat effectiveness of the Marine Corps. The
Marine Corps has two retention standards. Our First Term Alignment Plan
has consistently achieved its reenlistment requirements over the past
eight years. With one-third of the current fiscal year completed, we
have achieved 87 percent of our first-term retention goal. A look at
our Subsequent Term Alignment Plan (second tour and beyond)
demonstrates that we have already retained 51 percent of our goal for
this fiscal year. Both of these trends indicate healthy continuation
rates in our career force.
Current officer retention is at an eighteen year high, continuing
the strong performance of the last two years. Despite this positive
trend, we cannot become complacent. As a Corps, we will continue to
target specific qualifications and skills through continuation pay.
Military compensation that is competitive with the private sector
provides the flexibility required to meet the challenge of maintaining
stability in manpower planning.
Marine Corps Reserve--Partners in the Total Force.--It is important
to note that the Marine Corps operates as a Total Force, including
elements of both active and reserve components. We continue to
strengthen the exceptional bonds within our Total Force by further
integrating the Marine Corps Reserve into ongoing training and
operations. Concurrent with the various initiatives underway to improve
integration and update capabilities, the Marine Corps Reserve continues
to support its primary mission of augmentation and reinforcement.
Reserve units and Marines provided over 1.8 million man-days in fiscal
year 2002. Reserves provided support at all levels within the Marine
Corps and at Combatant Commands and High-Level Staffs.
As we enter the 21st Century, the overall structure of Marine
Forces Reserve will retain the current basic structure. However, Marine
Forces Reserve is currently working to create new capabilities
identified as part of its comprehensive review. Both as a structural
and an operational change, Marine Forces Reserve is increasing its
operational ties with the Warfighting Commanders by improving lines of
communication with our operating forces. These increased operational
ties will improve interoperability, increase training opportunities,
and enhance the warfighting capabilities of the Total Force.
Mobilization.--Since the events of 9/11, the Marine Corps
judiciously activated Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Marines in
response to both internal and joint operational requirements. The
Marine Corps has maximized the use of individual volunteers to meet
these requirements primarily in the areas of staff augmentation and
force protection. In addition, Selected Marine Corps Units (SMCR), were
activated for force protection requirements in support of homeland
security. Because of emerging requirements associated with war on
terrorism, we began involuntary recall of some of our Individual Ready
Reserves on January 17, 2003.
Stop Loss.--On January 15, 2003, the Marine Corps instituted Stop
Loss across the Marine Corps to meet the emerging requirements
associated with the expanding war on terrorism. Stop Loss was initiated
to provide unit stability/cohesion, maintain unit readiness, meet
expanded force protection requirements, and to reduce the requirement
to active IRR personnel. We will continue to make judicious use of this
authority and continue to discharge Marines for humanitarian, physical
disability, administrative, and disciplinary reasons. We have
instructed our General Officers to continue to use a common sense
approach and have authorized them to release Marines from active duty
if it is in the best interest of the Marine Corps and the Marine.
Education
Our leaders--especially our noncommissioned officers--throughout
the entire chain of command have kept the Corps successful and
victorious. Their sense of responsibility is the cornerstone of our
hard-earned successes. We will continue to develop leaders who can
think on their feet, act independently, and succeed. In the future, as
today, leaders will continue to instill stamina and toughness in each
individual while simultaneously reinforcing character that values
honor, integrity and taking care of our fellow Marines--including
treating each other with dignity and respect. Aggressive and informed
leadership demands education, training, and mentoring. The importance
of these key elements cannot be over-emphasized, and we must attend to
each at every opportunity.
Marine Corps University has responsibility and authority for the
planning, coordinating and overseeing all education for our Marines.
The University is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools to confer Masters degrees and currently offers a Masters of
Strategic Studies at the Marine Corps War College, and a Masters of
Military Studies at the Command and Staff College. The Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff currently accredits the War College, Command and
Staff College, and the College of Continuing Education for Phase I
Joint Education. The President of the University also exercises command
authority over the Expeditionary Warfare School and the Staff
Noncommissioned Officer Academies worldwide. Notable accomplishments
include Department of Education approval of a Masters of Operational
Studies at the School of Advanced Warfighting, which is the first step
toward our third Master's degree program.
Plans for the future include providing coordination and continuity
through a coherent education plan for all Marines. Our goal is to
develop better warfighting leaders at all levels through an increased
emphasis on relevant, structured education--at the graduate and
undergraduate level--through both resident programs and distance
education. Our intent is to greatly expand beyond the current emphasis
on field-grade officers to support leadership development throughout
the training and education continuum from Marine Private through
General Officer, and to specifically bring senior Non-commissioned
Officers further along the education continuum.
Our Lifelong Learning mission is to establish an integrated
approach to learning; providing Marines with one destination for
enrollment in a college program, access to research tools such as
books, periodicals, and the Internet, basic skills enhancement, and
nonresident courses. In the face of a requirement to increase Tuition
Assistance from 75 percent to 100 percent of tuition costs, and the
rate from $187.50 per semester hour to $250 per semester hour, the
Marine Corps added the necessary funds to expand the Tuition Assistance
program in the fiscal year 2004 POM, which provides sustainment until
fiscal year 2009.
Quality of Life/Quality of Service
Congressional support for increases in the Basic Allowance for
Housing, as well as the aggressive Marine Corps use of the Public
Private Venture (PPV) authority provided by Congress five years ago,
are resulting in dramatic improvements to the housing of our Marines
and their families. Your continued support of our budget to help us
achieve zero out-of-pocket expenses by fiscal year 2005 is greatly
appreciated. The condition of other infrastructure, such as our
barracks, workspaces, and training ranges, are also key factors in
overall quality of life. While our infrastructure budgets reflect only
the minimal essential military construction and re-capitalization
necessary, they will allow us to achieve a re-capitalization rate of 67
years within the FYDP (down from 100 years in fiscal year 1999) and an
improvement of our facilities readiness by fiscal year 2013.
We have been aggressively working to reduce the number of Marines
and civilian Marines in non-core business areas, reapplying the Marines
to other operational requirements, and looking to optimize the use of
civil service/contractor support where appropriate. Our track record is
good. By example, we have reapplied Marines in the garrison food
service and mobile equipment areas back to the operating forces and
competed a significant number of civilian positions. We will continue
this process in line with the President's Management Agenda to review
fifty percent of our positions by fiscal year 2008. By ensuring that
quality of service remains high, we will help maintain our successful
record of recruitment and retention.
Families
The Marine Corps is an expeditionary force prepared to deploy on
short notice to accomplish assigned missions. While we may recruit
Marines, we almost always retain families--it becomes a family decision
for a Marine to stay for an entire career. Because of our expeditionary
culture, deployment support is provided to Marines and their families
as part of our normal operations, largely through the efforts of Marine
Corps Community Services. In addition to concerted efforts to improve
housing and family services, security and support is offered during
pre-deployment, deployment, and post-deployment phases of our
operations. The Marine Corps also offers numerous programs focused on
new parent support and the prevention of domestic violence, as well as
services and programs for infants, toddlers, children and teens. The
Exceptional Family Member Program focuses on assistance to service
personnel who have a family member with special needs before, during
and after Permanent Change of Station Orders.
Safety
Ensuring a safe command climate and working environment remains a
critical concern for the Marine Corps. Often, the settings and the work
our Marines do are dangerous, but effective command climates
continually mitigate those dangers through planning and leadership. Our
safety programs are integral to force protection and operational
readiness. Leadership and programming in safety awareness and standards
are vital to providing Marines and their families with a meaningful
quality of life and service. On the heels of a very successful year
prior, fiscal year 2002 was a disappointing year for safety in the
Corps, as we lost more Marines to mishaps in fiscal year 2002 than we
had in any single year for the preceding decade. Our aviation mishap
rate increased as well (from 1.40 to 3.9 class A mishaps per 100,000
flight hours).
These results do not indicate a lack of desire to safeguard
Marines. Rather, several factors were involved that made it
particularly difficult to prevent mishaps through normal operational
risk management efforts. Demographically, the Marine Corps is a younger
force than the other Services (by an average six to eight years), with
maturity being a contributing factor in many mishaps; however, none of
these factors are excuses for any failure to avoid preventable mishaps.
Our leadership at all levels is deeply concerned about the negative
trend and we are actively involved in multiple efforts to improve
readiness and save our most precious Marines and valuable equipment.
OUR MAIN EFFORT--EXCELLENCE IN WARFIGHTING
Marines have a vision for the future, and we are moving forward
with the modernization and transformation efforts needed to make this
vision a reality. We fully understand that our vision cannot be
achieved independent of our sister Services. Each of the Services has
its own critical role to play in providing for our Nation's collective
security; however, it is important that each of our contributions be,
simultaneously, both unique and complementary. In particular, the Corps
stresses the importance of our key partnership with the Navy. The Navy-
Marine Corps Team has never been stronger, or more necessary for our
Nation.
We have stated that our first concern is with the care and
stewardship of our people. This philosophy extends to the rest of our
programming in that we focus on procuring the programs and equipment
that will maximize the abilities of our Marines to perform effectively
in combat. With the foundation of requirements drawn from our emerging
concepts, the Marine Corps is transforming its warfighting systems and
assets throughout the elements of our Marine Forces. The following
examples reflect but a few of our transformation and modernization
efforts. A more comprehensive description of the Marine Corps' entire
acquisition program can be found in the publication entitled Marine
Corps Concepts & Programs 2003.
Training
We believe the enduring wisdom, ``you fight the way you train.''
Because of this, our training exercises are becoming ever more Joint
and Combined to provide our Marines with the experience they will need
when called upon to respond to crises--because there is no doubt that
we will work alongside our sister Services and coalition partners from
other Nations in such circumstances. The Marine Corps Combat Training
Center at Twenty-nine Palms, California focuses on integrated live fire
and maneuver, as well as combined arms training, and will continue to
play a central role as our foremost training and testing site for
Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare. Ongoing initiatives will expand the
role of the Combat Training Center and transform it into a ``Center of
Excellence'' that will focus the training efforts across our operating
forces. The Combat Training Center facilitates and supports the
development of new concepts and capabilities, thereby reinforcing our
combat effectiveness, enhancing joint interoperability, and supporting
Dodd transformation efforts.
The future role of the Combat Training Center will grow beyond its
current emphasis on battalion-level integrated live fire, combined arms
training to support expanded training opportunities for all elements
(ground, air, combat service support, and command) of Marine Air-Ground
Task Forces up to and including a Marine Expeditionary Brigade. This
will include: enabling multi-site, distributed training evolutions that
tie together units from various bases; and investing in technology that
simultaneously links live, virtual, and constructive training.
Additionally, improvements to the existing Expeditionary Air Field and
construction of a large-scale urban training facility are being studied
as possible ways to enhance training opportunities at Twenty-nine
Palms. All of these efforts have the potential to increase the
capability of our training center to support evolving training
requirements, enabling the Corps to maintain its focus on uniquely
Marine training skills, while providing a vehicle to further integrate
Marine Corps capabilities into those of the Joint Force.
Infrastructure
Marine Corps infrastructure consists of fifteen major bases and
stations and 185 Reserve facilities in the United States and Japan. In
keeping with the Corps' expeditionary nature, these installations are
strategically located near air and seaports of embarkation, and are
serviced by major truck routes and railheads to allow for the rapid and
efficient movement of Marines and materiel. Recognized as the ``fifth
element'' of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force because of the close link
to the operating forces and their operational readiness, the condition
of the Corps' bases and stations is of vital importance. With the
ability to train as an integrated force being a fundamental requirement
of the Corps, infrastructure development planning is designed to
provide the facilities, training areas, and ranges (both air and
ground) to accomplish this requirement while minimizing excess and
redundant capacities. With increasing encroachment pressures and
constrained fiscal resources, the Marine Corps face significant
challenges to provide and maintain a lean and efficient infrastructure
that fully meets changing mission demands.
Blount Island Acquisition.--We are committed to undertake the
wisest possible course to conserve our real property and, when
necessary, to acquire any additional property that is mission critical.
The Blount Island facility in Jacksonville, Florida, is a National
asset that must be acquired to ensure its availability for long-term
use. Blount Island's peacetime mission of supporting the Maritime Pre-
positioning Force is vitally important, while its wartime capability of
supporting large-scale logistics sustainment from the continental
United States gives it strategic significance. The facility will play a
vital role in the National military strategy as the site for
maintenance operations of the Maritime Pre-positioning Force for years
to come. The Marine Corps plans to acquire the Blount Island facility
in two phases. Phase 1, funded in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2001, is currently in progress and is will acquire interests in
approximately 311 acres of land for the primary purpose of ensuring
public safety on parcels adjacent to the leased central management
operational area. Phase 2, planned for fiscal year 2004, involves
acquisition of the central maintenance operational area, consisting of
over 1,000 acres.
Training at Eglin Air Force Base.--With cessation of training at
Vieques, Puerto Rico, the established training ranges, quality of
training support, and proximity to the ocean available at Eglin Air
Force Base, Florida, can provide Naval Expeditionary Forces with an
alternative training capability. Eglin's capabilities, location, and
tenant commands provide the opportunity to facilitate joint training
between Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Army and Special Operations
Forces. Development of an expeditionary force training capability at
Eglin can support the Secretary of Defense's vision and direction for
training transformation and the development of a Joint National
Training Capability. This type of training will be critical to Naval
expeditionary combat-readiness.
The Marine Corps proposes to execute two ten-day training exercises
with a Marine Expeditionary Unit at Eglin each year. These exercises
include a variety of scenarios such as amphibious landings, raids,
mechanized operations, helicopter operations, and live fire and
maneuver exercises. No final decision on training activities will be
made until an Environmental Assessment currently underway is completed.
The Navy and Marine Corps are actively working to develop and sustain
cooperative relationships with the local community and the State of
Florida.
Encroachment and Environmental Issues.--Encroachment--defined as
any deliberative action that can cause the loss of, or restrict, the
use of land, airspace, frequency, or sea maneuver areas--is a serious
threat to the operational readiness of the Corps. Urban and residential
areas now surround many Marine installations that were originally
remotely situated. This growth is often accompanied by pressure for
access to Marine Corps resources, or demands to curtail Marine Corps
operations to make them more compatible with surrounding land uses. The
Corps' training lands often provide excellent habitat for threatened
and endangered species, serving as islands of biodiversity amid the
crush of densely populated urban areas that surround many of our
installations. The Marine Corps is proactively engaged with federal,
state, and local agencies and governments, as well as nongovernmental
organizations, to provide win-win solutions to these encroachment
pressures, and ensure compatible land usage and environmental security
without degrading training and mission readiness. Unimpeded access to
our installations and ranges is critical to the Marine Corps remaining
America's ``Force in Readiness.''
Our Nation has crafted a strong environmental code of conduct
structured on a wide range of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations. Vague or inflexible environmental requirements, however,
can present significant challenges for Marines performing their primary
mission. We support ongoing efforts to seek clarity and limited
flexibility in certain environmental laws, so that we may more
effectively balance our training requirements with our long-term
environmental stewardship responsibilities. Our ultimate goal is to
``fight the way we train,'' while preserving the natural environment.
Today, Marines at all levels perform their jobs with an increased
awareness of potential environmental impacts. All of our bases and
stations, for example, have implemented Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plans and aggressive pollution prevention programs. The hard
work does not end with these initiatives. The impact of encroachment on
the Corps' ability to fully utilize its installations are varied and
require constant vigilance and attention to ensure that operational
readiness is not diminished.
Command and Control
Interoperability is the key to improving Naval expeditionary
command and control effectiveness, especially as we begin to integrate
battlespace sensors residing in our manned and unmanned aerial, space,
and ground vehicles. This is particularly true as the Marine Corps
continues to work routinely with a range of government, non-government,
and international agencies. The command, control, communication, and
computer (C\4\) end-to-end interoperability of the Global Information
Grid will serve to enhance our ability to conduct joint, multi-
department, and multi-agency operations through the use of technology,
standards, architectures, and tools.
The Marine Corps works closely with the Joint Staff, combatant
commanders, operating forces, and other Services to ensure that, where
possible, joint concepts of operations are developed for common
capabilities. An example of this process is occurring with the
development of the Joint Tactical Radio System, which combines numerous
single function programs of current inventories into a single,
interoperable, joint radio program that will provide secure digital
communications while enhancing wideband tactical networking.
Intelligence
Our fiscal year 1996-fiscal year 2003 enhancements to Marine
Intelligence Support are paying off during Operation Enduring Freedom
and the Global War on Terrorism. Intelligence Support organic to Marine
Forces combined with capabilities from our Marine Corps Intelligence
Activity in Quantico, Virginia to provide federated production
(reachback) support has been validated through current operations.
Marine Expeditionary Unit's forward deployed with organic all-source
intelligence collection and production capabilities provide current
intelligence support to Marine and Special Operations units. Our
deployed signals intelligence, human intelligence, ground sensor, and
reconnaissance teams provide the commander current situational
awareness. All-source intelligence Marines have the systems and
training to integrate organic collection, network with the joint force
on the ground, and effectively reach back to the Marine Corps
Intelligence Activity and joint centers at secure locations.
Mobility
While the global war on terrorism has demonstrated the current
capabilities of the Navy-Marine Corps Team, our continuous
transformation and modernization efforts hold even greater potential
for increasing Naval power projection capabilities in the future. Many
of these efforts focus on increased speed, range, payload, and
flexibility of maneuver units--mobility. This concept includes a vision
of an all-vertical lift Air Combat Element, with the introduction of
tiltrotor and Short-Take-Off/Vertical-Landing (STOVL) aircraft. The
following initiatives are some of the keys to the achievement of Marine
Corps operational mobility objectives:
MV-22 Osprey.--The MV-22 remains the Marine Corps' number one
aviation acquisition priority. While fulfilling the critical Marine
Corps medium lift requirement, the MV-22's increased capabilities of
range, speed, payload and survivability will generate truly
transformational tactical and operational opportunities. With the
Osprey, Marine forces operating from the sea base will be able to take
the best of long-range maneuver and strategic surprise, and join it
with the best of the sustainable forcible-entry capability. Ospreys
will replace our aging fleets of CH-46E Sea Knight and CH-53D Sea
Stallion helicopters.
KC-130J.--The KC-130J will bring increased capability and mission
flexibility to the planning table with its satellite communications
system, survivability, and enhancements in aircraft systems, night
systems, and rapid ground refueling. The KC-130J is procured as a
commercial off-the-shelf aircraft that is currently in production. We
are pursuing a multi-year program for purchase with the U.S. Air Force.
Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle.--The Advanced Amphibious
Assault Vehicle (AAAV) is the Marine Corps' only Acquisition Category
1D program and will be one of the principal enablers of the
Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare concept. AAAV will provide never before
realized high-speed land and water maneuver, a highly lethal day/night
fighting ability, and advanced armor and Nuclear-Biological-Chemical
protection. This--coupled with a systematic integration into emerging
service and Joint Command and Control networked information,
communications and intelligence architectures--will provide the Marine
Corps with increased operational tempo, survivability, and lethality
across the spectrum of operations.
Maritime Pre-positioning Force.--The Maritime Pre-positioning Force
(Future) will be the true enabler of primarily sea-based operations.
When it becomes operational, the future Maritime Pre-positioning Force
role will expand beyond that of today, and will provide a true
seabasing capability. In this regard, it will serve four functions that
the current capability cannot: (1) Phased at-sea arrival and assembly
of units; (2) Selective offload of equipment and cargo; (3) Long-term,
sea-based sustainment of the landing force; and (4) At-sea
reconstitution and redeployment of the force. The Naval Services are
exploring several new technology areas during the development of
Maritime Pre-positioning Force (Future). Currently, the Maritime Pre-
positioning Force (Future) Program is conducting an analysis of
alternatives to inform an acquisition decision by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
High-Speed Vessel (HSV).--High-speed vessels will enhance the
Marine Corps' capability to perform a wide range of missions, from
providing support to a theater security cooperation plan to sustaining
long-term operations ashore. High-speed vessels can enhance our ability
to conduct sea-based operations and use the sea as maneuver space. HSVs
do not have the loitering and forcible entry capabilities of amphibious
ships or the pre-positioning capacity of our Maritime Pre-positioned
Force Squadrons. However, their shallow draft, high speed,
maneuverability, and open architecture make them a valuable link in a
seamless logistics system that extends from source of supply to the sea
base and the joint force, enabling a faster, more responsive, and
capable deployment of a range of force modules from forward-based
``hubs'' such as Okinawa, or from the United States. The Marine Corps
is currently testing and validating these concepts by employing a high-
speed vessel in the Pacific theater as a form of strategic lift.
Power Projection Platforms.--Combined with embarked Marines, Naval
expeditionary warships provide the Nation with forward-presence and
flexible crisis response forces. They also provide a truly unparalleled
expeditionary forcible-entry capability. As part of a joint effort, the
Marine Corps will remain capable of getting to the fight rapidly in
order to decisively deter or defeat adversaries who try to impose their
will on our country or its allies. A fiscally constrained programmatic
goal of twelve Amphibious Ready Groups--one that deliberately accepts
increased operational risk by attempting to balance force structure
with available resources--does not change the warfighting requirement
to lift the Assault Echelons of three Marine Expeditionary Brigades via
future platforms for amphibious shipping. The Marine Corps supports the
LPD-17 and a modified LHD-8 (``Plug Plus'') ship design in fiscal year
2007 and will evaluate the adequacy of the R&D and SCN funding for the
development of future LHA(R) ships for the remainder of the class.
Mine Countermeasure Capabilities.--Naval expeditionary forces
require an effective counter-mine warfare capability to open and
maintain sea lines of communication and to operate within the littoral
battle space. This is probably our greatest concern when it comes to
projecting power in an anti-access environment. With respect to mine
countermeasures, we require a family of capabilities that encompasses
mine detection, location, neutralization, marking, and data
dissemination. Designed to provide an organic mine counter-measures
capability within operationally acceptable timelines and with
acceptable levels of operational risk, this next generation of systems
includes the Advanced Mine Detector, the Assault Breacher Vehicle, the
Remote Minehunting System and the Long-term Mine Reconnaissance System.
Our most critical mine countermeasures deficiencies exist in the area
near the shoreline through the high water mark and beyond, where
detection and neutralization capabilities are extremely limited. Given
the broad proliferation of known and unknown mined areas throughout the
world, we must improve our ability to operate in this exceptionally
lethal environment. Our intent is to leverage America's strength in
technology to dramatically improve our ability to locate and avoid or
neutralize mines and obstacles as necessary, and eventually remove the
man from the minefield.
Fires and Effects
With the increased range and speed of expeditionary mobility
assets, the landward area of influence of Naval forces has increased by
an order of magnitude. Consequently, the Nation requires weapon systems
with correspondingly greater range, lethality, flexibility and tactical
mobility. A range of lethal and non-lethal fire-support programs is
moving the Corps in that direction. The development and acquisition of
non-lethal weapons systems will expand the number of options available
to commanders confronted with situations in which the use of deadly
force is inappropriate. The Marine Corps is developing a robust non-
lethal capability that will address the non-lethal core requirements of
clearing facilities, crowd control and area denial. Additionally, we
are enhancing the capabilities with which we can affect our adversaries
that defy the traditional concept of weapons and fire-support means.
Technical advances in directed-energy weapons hold much promise for
future capabilities in this area.
Joint Strike Fighter.--The Joint Strike Fighter is the next-
generation strikefighter for the Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy and
will replace the Marine Corps' AV-8B and F/A-18A/C/Ds. The JSF family
of aircraft will include a short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL)
variant, a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant, and an
aircraft carrier-capable variant. Commonality between the variants will
reduce both development and life cycle costs and will result in
significant savings when compared to the development of three separate
aircraft. The Marine Corps requires that its STOVL variant be able to
operate from large-deck amphibious ships, austere sites, and forward
operating bases. The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter version can use from
three to five times more airfields around the world than our existing
conventional take-off and landing aircraft. Moreover, because the STOVL
variant can operate from both conventional carriers and amphibious
assault ship decks, it thereby effectively doubles the number of
platforms available for seabased operations. The advantages of a
stealthy STOVL strike fighter--capable of taking off from an
expeditionary base on land or at sea, flying at supersonic cruise,
accomplishing its mission with advanced sensors and weapons, and then
returning to its expeditionary site--are dramatic. The STOVL Joint
Strike Fighter will provide the reliability, survivability, and
lethality that Marines will need in the years ahead, and transform the
very foundations of Naval tactical air power for the 21st Century.
Naval Surface Fire Support.--Our ability to provide fires in
support of expeditionary forces operations beyond the beach has not
kept pace with the dramatic increases in mobility. Critical
deficiencies currently exist in the capability of the Navy to provide
all-weather, accurate, lethal and responsive fire support throughout
the depth of the littoral in support of expeditionary operations. The
Marine Corps supports the Navy's near-term efforts to develop an
enhanced Naval surface fire support capability with the fielding of the
5-inch/62-caliber Naval gun and the development of extended-range
munitions. In the far-term, the Marine Corps supports the development
and fielding of the Advanced Destroyer [DD(X)], armed with 155 mm
Advanced Gun Systems and Land Attack Missiles, to fully meet our Naval
surface fire support requirements. Our Nation's expeditionary forces
ashore will remain at considerable risk for want of suitable sea-based
fire support until DD(X) joins the fleet in significant numbers.
Indirect Fire-Support.--A triad of indirect fire-support programs
will provide needed firepower enhancements for Marines in the near- to
mid-term. The first element of the triad is the Lightweight-155 mm (LW-
155) towed howitzer needed to replace our current M-198 howitzer, which
is at the end of its service life. The Lightweight-155 is a joint
Marine Corps-Army effort that will meet or exceed all the requirements
of the current system while significantly reducing its weight.
The second element, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System
(HIMARS), will deliver very high volumes of rocket artillery in support
of the ground scheme of maneuver. The HIMARS will provide accurate,
responsive general support and general support reinforcing indirect
fires at long range, under all weather conditions, and throughout all
phases of combat operations ashore. It will fire both precision and
area munitions to a maximum range of 36 miles.
The Expeditionary Fire Support System, the third system of the
land-based fire support triad, will accompany Marines in any
expeditionary mode of operation. It will be the primary indirect fire-
support system for the vertical assault element of the ship-to-
objective maneuver force. The Expeditionary Fire Support System, as a
system, will be internally transportable by helicopter or tilt-rotor
aircraft to allow the greatest range and flexibility of employment for
our future operations.
Information Operations.--Defense planners are engaged in studies
exploring Information Operations as a core military competency, fully
integrated into both deliberate and crisis action planning. The Marine
Corps intends to enhance our operational capability in both offensive
and defensive Information Operations. Marine Corps doctrine and
warfighting publications are being reviewed and revised to acknowledge
Information Operations as a core warfighting capability fundamental to
all operations spanning the spectrum of conflict with equal
significance during non-combatant and humanitarian operations. We
recognize a requirement to develop and train an Information Operations
career force of trained professionals from the ground up in support of
joint and inter-agency efforts.
New Weapons Technologies.--The Corps is particularly interested in
adapting truly transformational weapon technologies. We have forged
partnerships throughout the Department of Defense, other Agencies, and
with industry over the past several years in an effort to develop and
adapt the most hopeful areas of science and technology. Several notable
programs with promising technologies include: (1) advanced tactical
lasers, (2) high-power microwave, non-lethal active denial systems, (3)
free electron lasers, (4) electro-magnetic guns (rail guns), and (5)
common modular missiles for aircraft.
Logistics and Combat Service Support
The Marine Corps logistics' vision is to significantly enhance the
expeditionary and joint warfighting capabilities of our Operating
Forces. Key warfighting capabilities encompassed in our future
concepts--Enhanced Networked Seabasing and Ship-To-Objective-Maneuver--
will be defined by our logistic capabilities and limitations. Hence, we
are committed to exploring and implementing actions to increase combat
power, operational versatility, and deployability. The concept of
focused logistics in Joint Vision 2020 is guiding the Marine Corps as
we strive to increase the sustained forward-deployed capability of our
forces. Future force combat service support--and the Marine Corps
logistics that enables it--will be changing as we shift more of our
operations to the sea base. At the forefront of this effort is the
Marine Corps Logistics Campaign Plan that outlines essential objectives
and tasks based upon overarching Marine Corps, Naval, joint, and DOD
concepts and guidance. Our strategy encompasses four pillars:
Logistics Information Fusion and C\2\.--A key to current and
emerging warfighting capabilities is a robust and responsive logistics
information technology capability--one that is integrated with our
command-and-control architecture and interoperable with Naval and joint
systems. The Global Combat Support System--Marine Corps (GCSS-MC) and
shared data environment, along with the Common Logistics Command and
Control System, provide logisticians across the Marine Corps with a set
of common logistics assessment, planning, and execution tools that are
interoperable with the common operating picture.
Seamless Distribution.--The single capability that defines Marine
Forces in a joint environment is its ability to sustain itself over an
extended period of time. The principal goal is to move from defining
sustainment in terms of deployable ``days of supply'' to a continuous
uninterrupted sustainment capability for the force. A key element in
achieving this is integrating current distribution processes and
systems into broader Naval and joint distribution processes. Achieving
this capability will not only greatly enhance Naval operations, but
will be transferable to the task of sustaining joint forces and
operations.
Enhanced Equipment Readiness.--The bulk of our logistics effort and
associated ``footprint'' is driven by its equipment-support activities.
The Marine Corps seeks to reduce the required level of support for
equipment by greatly improving the reliability, availability, and
maintainability of ground tactical equipment.
Enterprise Integration.--Achieving the emerging warfighting
capabilities envisioned by future concepts require dynamic shifts in
our logistics processes and organizations. Leading this effort toward
logistics modernization is true enterprise integration consisting of
GCSS-MC, process reengineering, and organizational reform.
CONCLUSION
The major challenges confronting the Marine Corps today center on
organizing, training, and equipping our force to better support joint
force commanders, now and in the future. The modernization programs and
the transformational systems that we are pursuing are key to our
ability to meet the Nation's wartime, crisis, and peacetime
requirements. We have put into place well-conceived programs addressing
the needs of our Marines and their families, the requirement to enhance
the current readiness of legacy systems, the critical role
infrastructure plays in present and future readiness, and the balance
between modernization and transformation.
We are focusing on the development of integrated capabilities that,
when combined with those of our sister Services and Special Operations
Forces, will effectively meet the challenges of an increasingly varied
and threatening National security landscape. You can remain justifiably
proud of what your Marine Corps contributes as America's forward
engagement and expeditionary combined-arms force. We are grateful for
the unwavering support you provide in this vitally important work.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, gentlemen, and I
apologize for not being here at the opening so I will just
submit my opening statement in the record. We will soon take up
the supplemental, and I was working on it, as I said.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
Secretary Johnson, Admiral Clark and General Hagee, I
welcome all of you today.
Today we will discuss the fiscal year 2004 budget request
for the Navy and Marine Corps. We are currently considering the
Administration's request for a fiscal year 2003 supplemental
for Operation Iraqi Freedom and the continuing Global War on
Terrorism. We know how much the Navy and Marine Corps need this
additional funding and will do all we can to get this to you as
quickly as possible.
The last two years have been a time of extraordinary
accomplishment, effort, dedication, and duty for the men and
women of our Navy and Marine Corps. Since September 11, 2001,
the Navy/Marine Corps team expanded the role of what was
thought possible for carrier-based flight operations and
expeditionary landing forces. Now, in Operation Iraqi Freedom,
our Navy and Marine Corps continue this excellence in the air,
on the ground, and at sea.
Right now, the Navy has 54 percent of the fleet forward
deployed and 68 percent of the fleet underway. I believe that
this is the highest deployed percentage since World War II.
Also interesting, is that the Navy is also the smallest it's
been since World War II--dropping to about 300 ships this year.
All this, while at the same time, the Navy is achieving its
highest retention rates in history.
The Marine Corps is equally engaged. 90 percent of the
deployable Marine Corps force is deployed today. This is 56
percent of the total U.S. Marine Corps end strength, the
highest percentage since World War II.
We look forward to your testimonies today on your
priorities for the fiscal year 2004 budget. As always, your
full statements will be made a part of the record.
Senator Stevens. I do want you to know we are grateful to
you for what you are doing, and for what all of the Navy and
Marine Corps are doing to support the war in Iraq and the war
in Afghanistan and the war against terrorism.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Let me start off by saying this, that the Army and Air
Force have informed us that because of the funds that have
already been expended for these efforts that I mentioned, there
will be a shortage in funds for operation and maintenance (O&M)
for their services by sometime in May. Is that the situation
with you also?
Secretary Johnson. I would say the summer, but it will vary
from May to July, but the same time frame.
Senator Stevens. They said their initial shortages will
start in May. Is that the situation with the Navy and Marines?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. General Hagee?
General Hagee. Yes, sir, it is. Without the supplemental
that is a true statement, sir.
Senator Stevens. Admiral Clark?
Admiral Clark. I will run out of money in June, the first
part of June.
SEA BASING
Senator Stevens. We have just seen the situation that has
developed because of our lack of access to the land mass of
Turkey. I was reminded last night of the proposal that was
outlined to us just informally by one of your predecessors,
Admiral Clark, a man for whom I had great regard, and
unfortunately he left us in a strange way, Admiral Boorda.
He outlined the plans for a floating cargo type landing
facility that could be easily moved from theater to theater.
Whatever happened to his proposal?
Admiral Clark. I did not see the specifics of that
proposal, Mr. Chairman, but I will tell you that when I talked
about an exciting future for the Navy-Marine Corps team, I will
tell you that as we look at the development of future ways to
exploit the sea under our sea basing concept and construct, we
have taken the approach that we are going to challenge every
assumption, and in the coming years, it is not reflected in
this budget because we are doing a lot of examination of
potential concepts right now with the Marine Corps, looking at
ways we can exploit the operational advantage and independence
of operating from the sea. And so I will tell you that we
believe that there is potential for new kinds of approaches and
new kinds of platforms, and this is a key part of the Maritime
Prepositioning Force (MPF) future concept. I will tell you that
2 years ago when we heard the word MPF future----
Senator Stevens. What does that mean?
Admiral Clark. That is the maritime preposition force for
the Marine Corps. I will tell you that now General Hagee and I
are looking at ways that that kind of capability can be
exploited by both of us. And I will not try to define it this
morning, Mr. Chairman, but I will tell you that I believe that
our future is about exploiting those kind of potential
opportunities.
Senator Stevens. Well, I commend to you the research that
Admiral Boorda had done, and urge you to go back and look at it
to see what happened to it because it sort of disappeared, but
I will not belabor it here now.
General Hagee, I think it is clear that the concept of air
superiority is something we must maintain. One of the things
that we have been very interested in is the new cutting edge
aircraft, the V-22. Tell us, what is the situation now?
V-22 PROGRAM
General Hagee. Sir, we continue to work on testing the V-22
and I can report to you, sir, that that testing is going very
well. We are about 80 to 85 percent finished with a high rate
of dissent testing, which investigates the so-called vortex
ring state phenomena where the aircraft comes down and actually
flies through its own wash when it is in the helicopter mode.
And what we have found is that the model accurately predicts
what will happen to that aircraft when it enters its downwash.
We have found that the envelope for the V-22 is actually
larger than for a normal helicopter, in other words, it is not
as vulnerable to this phenomena as a normal helicopter is. In
addition, we have found that it is easier to exit this
phenomena in the V-22, you simply rotate the nacelles forward
and you go into horizontal flight and you fly out of it.
We are also about 80 percent finished with the low speed
maneuverability testing, and that is going very well. A couple
months ago we landed on board amphibs, absolutely no problem at
all.
Through inspections we have found that the rubbing that was
noticed before we did the redesign on the engine is no longer
occurring, so I can report to you that that testing is going
very well and I am very optimistic about the aircraft.
Senator Stevens. Good. Your predecessor made a commitment
to me that I would ride on that very soon, and I believe it is
one of the real significant portions of our aeronautical
capabilities. You are testing a plane that will be used in the
future not only by you but by the Army and by the civilian
sector to a great extent.
As a matter of fact, there is a civilian portion of it that
has not had some of the problems that the larger ones have, as
I understand it. So, I would hope you keep us posted.
PRIOR YEAR SHIPBUILDING COSTS
Let me ask Secretary Johnson, and then I have to leave,
Secretary Johnson, last year at the request of I believe your
Department, added $635 million to the President's budget
request to help the Navy pay for shipbuilding cost overruns. My
staff advises me that despite the fact we provided those funds
to pay for those bills, that the overruns and deficits remain
the same. What happened to the $635 million we provided last
year?
Secretary Johnson. Sir, our deficits this year are the
lowest they have been in, I think we said 10 years, and that is
largely due to the great work that John Young is doing as our
head of research, development and acquisition. We are watching
those very carefully, and I can provide you the exact number.
Senator Stevens. Am I improperly advised that your bills
for past overruns are--have been paid? I have been told they
were not paid, despite the fact that we put up the $635.
Secretary Johnson. Sir, it is my understanding that they
have been paid. This year the deferred ones are on the order of
100, which is less than it has been in 10 years or more. So the
account is in better shape now than it has been in a long, long
time.
Senator Stevens. Will you give us a statement for the
record of the prior year bills that have not been paid for the
Navy?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir, I will.
[The information follows:]
Question. Explain status of overall PY bill throughout the FYDP to
include why fiscal year 2004 PB request is the same as the fiscal year
2003 PB despite the Congressional increase.
Answer. From PB03 to PB04 there was a $225.5 million increase in
the overall PY bill (PB03--$3,546, PB04--$3,771.5). The $635 million
Congressional increase in fiscal year 2003 was used to pay for this
increase in the overall PY bill and to reduce the PY bill in fiscal
year 2004-fiscal year 2006 by $409.5 million. The upcoming PY bills
were reduced as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB03 PB04 Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
2004............................... 645.9 635.5 -10.4
2005............................... 743.7 484.4 -259.3
2006............................... 185.3 45.5 -139.8
--------------------------------
Total............................ ......... ......... -409.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Explain SECNAV's statement that PY bill was in the ``best
shape it has ever been in''.
Answer. The initiatives described in our Prior Year Report to
Congress of 2002 February 2003 have been very effective in reducing the
rate of increase in prior year shipbuilding costs. The prior year cost
growth from the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget request to the
fiscal year 2004 President's Budget request is 6 percent, as compared
to the 16 percent and 256 percent growth rates from the two previous
budget submissions.
Initiatives undertaken over the past year to address the prior year
shipbuilding costs, and to prevent cost estimate increases in future
programs include: (1) Elimination of configuration changes except to
remedy Government responsible defects; (2) Executive oversight and new
funding in addition to the budget baseline for mandatory changes in
requirements; (3) Reinstitution of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)
Ship Characteristics Improvement Panel Process; (4) Budgeting to Cost
Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) estimates; (5) Employment of
Engineering Development Models to mitigate technology risk; and (6)
Adjustment of scope prior to contract award to better ensure budget
alignment.
Question. Breakdown all cost increases (by platform) and provide
the reason for the increase.
Answer. In recent years, the shipbuilding industry has experienced
material and labor escalation rates that exceeded the Department's
projections. Contributing factors include cost increases for health
care and workman's compensation costs that are not unique to the
shipbuilding industry.
A breakdown of all cost changes by platform (PB03 to PB04):
DDG
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------------------- Total
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB03..................................................... 125.5 59.4 70.2 38.1 ....... 293.2
PB04..................................................... 383.5 75.9 128.3 0 ....... 587.7
Change................................................... 258.0 16.5 58.1 -38.1 0 294.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason for $294 million increase:
--$100 million--Higher labor, overhead, & production hour estimates.
--$96 million--PB03 budgeted change orders at 3 percent of basic,
whereas historic data supports 5 percent.
--$98 million--Increase in DDG 102 ship cost as a result of the ship
being transferred from NGSS to BIW.
VA CLASS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------- Total
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB03.............................................. 276.682 213.1 254.4 75.8 ........ 820.0
PB04.............................................. 326.7 300.4 91.3 38.7 ........ 757.1
Change............................................ 50.018 87.3 -163.1 -37.1 0 -62.882
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason for $62.9 million decrease:
--$62.9 million for Post Shakedown Availability (PSA) moved to the
Post Delivery and Outfitting (PD/OF) line.
--PSA costs are properly funded in PD/OF, not in ship end cost.
LPD
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
----------------------------------------------- Total
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB03.................................................... 242.7 373.4 419.1 71.4 ....... 1,106.6
PB04.................................................... 569.7 259.2 264.8 6.8 ....... 1,100.5
Change.................................................. 327.0 -114.2 -154.3 -64.6 0 -6.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons for $6.1 million decrease:
--$10 million of PB03 request absorbed by program.
--$3.9 million net increase resulting from decrease in PYC bill,
Swap, increases from higher CAIG estimate, and increases in
shipyard rates.
IMMINENT DANGER PAY AND FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE
Senator Stevens. I hope, gentlemen, you will excuse me. We
had the Army hearing on March 19th and the Air Force hearing on
March 26th, and I asked your predecessors, and maybe I should
not just throw it at you, but we have an amendment pending that
would increase the hazardous duty pay.
In the Persian Gulf War, the amount going into the war was
$100 and now it has increased to $150. Family separation was
increased from $75 to $100. The proposal was to increase the
$150 to $400 and the $100 to $400, and that would come out of
your existing appropriations. We are talking about fiscal year
2003 now, 2003 bills.
Have you looked into the question of the adequacy of the
pay, we used to call it combat pay, you call it imminent danger
pay, or family separation allowance? Has that been looked at
yet by the Navy?
Admiral Clark. Mr. Chairman, that has not come before me
and I have not looked at that issue, no.
Senator Stevens. I did some rough calculations and the
increase in 1991 was a 36 percent increase, which was made
permanent. As I said, it was raised from $110 to $150. We are
in the position of having to go out to offer an amendment right
now, and I wonder, when you say you have not studied it, have
you studied it at all, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Johnson. No, sir.
Senator Stevens. Have you, sir?
General Hagee. Nor have we, sir.
Senator Stevens. I worry about the amount that has been
proposed, a $400. We are prepared to go to about a 50 percent
increase in each of those allowances, but to go to $400 is
going to cost an enormous amount of money from the money that
we have made available so far, and this is the last bill I
believe we are going to have for Defense for fiscal year 2003,
so it will be a matter of substantial problems to fund much
more than a 50 percent increase. That would take the funds up
from $150 to $225, and the separation from $100 to $150, but
you still would have to absorb those increases.
I would appreciate it if you would put some comments in the
record with regard to those figures.
[The information follows:]
The Congressionally proposed rate increase will entitle
military personnel receiving Imminent Danger Pay (IDP), an
additional $75 per month retroactive to October 1, 2002,
raising the statutory entitlement from $150 per month to $225
per month, and entitle military personnel receiving Family
Separation Allowance (FSA), an additional $150 per month
retroactive to October 1, 2002, raising the statutory
entitlement from $100 per month to $250 per month. The
increased rate is projected to cost Navy an additional $131.6
million ($48.9 million for IDP and $82.7 mission for FSA) and
the Marine Corps $141.2 million ($67.8 million for IDP and
$73.4 million for FSA) in fiscal year 2003. Funding is required
to support the rate change for both this fiscal year and future
years if the increased rate for the entitlement extends beyond
October 1, 2003.
Senator Stevens. The matter will be decided at least in the
Senate before we get the replies. I do not know if my
colleagues have looked into that. I am worried about the
allowance because I do not foresee a substantial increase, but
yet I do believe that because of changes in the level of pay
between 1991 and now, that an increase in the imminent danger
pay, and I think my colleagues will remember I raised that
with, but we asked for a study by the Department here about
what, 3 weeks ago.
Gentlemen, I have to leave. Thank you very much. Senator
Inouye.
Senator Inouye. My only comment, Mr. Chairman, is I doubt
if anyone here would want to give anything less to our men and
women in combat. For those in combat, $400 does not suffice,
but the question before us will be if that means that we may
have to forego procurement of munitions, procurement of ships,
what choice do we take? Because there is a limit to what this
Government can raise from our taxpayers. As one who has had a
little experience in combat, every little dime is welcomed, no
question about that, but if it means giving up ammunition,
giving up weapons systems, we will have to give it a hard look.
Secretary Johnson. You captured it very well, sir, and we
would like to give more money to our combat people but
protecting them with good equipment is equally or more
important now.
DEPLOYMENT DAYS
Senator Inouye [presiding]. Admiral, may I ask you a
question, sir? How many days per year has the average sailor
spent deployed away from home since 9/11?
Admiral Clark. Senator, I do not have a specific answer for
you, but I can certainly put it in perspective. The average
sailor has spent more time away from home and underway since 9/
11 than he did before. I do not have specifics. I have a policy
in my Navy that we try to limit deployments to 6 months and
then guarantee a two-to-one turnaround when they are home. I
will tell you that I have violated that policy and when my
people have asked me about it, I told them I will do the very
best I can to hold to that, and that is a peacetime construct.
But then I told them this: If them staying longer on
deployment would make one difference in winning the global war
on terrorism, that I would not blink twice about having them
stay. And in the context of this current operation, I have
several units that are over the 6-month period.
NAVY RETENTION
Senator Inouye. I was well aware, as you pointed out, that
you spent less time deployed before 9/11 than since 9/11. I
asked that question because I am amazed that with those
numbers, your retention level has gone up.
Admiral Clark. If I can, I believe it is a tribute to the
people and to the challenges we have given them, and it says a
lot about America's young people. And what we have tried to do,
Senator, is say this: The young men and women--and by the way,
2 days ago I just reduced my retention goal for this year for
the second time, I cut 3,000 more out of the retention
objective, and the reason is because more and more people are
staying in.
What we have said to them is that we are going to do our
best, we are going to commit ourselves. They promised to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the
orders of the President and all the people in the chain of
command. And I have challenged our leaders to, you know, what
do we promise them in return? What we are promising them is a
chance to make a difference, and I promised them that I am
going to come up here and sit in front of this committee and
talk to them about the things that our men and women need so
that they have the right tools so they can get the job done.
And Senator, you have been out there, you have seen them.
They are fired up. They believe in what we are doing. They
believe that we are engaged in a just cause, and it shows in
their face and it shows in the work they are doing on station.
RETIRING SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT
Senator Inouye. Your plans for this budget request call for
the retirement of 16 ships and I believe about 260 aircraft. In
light of the mission that you have at this moment, can this be
carried out?
Admiral Clark. Senator, I believe it is the right plan and
let me describe it this way. The proposal to retire ships
early, principally the ships of the 963 class, that
recommendation from me to the Secretary and from him to the
Secretary of Defense (SecDef), is built upon the belief that we
need to retire those platforms that no longer bring the kind of
combat capability to the point that we can retire those and we
can accept the risk in retiring them.
And this strategy retires old airplanes as fast as we
possibly can. Yesterday, we lost an F-14 over southern Iraq.
That is one of the classes of airplanes that I am recommending
that we retire as rapidly as possible. It just turns out that
the aircraft that went down was the oldest one in the wing, and
one of our oldest airplanes. It is one of the most expensive
airplanes to operate and maintain, because of its age.
And I have talked to this committee before about the high
age of our air force, and the only way out of this dilemma is
to rapidly procure new aircraft, and the F-18E and F, which
will take the place of the F-14, is currently on its first
deployment and it is part of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and is
performing brilliantly. So, Senator, those recommendations,
those are hard choices. They were choices that I recommended
because I believe that we should divert those resources to
recapitalize and transform our Navy for the future, and I
believe that this is the time to do it and I believe that the
operational risk is acceptable.
MARINE CORPS RETENTION
Senator Inouye. General Hagee, the Marine Corps has
traditionally surpassed any other service in recruiting goals.
Since 9/11, have the trends kept up?
General Hagee. Yes, sir, they have. In fact, for this
fiscal year, about the middle of the second quarter we were at
85 percent of our retention goal for the entire year. In
November of this year, we will reach the hundredth month of
having met mission on the enlisted side. On the officer side,
our retention goals have never been better over the last 12
years.
Senator Inouye. It seems like your retention goals are
better than the Naval Academy. Am I wrong on that?
General Hagee. I would have to check the numbers, Senator.
I am not sure.
NAVY RESERVE
Senator Inouye. Admiral Clark, according to the statistics
that we have received, compared to the Army, Air Force and
Marine Corps, the Navy has called a substantially low
proportion of its Ready Reservists to active duty. Can you tell
us why?
Admiral Clark. Yes, I can. We currently have about 10,500,
the number changes every day and is growing, and we have
authorized in the neighborhood of 12,000 and some of them are
in the process, but it is fundamentally because we do not have
to have Reserves to conduct the kind of operations, with the
force structure that we have to call forward, we do not need
more than we have called up.
We have been very careful with the number that we have
called up because we wanted to make sure that we have got jobs
with real requirements and real job content for the people that
we have called up. And I will tell you, Senator, that a large
number of those that we have called up have been for force
protection. But on the ships and in the squadrons and in the
submarines themselves, we do not require the Reserves for us to
conduct these combat operations. So it is the way our forces
are shaped.
I will tell you also that after 9/11, we saw areas where we
had force structure, an example would be harbor security kinds
of capabilities, that existed only in the Reserve structure.
And it became clear to us that we were going to have to
recreate some of that in the active force. And so in the last 2
years we have been adding active duty people in the force
protection area and in some of these areas that I addressed
like harbor security and so forth, so we would not have to rely
solely and completely on recalled Reservists.
FLEET SIZE
Senator Inouye. Admiral, the Administration speaks of a 310
ship fleet and the Department of the Navy 375. What number
should this committee follow?
Admiral Clark. Well, obviously the Secretary of Defense
when they speak to it, and the Quadrennial Defense Review had
numbers in it that identified the program for the current
force. They have, and the Secretary of Defense has commented on
this in congressional testimony, and when the question was
asked about Admiral Vern Clark talking about the number 375, he
has given me the leeway to talk about what I believe a longer
range projection is for the right number of ships in the Navy.
In the context of our current program and our current--the
program that we have today, that number is in the low 300s, but
the proposal that I have before you now takes us down under
300. It is not the objective that we want and that we believe
that we need. So, I have used the number about 375. I do not
believe numbers alone are the right answer. For example, I
could give you a program that would give you 375 ships that
were not the right kind of capability. Capability is more
important to me than the numbers per se, but the Secretary has
given me the authority to talk about a vision for the future
and where I believe it needs to go.
And so I believe when you look at the kinds of missions
that are going to come to us in the future, you look at the
addition of the Littoral combatant ship, the capability that we
are going to have to add to dominate the near land areas, when
you look at the addition of things like missile defense and sea
based missile defense, I believe those numbers are going to
grow. I cannot tell you exactly what the number is this
morning, Senator, but I believe that the 375 target is about
correct.
HARRIER
Senator Inouye. Let me now go to the Marines. Does the
Marine Corps intend to use the Harrier in operations in Iraq? I
say this because according to articles we have read, that
aircraft has been plagued with problems.
General Hagee. Sir, the Harrier is in Iraq right now. We
have a number of them flying, almost every night. Their
availability is about 75 percent, which is extremely good. We
have a squadron flying out of Baghram, Afghanistan. They are
flying every night. Their availability is over 90 percent, and
they are flying at night and being maintained during the day.
We are very happy with the performance of the Harrier to date.
Senator Inouye. Thank you. Senator Cochran.
SHIPBUILDING
Senator Cochran. Admiral Clark, I was interested in your
comments in response to Senator Inouye's question about the
shipbuilding rate and the number of ships that are projected to
be needed by the Navy over the next several years. Our
challenge is to put a number in the appropriations bill for
this next fiscal year that meets our near-term needs and what
can be foreseen just for next year or the next. So I wonder if
you have in mind a suggestion to the committee about how we can
most effectively use funding for shipbuilding in the near term.
Admiral Clark. Well, the program recommendation is the
recommendation for what we can do in the near term, Senator,
and I would say this. I have testified before this committee
now, this is my third year, talking about my belief that we
need to take every measure that we can to level fund the major
acquisition accounts. I believe that is a two-way street. I
think we have to do our part, and one of the reasons I am so
pleased about this submission is that it commits a significant
addition in the major investment accounts over last year.
We have worked hard to find resources to commit to the
shipbuilding and aircraft acquisition accounts. You know, last
year's submission had five ships; for this year, this has
seven. It is capability, not just numbers, but as you look at
the projection, we have diverted $39 billion in this multiyear
program and we have put that toward shipbuilding. I believe,
and there have been studies, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
did a study that talked about the total amount of investment
that needed to be made long-term to support future
modernization and transformation requirements, and I have
testified that I believe that we need to be planning on a level
fund of $12 billion a year in new construction, so that we get
the best kind of balance. That would be the best balance that
we could put forward.
And we have done studies, for example, with the war games
actually, with the shipbuilding industry that said if we could
get to a level funding approach, we actually would produce more
product, we would be a better partner and we would produce more
product for each dollar that the taxpayer puts into
shipbuilding. So, I would say that that means then that
multiyear stands us in high, because they fit that mold,
multiyears are good.
If you look at what has gone in Amphibious Assault Ship
(LHD)-A, an incremental approach to funding that has allowed
use to proceed with construction without having the spike of it
in 1 year. The split funding approach that is in this budget
for the carrier in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 is I
believe the right way to do these kinds of things.
Senator Cochran. We appreciate your leadership in helping
figure out how we can most efficiently use scarce funds that
are available to us and meet the needs that we have to continue
to keep forces deployed in areas that are so important to our
national security.
In that connection, General Hagee, I know you have some 30
ships deployed to the operation theater, I think 32 are forward
deployed in support of current operations, I hope that is not
classified. But with so many of our Marines and amphibious
ships forward deployed, I have to ask the question, do we have
enough Amphibious Transport Dock (LPDs) and LHDs to meet future
requirements?
General Hagee. I believe the ones we have on the books
right now will meet our future requirement. I can tell you we
need the LPD-17, we need all 12 of them, and we need them as
soon as we can based upon the resources that we have.
Senator Cochran. I notice the LPD-17, which Admiral Clark
mentioned we are going to see launched here in a couple of
months at the Avondale Shipyard on the Gulf Coast, what are
your thoughts about the LPD-17 program profile? I notice you
have funds requested for fiscal year 2004, but no LPD is in the
fiscal year 2005 plan. Should we do something about that?
Admiral Clark. Well, we put forward a recommendation again.
When you do this whole program, you put together the program in
the best balance that we knew how to put it together, Senator.
And so we had a number of ships under construction, and so we
left fiscal year 2005 that way, with then a couple in fiscal
year 2006, and the whole idea was that we had ships under
construction when we thought--you know, it is enough, and we
would look at it again in fiscal year 2005 to see--you know,
one of our responsibilities, and John Young as the acquisition
official who works the industrial base balance questions all
the time. So the way we put it together for the fiscal year
2004 submit was the best way we knew how to balance the total
resources that we had, and that is what we recommended.
I do know that there have been unsolicited proposals that
have been submitted to Secretary Young looking at potential
ways to work through that void in fiscal year 2005. I do not
know the specifics and details of that recommendation and
frankly, that is not in my area of authority or responsibility.
Secretary Young will deal with that kind of unsolicited
proposal.
But I have been, I believe rock solid in my testimony on
this. Last year when people asked me, I said my first priority
is to get the LPD line healthy and producing, and I am
extremely pleased with where we stand now. You know, we
introduced this ship and we had this computer aided design
approach, it was new, we experienced the kind of things that
one experiences when they are going through new first time ever
kind of developments. We are at a stage now where we are
reaping the benefits of that computer aided design, in the
acquisition process.
So the program is healthy. General Hagee said it right, we
believe that this ship is a tremendously capable ship, and
provides the kind of lift that the Marine Corps needs. And it
is at, from where I sit, it is going to be a key part of the
Marine Corps structure in expeditionary strike groups which we
talk about in our written testimony, our vision for the way
this force is going to operate and function in the future, LPD-
17 is going to be a key part of it.
HOMEPORTING
Senator Cochran. One of the other concerns I have is the
Navy's plan for the future of the use of home ports around the
country. Back in the 1980s a decision was made to distribute
ships among several or numerous home ports around the United
States, and then there came along something called a fleet
concentration area plan which was based on trying to achieve
maintenance and supply efficiencies.
One thing that concerns me, if we get too carried away
about concentration and putting all our ships in one place or
just a few places, in the face of the terrorist threats, does
this make us more vulnerable to a cataclysmic event that would
look like Pearl Harbor, or would we be wiser to think through
that again and think about distribution for safety's sake? Is
anybody thinking about that? Mr. Secretary, maybe that is a
question that is a good one for you.
Secretary Johnson. We always think about that, sir. We have
to make the trade-off of the cost involved of protecting the
ships no matter where they are and also the maintenance
associated. As we look at the great armada that we have at sea
now, when we bring them back we will have to maintain them, and
that will be a great expense. There is a trade-off between
dispersion and protection, and we look at that continuously,
sir.
PATROL COASTAL CRAFT
Senator Cochran. One of the programs that you mentioned,
Admiral Clark was the Littoral combat ship program. This is an
exciting new program, and I am told that in fiscal year 2005
the Navy is considering transferring five of its patrol coastal
craft to the Coast Guard and decommissioning the remaining
eight patrol craft. I wonder, before we get too far along on
that plan, whether consideration can be given to transferring
the remaining patrol craft to the Navy Reserve. I was told that
they would like to have those under their responsibility with a
mission that may very well make good sense. Have you had an
opportunity to look at that and has a final decision been made?
Admiral Clark. We have had discussions, Senator, and in
fact we have had discussions with the Coast Guard. I do not
know if it is widely known or not, but on 9/11 the second call
I made was to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and we talked
about a memorandum of understanding between the two of us that
we had just signed. And we have had one for a number of years
but we had renewed it, sharpened it on points that we needed
to, and that memorandum is about going to war and that in
wartime the Coast Guard would become an operating support of
the Navy.
And I told him that day, I said obviously this one is
different, so tell me what you need. And then in the ensuing
weeks, I transferred all 13 of them to him, and we have been
operating. There have been discussions about potential
distribution, because indications are that the Coast Guard will
not need all 13 on a full-time basis. There have not been
decisions made, so for me to make a comment about potential
distribution would be premature, and that will have to be
submitted up the chain of command for a decision and approval.
MISSILE DEFENSE
Senator Cochran. You mentioned missile defense capabilities
and the tracking of missiles by the Navy ships, and the support
you are giving to the operations in the Persian Gulf area. I
understand you do have plans to upgrade several Arleigh Burke
class destroyers with significant missile defense capability.
Can you give us some idea of that program?
Admiral Clark. Absolutely. Thank you for asking the
question. The President announced last year that we would
develop an interim sea based capability in fiscal year 2004.
And in my guidance to the Navy for this year, I laid out the
direction for us to develop the path to achieve that objective.
The last 12 or 13 months has been an extraordinarily successful
period for the Navy and the missile defense program. We have
had six tests, 100 percent success in all six of them, three
tracking events and three firing events.
And so, the Missile Defence Agency runs this program. The
Missile Defense Agency was thinking about and proposing to
build a test ship, and in cooperation with key players in the
Office of the Secretary of the Navy, and I am talking
specifically about John Young, the Secretary and myself, and
key members of our team, we made the decision to offer an
existing ship to speed up this process.
And we are going to commit the U.S.S. Lake Erie to the
full-time testing that operates in Hawaii full time to rapidly
develop this capability. It is our belief that this is the
right thing to do for the country.
The capability that we have demonstrated in the last year,
we have taken that and we are still in research and
development, but we have taken that tracking capability and we
have been using it in the theater of operations and it has been
very successful.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple
more questions but I did not want to encroach on anyone else's
time.
UAV PROGRAM
I know in these unmanned vehicles such as Global Hawk, Fire
Scout, and others that are under development, the Navy is
investing substantially in this technology. General Jumper last
week referred to the Global Hawk when we had the Air Force
before our subcommittee as a very effective low level satellite
in terms of capability. What are the plans of the Navy
specifically in using this technology in the future?
Secretary Johnson. First of all, Admiral Clark and General
Jumper are working very, very closely in the unmanned air
vehicle program. The Marine Corps has the Pioneer, which
General Hagee can talk about, but we are moving forward on
unmanned vehicles in all media, in the air obviously,
underwater, and we are working very closely with the other
services, most closely with the Air Force of course.
Admiral Clark. Senator, this is one of the major changes
between last year and this year in our submission. We are
moving forward strongly in the UAV program. There is $3.6
billion across the FYDP in the program, and as the Secretary
said, General Jumper and I are working real closely together.
In February one of the S&T programs for the unmanned combat
air vehicle, the first flight was conducted on February 23. We
have put resources against the development of another vehicle,
and Secretary Young is working in concert with the Air Force to
accelerate this kind of capability. We are investing in two
Global Hawks ourselves.
We are seeing now the vertical take-off UAV that has been
in development, we are now seeing the potential utility in that
vehicle for our new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), and so we see a
lot of potential here. We are also very interested in
developing long dwell surveillance capability that we believe
will be best done in an unmanned vehicle because of the ability
to persist long on station times without the wear and tear on
people, and that kind of long duration capability, crucial for
us to dominate the battle space in the maritime domain.
So this budget has significant additions for the Navy and
we are moving out as rapidly as we know how to move out in this
area that we believe is going to greatly improve our
warfighting effort.
LIGHTWEIGHT 155 HOWITZER PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. My last question which I am going to
submit, and then I will have a question or two to submit for
the record, is to General Hagee. I notice the budget request
includes funding for 60 lightweight 155 howitzers. Could you
provide us an assessment of that how this program is
progressing.
General Hagee. Yes, sir, I can. The program is actually
progressing very well. We are in the operational test phase of
the program. We are quite excited about it. It is going to
provide us the ability to lift heavy artillery with the Osprey.
The digital fire control is somewhat behind in its
development, but we are going to purchase that when it is
available. We project that will be available probably one to 2
years after we actually start receiving the lightweight 155,
but all the mounts will be on the artillery piece and as soon
as it is available, we will purchase it.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate
you being here today, and thank you all for what you are doing
to serve our country. I have a family affection for the Navy as
I had two brothers who served during the Korean War, and I have
a political and personal connection to the Marine Corps by
virtue of the fact that the first man I ever worked for on
Capitol Hill was a Senator from Illinois named Paul Douglas,
who in 1942 enlisted in the Marine Corps and went through basic
training in Parris Island at the age of 50. And that is still
amazing as I reflect on what he did in the service. He served
in combat in the South Pacific and suffered a serious wound,
but went on to a great public career. I thank you all for being
here today.
FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE AND IMMINENT DANGER PAY
One of the things that I would like to reflect on was
brought to my attention by Senator Inouye on the floor of the
Senate, who rose one day to make a point that I think we should
all keep in mind. And that is in World War II, maybe you will
remember the exact percentage, Senator, but you told us that I
believe over 80 percent of the people in uniform in that war
were single, not married, and I believe today that statistic
has changed dramatically, that the majority of those in service
to our country are married with families. Could you tell us for
the record if you know, in each of your branches, what
percentage of your personnel are married today?
General Hagee. Yes, sir, I can. As you know, the Marine
Corps is a relatively young force, but even though we are a
young force, 44 percent of our personnel are married today.
Senator Durbin. Admiral.
Admiral Clark. Senator, I do not have the number, I will
provide it for the record, but what we are fond of saying is
that we know that we recruit individuals and we retain
families, and the major focus of our retention effort is to
make sure we are touching families and dealing with their
needs. So there is no question about that the numbers have
changed dramatically over time.
[The information follows:]
Fifty-three percent of Navy Enlisted personnel and 76
percent of Navy Officer personnel are married.
Secretary Johnson. That is particularly true at this time,
sir. I was up at Bethesda yesterday and the families were
there. We care about the families at home very much. Our
sailors and Marines forward are not as concerned about their
own safety as they are that their families are well cared for,
and everybody goes out of their way to take care of the
families.
Senator Durbin. The estimates I have read, Mr. Secretary,
suggest that about 60 percent of the servicemen now in the war
zone in Iraq have families back home, servicemen and women have
families back home. And that is the reason why I wanted to
speak for a moment and ask your thoughts about an issue. When I
meet with these families, as I recently did at the Rock Island
Arsenal back in my home State, I find of course they are
extremely proud of the member of the family that is serving,
they are encouraging it, praying for them, as we are all very
proud of them.
But they are also facing some unusual hardships that may
not have been the case even a few years ago, hardships
involving childcare, involving medical expense, additional
expenses related to the separation. And I was surprised to read
and learn that the current family separation allowance is $100
a month, and that the imminent danger pay, the combat pay is
$150 a month. I think that perhaps those, particularly the
family separation allowance, was a figure that was established
at a time when fewer servicemen and women came to serve our
country with a family or had a family, and may not reflect the
reality of the cost of service to those families.
One of the amendments which I hope to offer to the
supplemental to the Appropriations Bill will attempt to
increase both the imminent danger pay as well as the family
separation allowance, and I am working with Senator Inouye and
others to try to find if there is a way to do this in a
bipartisan fashion. Could you either, General Hagee or Admiral
Clark, or the Secretary, reflect on the concerns that you hear
expressed by the families of those who have been activated to
serve, beyond the obvious, that they want their loved ones home
as quickly and as safely as possible. General?
Secretary Johnson. Can I say something first?
Senator Durbin. Of course.
Secretary Johnson. You make a very interesting observation.
The current environment with family members is much different
now. We have women who are quite involved in almost every
aspect of our business, not necessarily as a rifle person. And
we have a bigger problem of oftentimes a husband and wife being
in the military. And it looks really bad when we send both of
them off to war, but yet, that is what they trained and desire
to do, and when we have to execute it, it looks like we do not
care. We care very much and we try very hard to take care, and
particularly where they have children, they have to have well
laid out plans to care for them.
Senator Durbin. General?
General Hagee. Obviously the most important things for the
families is that their Marine or sailor is well-trained and
well-armed and well-prepared so that they will come back. That
is obvious. And as Senator Inouye was really quite articulate
on this, on how we balance how much money we are able to pay
them, as compared to how much money we put into procurement and
insuring that they are properly trained and armed is something
that we have to work with the committee on. So the number one
thing is they want them to come back.
I think we have to look at this from a holistic standpoint.
If I could give you one example, the impact of family
separation allowance and hazardous duty pay that has occurred
to a Marine family out in California, and I strongly support
family separation allowance and hazardous duty pay, I am not
sure that we pay them enough for that, and I am not sure that
we can pay them enough for that, but we come back to the
balance again. But this particular Marine had a child that
needed special care and was getting that from the State of
California, and the State of California was providing about
$80,000 a year in care for this child, and that was based on
the income of this particular Marine. When he was deployed to
the Gulf, he received family separation allowance and he
received hazardous duty pay. That put him above the line, and
California by law was ready to take that funding away from him.
We are working that issue, I think that we can solve that
issue, but that is why I say we have to look at this from a
holistic standpoint, sir.
Senator Durbin. But what concerns do you hear expressed by
the families, aside from that very extraordinary one case? Do
you hear any particular concerns of the families of your
Marines that are left behind in terms of their economic
situation?
General Hagee. There are concerns. I have been a Marine for
35 years, I have deployed quite often. I know firsthand what
happens when an individual Marine leaves their family. The
costs actually go up, they do not go down. As the Secretary
mentioned, that is especially true today when we have male
Marines, female Marines, sometimes they are married, sometimes
they are not. They may have children. They have particular
challenges and I have heard those concerns from the families,
yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. Admiral Clark?
Admiral Clark. I recall vividly being an ensign in the Navy
and being off on my first deployment, and family separation was
a dollar a day. Like any kind of pay like that, it has to
have--you must periodically review to see if it is at the right
level. I am not hearing about family separation pay.
The one issue I am hearing raised is the issue of the tax
exclusion, which is, to most of our people is a significant
financial issue and so that when they are in a combat zone and
war, it makes a difference. And the issue of it being addressed
from my folks is that I have a large force in the Eastern
Mediterranean and they are not in it.
I will tell you that we have a large family support
structure that is a formal part of our Navy life whether we are
at war or not, and it runs on the back of volunteers and people
who are determined to be involved, and they make it work.
Senator Durbin. I am not going to dwell any further on this
other than to say to you, Admiral, that we are particularly
proud to have your training facility at Great Lakes in my
State, and I have visited there and seen the wonderful work
that is being done there, and we want to continue to help you
in any way we can to train the sailors to serve our Nation.
Admiral Clark. Thank you very much for your support, and
Great Lakes is doing superbly.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator
Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
sorry I was late, I had to be somewhere else, but I hurried.
First, I want to take just a minute to do what I hope to do
every time I have the military before me in the future. I am
convinced that the story of this war is going to be told for a
long time and it is going to be what kind of men and women are
these Americans. It is absolutely fantastic for Americans and
the world to see the behavior of these young men and women.
That is the story. They are warriors but they are gentlemen.
They are warriors but they are considerate, they are
articulate. What kind of training they get and what kind of
esprit de corps and spirit they have is beyond what I could
have expected from any group of Americans or any group of
humans, so we are doing something very right.
We have had books written about other generations of
American warriors and I have read them. Now I am seeing these,
and I do not think the past books about American valor or
American military men or women, I do not think what we are
seeing, I think it far exceeds anything written about previous
generations of American fighters. It will be the story, what
kind of men and women are there and how did we happen to bring
them up that way. Concerning what goes on in American streets
and American neighborhoods and American families in terms of
the difficulties we have, it is truly something kind of
miraculous that is happening with reference to the transition
that the training and bringing of them together has brought.
NAVY PROGRAMS IN NEW MEXICO
So I say that for openers, and then I just have a couple
local issues. Believe it or not, even in the State of New
Mexico where things are very dry, the Navy has a program going
for water desalinization, and I just wanted to commend you for
the work being done on it. It is being done on a very large
inland aquifer in New Mexico, it is $6 or $7 million, I believe
being spent, and I want to commend you for bringing the
technology together, I think better than anyone else has
brought it together. We may see some breakthroughs as a result,
and we want to thank you for that and wish that program success
not only for the Navy but for the United States.
Secondly, there is a most incredible observatory that the
Navy is building in the State of New Mexico also, it is called
the Magdalena Ridge Observatory. It is a new kind of
observatory on top of a very beautiful mountain, and when it is
finished, this new approach to observing outer space is going
to magnify what we can see by many fold. It will not look like
a telescope and those things related to it, it is something
completely different. So as one who is a primary supporter of
this new approach, this program which is going to create a new
method for observing outer space, is also something the Navy
can be very proud of, and I want to commend you and thank you
for the work that is being done on that.
Are you aware of that, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir. We expect to have the
groundbreaking on the 20th of October of this year.
And the first one you talked about, we know more and more,
anyplace we go, we have to take care of the water. Just
drilling and drinking and using the water around the world does
not work and in our business, a lot of it is on the seacoast,
and of course we have the reverse osmosis plants to take care
of the fresh water, but seawater is quite different.
Senator Domenici. I will tell you that the only significant
breakthrough on clean water is also in New Mexico technology,
you all are using it in the Marines. Have you seen any Marines
carrying around a water purification device that looks like a
fountain pen, General?
General Hagee. No, sir, I have not.
Senator Domenici. They are practicing with it now. It is
the size of a thick fountain pen and literally, you can take a
glass of muddy water with whatever bugs, bacteria are in it,
and you can purify it if you do not mind drinking muddy water,
and you can drink it, and it is absolutely pure.
Secretary Johnson. It probably tastes better at night.
Senator Domenici. That is an invention that came out of one
of the laboratories and actually it is quite the thing. And I
would assume the next conflict, if there is one, everybody will
be using those, but only a few thousand are using them now. It
is an interesting invention.
I also have one other item that I want to comment on with
reference to technology. The Navy has a high energy laser-
testing program in New Mexico, it is called High Energy Laser
(HEL). The Army has a program there that is not moving as
rapidly, but I want to express my interest in the testing that
is going on there, which has been putting pressure on the Army
to move ahead a little more quickly. That is to defend against
anti-ship cruise missiles. It is the first study that will
prove the feasibility of killing a missile head on with
reference to something like the cruise missile coming in our
direction. And again, that is moving ahead with great dispatch
and right on target, and I wanted to comment on it and thank
you for that effort.
Secretary Johnson. And we understand it takes a different
approach than some of the airborne lasers and others, it is a
new type of laser, and we are very excited, as you are aware.
Senator Domenici. That is correct. I will put something
into the record that goes into one of those in a little more
detail. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, I apologize for
keeping the committee. Thank you all.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)
Senator Inouye. My last question is to the Commandant. The
Joint Strike Fighter will be the future Marine Corps fixed wing
strike fighter. I gather it will replace the Harrier and the
current F-18C and D, and you have no plans to purchase the F-
18E and F. What is the status of the JSF now?
General Hagee. Sir, you are absolutely correct on what our
plans are. The Joint Strike Fighter will replace both the F-18C
and D that we have, and the Harriers, and we are going to wait
and not purchase the E and F, we are going to wait for the
Joint Strike Fighter, which is currently in the system
development phase.
My reports are that it is going relatively well. There is
some recent concern about weight growth, we expect that during
this phase about a 6 to 8 percent weight growth, both for the
Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) version and the carrier (CV)
version; it is above that right now. We are talking with the
contractor, sharing our concern with them about that weight
growth.
Senator Inouye. I suppose you have concerns over the Navy's
F-18 and the Air Force F-22, do you not?
General Hagee. No, sir, we do not. I think the Navy has
made the absolute right decision to go to the E and F during
this interim period. Admiral Clark has already talked about
legacy systems and how he wants to move legacy systems out. We
believe, firmly believe that during this intervening period
that the Cs and Ds and the Harriers will stand us in good
stead.
I have to say, we look forward to having the Joint Strike
Fighter, especially as we move into tac air integration, and
the efficiencies that that is going to provide us where we have
one common air frame, common pilot training, common mechanic
training, it is going to provide us great efficiencies. At the
same time, it is going to significantly increase the
operational effectiveness.
Admiral Clark has talked about this significant range
increase that we will get with the Joint Strike Fighter, which
means we need less gas and less tankers.
Secretary Johnson. In our current environment we find that
most often the critical element is fuel, refueling, and these
aircraft will give us much longer range, and Admiral Clark has
some wonderful examples.
Admiral Clark. If I might comment on this, Senator, I would
like to talk about, I think it is important for all of us to
keep learning. I tell all of my leaders that we all have to
keep learning and I am continuing to learn, and my biggest
lesson learned from Afghanistan in these current operations is
the importance of combat range. We have told you the stories
about our pilots flying from a carrier to Afghanistan, some of
those missions 700, 800, 900 miles in range, and 7 or 8 hours
in the cockpit. Several times going to the tanker.
We have an E and F that, they are on their maiden
deployment right now on the U.S.S. Abe Lincoln. The U.S.S.
Nimitz will come into the theater in the next few days, I will
not talk about specific time on it, but the E and F is doing so
well, we springboarded some of the airplanes forward while the
U.S.S. Nimitz was en route, and the U.S.S. Nimitz E and Fs are
in theater flying off of the U.S.S. Lincoln right now.
The reason it is important is that it has 40 to 50 percent
more combat range, and so they can get to the target without
tanking. It is also important because this airplane can go with
Cs, and Ds for that matter, and it has such a much bigger
payload, and we can load it up with fuel and the E and F can
fuel three or four other airplanes and get them to the target
area, without going to the big airplane for fuel.
As good as that is, the JSF is going to be even better. The
projection is that it will fly 800 miles unrefueled out and
back to the target area. That kind of capability, we would
not--the whole investment in the tanking structure will be
totally different for Navy air.
So we are very pleased with what is going on in the E and
F. I am in an enviable position. I have got an effective
program that is performing, is delivering on time and
performing very well in the battle space. JSF is still going to
bring us important things that I very much want, an improved,
designed in from the beginning, improved reliability. It will
in fact change--and this is why when the Commandant and I put
together the Navy-Marine Corps tac air integration program, it
was based upon these new factors that allow us not to have to
replace airplanes on a one-for-one basis. And so, this kind of
delivery of this capability is important, and this budget we
have invested significantly in JSF.
Senator Inouye. Senator Cochran?
Senator Cochran. I have no further questions.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Inouye. If not, Mr. Secretary, Admiral Clark,
General Hagee, thank you very much. Your full statements will
be made part of the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hansford T. Johnson
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
NAVAL FORCES--SOUTHERN COMMAND
Question. Do you have plans to relocate the headquarters of
Southern Command's Navy Forces from Puerto Rico?
Answer. In August 2001 the Secretary of Defense directed all
Combatant Commanders to review overseas basing requirements and to
examine opportunities for joint use of facilities and land by the
Services, consolidate infrastructure, and enhance training. The study,
which was recently completed, did not recommend any changes that were
not already contemplated to either our overseas forces or basing
structure. While the Department of Defense is continuing to examine its
overseas basing and presence within the context of a global strategy,
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command is expected to remain at
Naval Station Roosevelt Roads for the foreseeable future.
Question. What locations are you considering?
Answer. The relocation of Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern
Command is not under consideration at this time.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (F-35) PROGRAM PROGRESS
Question. Highlight the progress the Joint Strike Fighter is
making.
Answer. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program continues moving
forward in the early design stages of the program. It is 16 months into
a 126-month Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase. Design
milestones the program passed early this year include numerous sub-
system Preliminary Design Reviews (PDRs) encompassing Mission Systems
and Air Vehicle Systems that lead up to the Air System PDR in March.
The March 2003 PDR has not been completed due to weight concerns with
JSF, particularly in the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL)
variant. A Blue Ribbon Action Team has been convened to review
mitigation measures and a final report is due in June 2003.
The Pratt and Whitney F135 engine will complete its Critical Design
Review in May 2003 leading to the F135 First Engine to Test currently
planned for September 2003. First flight of the Conventional Takeoff
and Landing (CTOL) variant of the F-35 is currently planned for the 4th
Quarter calendar year 2005. First flight for the STOVL aircraft is
scheduled for 2nd Quarter calendar year 2006 and the first flight of
the Carrier (CV) JSF variant is scheduled for 1st Quarter calendar year
2007.
The F-35 is the Department's largest cooperative development
program. In fiscal year 2002, the F-35 program successfully concluded
SDD cooperative agreements with seven additional international
partners: Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Turkey, and
Australia. Including the United Kingdom, this brings the total number
of international partners to eight.
V-22
Question. Provide a detailed update on the progress the V-22
program is making.
Answer. The V-22 program is currently mandated to continue
production at the minimum sustaining rate until the Secretary of
Defense certifies this aircraft meets the requirements outlined in
Section 123 of the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act.
The program continues to ensure a methodical and event driven test
flight program to validate all engineering and software changes.
Program reviews have been comprehensive; the organizational, technical
and programmatic issues are well addressed. The plan represents a
rational ``event driven'' approach to flight testing.
The V-22 has flown over 400 flight hours (as of May 2003) since
return to flight May 29, 2002 and has accomplished the following:
--Three Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) aircraft have
returned to flight.
--Three Low Rate Initial Production aircraft have been modified and
delivered early or on time.
--CV-22 EMD Aircraft 9 has accomplished 40 percent more test points
than planned in the Benefield Anechoic Chamber (BAF) at Edwards
AFB CA, resulting in a significant flight test savings.
--EMD CV-22, Aircraft 7 is progressing well thru multi-mode terrain
following radar testing to include flat rolling and isolated
peak at over 200 kts.
--Simultaneous deployments to U.S.S. IWO JIMA (shipboard suitability)
and Fort Bragg, NC (parachute loads testing).
Since return to flight the V-22 program has had no hydraulic
failures or software anomalies attributed to earlier mishaps.
MINE WARFARE FUNDING AND CAPABILITY
Question. What funding is there in the 2004 request for mine
warfare and what will it enable you to do?
Answer. The Department of Navy (DON) budget request for fiscal year
2004 is $734 million. The DON commitment to maintain readiness of the
dedicated Mine Countermeasure (MCM) Force is balanced with the
requirements to fund transformational capabilities, to include: the
development of seven organic MCM systems to integrate into Battle
Groups, replacing diver and mammal with unmanned systems, and the
development of a modular MCM capability from the Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS). The mine warfare ships, helicopters, and Explosive Ordnance
Disposal (EOD) force demonstrated their readiness in Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM, by clearing mines from Iraqi waterways and opening the port of
Umm Qasr for humanitarian relief supplies. Highlights of the request
include:
Organic Airborne MCM (OAMCM).--To meet the DON's goal of an organic
mine warfare capability by fiscal year 2005, the fiscal year 2004
budget continues the development and integration of five OAMCM
subsystems into the MH-60S platform. The notional plan for
consideration by companies planning proposals for the LCS Flight 0
design is that the OAMCM systems would be part of the mission modules
on the LCS, giving the LCS great flexibility to support the Carrier and
Expeditionary Strike Groups (CSG/ESG) in the MCM role.
ALMDS/AQS-20A.--In fiscal year 2005, the Navy will introduce the
minehunting suite of OAMCM systems. The AN/AQS-20A Advanced
Minehunting Sonar and Airborne Laser Mine Detection System
(ALMDS) (AN/AES-1) are scheduled for Initial Operational
Capability (IOC) in fiscal year 2005. The ALMDS will detect
near surface and floating mines with a water-penetrating laser,
while the AN/AQS-20A will detect, classify, and identify moored
and bottom mines with a towed sonar/laser system. The DON is
requesting $17.2 million for the AN/AQS-20A to continue system
developmental testing, and $21.9 million to complete
developmental testing and award two AN/AES-1 Low Rate Initial
Production units.
RAMICS/AMNS.--In fiscal year 2007, the Navy will introduce the
mine neutralization suite of OAMCM systems. The Rapid Airborne
Mine Clearance System (RAMICS) (AN/AWS-2) is being developed to
neutralize the near surface and floating mines found by ALMDS.
The RAMICS uses a supercavitating 30 mm projectile to pierce
the mine case, causing deflagration of the mine explosive, and
flooding of the case. The DON is requesting $31.2 million to
complete critical design review and begin developmental testing
of AN/AWS-2. The Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) is
being developed to counter deeper moored mines and visible
bottom mines and DON is requesting $14.5 million to continue
development through critical design reviews. The AMNS uses
tethered, small expendable neutralization vehicles to approach
the mine and destroy the mine with an explosive charge.
OASIS.--In fiscal year 2008, the Navy will introduce the Organic
Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep (OASIS) system. The OASIS
will generate magnetic and acoustic signals to satisfy the
firing logic of influence mines, causing them to actuate. The
DON is requesting $14.8 million for completion of critical
design review and commencement of development testing.
LMRS.--The fiscal year 2004 budget requests $56.1 million funding
to continue the development and acquisition of the Long-term Mine
Reconnaissance System (LMRS), which is on track for an fiscal year 2005
IOC on the LOS ANGELES Class submarine and will be incorporated on the
VIRGINIA Class as it delivers. The LMRS system features an untethered
Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV), launched and recovered covertly from
the submarine's torpedo tubes. The LMRS will provide a clandestine
reconnaissance capability for mine-like objects.
RMS.--The fiscal year 2004 budget includes $55.5 million funding
for the development and acquisition of the Remote Minehunting System
(RMS), a surface ship-launched and recovered semi-submersible vehicle.
The RMS gives surface ships the capability to conduct low-observable
minehunting operations from over the horizon, maintaining control of
the vehicle from a safe standoff distance. The RMS will reach IOC in
fiscal year 2005, fielding on six new construction DDG Flight IIA ships
(DDGs 91-96). The RMS also is a strong candidate for future deployment
on the Littoral Combat Ship.
Very Shallow Water (VSW) MCM.--The capabilities of the Naval
Special Clearance Team ONE were highlighted in port clearance
operations in Umm Qasr. In addition to the superb performance of EOD
forces and marine mammals, small UUVs played a vital role in
identifying mine-like objects in very low visibility conditions. $6.6
million is requested in the fiscal year 2004 DON budget to support
small UUV programs to operate from surface MCM ships, in VSW MCM
applications, and in force protection missions.
High Speed Vessel (HSV).--The fiscal year 2004 budget contains
funding ($17 million) for the charter of a High Speed Vessel (HSV 2
SWIFT) for fleet experimentation and concept development, focusing on
MCM command and control issues and new technology demonstrations that
may feed into development of the LCS program.
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).--The LCS will become the focal point of
DON efforts to transform Mine Warfare (MIW). Within the DON fiscal year
2004 request for LCS Mission Modules, $18.4 million contributes to the
development of the MIW Mission Modules. When equipped with the
appropriate Mission Package, LCS will conduct mine warfare missions
with on-board and off-board systems from deep water through the beach.
The potential for modernization through its modular, multi-mission
design will allow LCS to incorporate new unmanned vehicle technologies
as they mature.
Dedicated MCM ships.--The surface MCM fleet faces several
challenges in current readiness issues, which are addressed in this
proposed budget. The DON has requested $8.4 million in fiscal year 2004
OPN funds for the initiative to improve the operational readiness of
the surface MCM ships through replacement of low-reliability engines.
$1.8 million is requested in fiscal year 2004 to fund acoustic
generators to replace antiquated acoustic sweep systems on the MCM-1
class ships. $3.8 million is requested for sonar data recorders for the
AN/SQQ-32 minehunting sonar to record sonar targets of interest.
T-45 COCKPIT 21
Question. I understand that the Cockpit 21 program for T-45A
aircraft is unfunded in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. Does the
Navy plan to fund this in 2005 or 2006? What is the impact of not
funding the program?
Answer. The Navy remains committed to the T-45 program as an
integral part of undergraduate flight training. Cockpit 21 addresses
several avionics obsolescence issues in both the T-45A and the T-45C.
If left uncorrected, degradation in aircraft ``Ready For Training''
will eventually affect the ability to maintain the required pilot
training rate. The Navy will closely examine funding for Cockpit 21 as
part of the fiscal year 2005 Budget development process, but must
continue to balance this requirement against competing priorities.
______
Questions Submitted to Admiral Vernon E. Clark
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
HSV PLANS
Question. Admiral Clark, I understand the Navy has been impressed
with the early feedback in operating a High Speed Vessel under a lease
arrangement. Can you comment on the HSV hull form, and how it might fit
into our shipbuilding planning?
Answer. Currently, there are three High Speed Vessel craft under
lease agreement with the Department of the Navy. The lease for HSV X1,
Joint Venture, originally contracted under a joint arrangement between
the Army and the Navy in October 2001 has been extended through
September 2003. HSV 2, Swift, a slightly larger version of Joint
Venture, will deliver in late July 2003 and will incorporate additional
military enhancements to its hull that support mine warfare
experimentation. Additionally, the USMC has been conducting intra-
theater lift missions with a third HSV, Westpac Express. All three
vessels are wave piercing, aluminum hulled, commercial catamarans,
based upon existing high-speed ferry designs.
The Navy is continuing its efforts to explore the concept of
advanced high-speed hull forms and propulsion systems, evaluating new
hull designs in monohulls, catamarans, trimarans and surface effect
ships. Additionally, efforts are underway to combine the lessons
learned from these vessels for application in the design of future
classes of Navy ships.
The U.S. shipbuilding industry has limited experience in the design
and construction of these categories of vessels with the necessary
displacement and speed. U.S. shipbuilders are, however, working
together with industry to explore the concepts and viability of these
advanced hull forms and propulsion systems for Naval applicability.
LONG-TERM HSV PLANS
Question. Admiral Clark, it seems leasing these craft during the
experimentation phase was appropriate. If the experiments have proven
successful, we should explore procuring U.S.-made craft to meet the
Services' needs. Can you explain the Department of the Navy's long-term
plan to eliminate the need for leasing commercial High Speed Vessels?
Answer. The High Speed Vessel (HSV) project is a joint effort with
the Navy, Marine Corps, Naval Special Warfare Command and Army. The
goal for HSV(X1) is to explore the concepts and capabilities associated
with commercial high-speed vessels with respect to advanced hull and
propulsion technologies integrated with advanced communications
technologies. HSV 2 will continue to build on these concepts and
evaluate the utility of the craft, while supporting new doctrine
associated with advancing Mine Warfare systems, including
experimentation with the use of unmanned underwater and surface
vehicles. Successful experimentation with Joint Venture has
demonstrated the utility and potential suitability of high-speed
vessels for military operations.
While experimentation to date with HSV(X)1 and Westpac Express has
been promising, the Navy is still assessing the utility of this type
platform to support Sea Power 21. Should an operational requirement be
developed for HSV to permanently support the Navy or USMC, the
vessel(s) will be competitively procured from a U.S. shipyard.
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP--HULL FORM
Question. Admiral Clark, I understand the Navy has not yet
determined a hull form on which to base the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).
Given the variety of roles and missions anticipated for these ships, is
it possible there may need to be more than one ``final'' hull form for
LCS, perhaps a percentage would be catamarans and a percentage would be
composite mono-hulls?
Answer. The current acquisition strategy envisions two Flight 0
ships to start construction in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. These ships
may be different designs built in different yards. The Navy will
evaluate both ships and will then make a decision on the remainder of
the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) flights. Flight 1 LCS ships are
scheduled to start construction in fiscal year 2008.
______
Question Submitted to General Michael W. Hagee
Question Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Question. I am concerned we take all measures necessary to prevent
a recurrence of Gulf War Syndrome now that our troops are in Iraq. One
way is to medically assess our troops before they deploy to establish a
health baseline. What percentage of Marines had a health baseline
established before they deployed to Southwest Asia? What percentage of
our personnel was pre-screened (with a health survey) before
deployment?
Answer. Pre-screening is required per Department of Defense
Instruction (DODI) 6490.3 for personnel deploying out of CONUS for more
than 30 days. The screening form is completed by the Marine or Sailor
and kept in his/her medical record for future reference. DODI 6490.3
included no reporting requirements to higher headquarters. Because a
centralized reporting requirement did not exist, the percentage of
personnel who deployed to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
who were pre-screened is unknown at this time. On April 23, 2003, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued a
directive Memorandum, stating new reporting requirements for both Pre-
and Post-Deployment Surveillance. The new guidance requires the
Services to conduct and track post-deployment health surveys for all
personnel who were involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom. On May 1, 2003,
Health Services, HQMC, released a message to Marine Corps units
identifying the new requirements and providing further guidance. In
addition, The Medical Officer of the Marine Corps, in conjunction with
the Naval Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, is developing a comprehensive
plan to conduct required surveys and monitor compliance.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Inouye. The next scheduled subcommittee meeting is
Wednesday, April 9. At that time we will receive testimony
regarding the activities of the Missile Defense Agency.
Thank you very much, and the hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Wednesday, April 2, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
April 9.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Shelby, and Inouye.
DEFENSE AGENCIES
Missile Defense Agency
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD T. KADISH, USAF,
DIRECTOR
ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS P. CHRISTIE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND
EVALUATION
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Our distinguished co-chairman is stuck in
traffic.
General Kadish. So were we, sir.
Senator Stevens. Since it took me a long time to get in
this morning and I only live 5 miles away, I appreciate what
you're saying. He has asked us to proceed, if that's all right,
and we'll do that.
We welcome you and Mr. Christie, General. Thank you for
being with us. You're really a trusted partner in the whole
endeavor for national missile defense, and I'm sure Senator
Inouye will make similar comments. This capability that you
have in Alaska is very encouraging to us and we plan to go up
there as soon as possible. We had one trip scheduled and had to
cancel it. Our staff will be going over to Hawaii in the coming
recess to visit that area, and we know that there has been a
great deal of change. If it's possible, we'd enjoy both of you
coming to join us on our trip, but I'm not sure that will be
possible. We haven't got it scheduled yet because of the
problems we have in the appropriations process right now.
We look forward to receiving an update from you, and
Senator Inouye will make some comments when he comes in, but
right now, I would appreciate it if you would proceed with your
statement.
General Kadish. Thank you, Senator. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman, members of the committee. I would like to take just a
few minutes to highlight some of the key points about our
missile defense program that we have today and really
underscore the progress we've made to date.
And if you would allow that my prepared statement in its
entirety be----
MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM
Senator Stevens. Your statements will go in the record.
General Kadish. In early 2001, we started restructuring the
missile defense program to develop capabilities to defend the
United States, our allies, our friends, and our deployed forces
against all ranges of missiles in all phases of flight. With
the support of Congress and in particular this committee, we
have made considerable progression in demonstrating key missile
defense technologies and the integration of those technologies
into a system.
Our testing analysis gives us confidence that hit-to-kill
technology works and that we can take the initial steps we are
proposing to provide a modest initial defensive capability
where none exists today.
Altogether, we have made great progress in our missile
defense program. Our testing has been aggressive and
productive. Over the past 2 years we achieved four for five
successful ground-based intercepts of long-range targets and we
are three for three in our sea-based intercepts of medium-range
targets. We were five for seven with the Patriot Advanced
Capability, or PAC-3 interceptor.
We are making steady progress with the airborne laser to
develop the revolutionary speed of light technologies, but we
have had failures and in all probability, we will have some
more failures in this process. But this score card has
increased our confidence in our basic technical approach.
Last December, the President directed the Department of
Defense to field an initial set of missile defense capabilities
in view of our technical progress, and our total lack of
missile defenses against the intermediate and long-range
ballistic missiles. Given our fielding approach using the
testbed we have been working on, and given our testing
successes and our analysis of those to date, I believe we are
ready for this step. With the President's decision, we now have
a clear basic near-term architecture for a limited system to
address a range of missile threats.
I want to stress that we have no fixed long-term
architecture, however. We will evolve and improve the
capability of the Block 04 system over time so that when we
propose to field initially--so what we propose to field
initially in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 may evolve
to look very different maybe a decade later.
EVOLUTIONARY CAPABILITY-BASE ACQUISITION APPROACH
The number and type of missile defense assets and their
locations and basing parameters may be expected to change to
make the system more integrated and more capable. This is
consistent with the approach I have described in previous
hearings. We are building and fielding limited military useful
capabilities as soon as they can be made available.
We have said all along that when we do field, we will not
have a system that will fully meet our missile defense needs,
so there are no illusions there. The system we will be fielding
initially will be modestly operational, but we went down this
road knowing we would need improvement and we have a process
that's specifically designed to make those improvements as soon
as practicable.
With an evolutionary capability-based acquisition approach,
we put capability into the field, we test it, use it, get
comfortable with it, learn what works well and what doesn't,
and improve it as soon as we can. Before the President's
decision, the fiscal year 2004 President's budget would have
reflected the development of a set of testbed capabilities that
could have been made operational. Today we are asking Congress
to authorize and appropriate funds to allow us to add to this
testbed and make it operational in fiscal year 2004.
OPERATIONAL TESTBED
In other words, instead of building a testbed that might be
used operationally, we are fielding an initial defensive
capability that we will continue to test. Because of this
relationship between initial defense capability and testing, we
are asking that all associated funding with both efforts be
under the defense-wide appropriations funding.
Now with respect to the issue of operational testing before
deployment, I would argue that we are faced today with some
timely issues. This is a unique and unprecedented technology in
its early stages of maturity. We have to strike a balance
between our desire for perfection in missile defenses that we
employ and our desire to have as soon as possible some
defensive capability which does not exist today.
We can continue to test the elements and components of the
system and we can use them to defend ourselves. I believe we
can do this because we have shown that the nuts and bolts of
the missile defense system and its capabilities we are funding
to build upon Block 04 can work.
Over the past 2 years, we have conducted a total of 55
flight tests and 60 ground tests. Seventeen of these tests were
intercept flight tests. These tests built our confidence. We
know hit-to-kill works. We have had a significant degree of
repeatability represented in the testing up to date, and we are
well along our goal of demonstrating this reliability.
Mr. Christie will state that our relationships, I believe,
that we are building between Operational Test and the Missile
Defense Agency are in good shape, and that we are structured to
make the best decisions in the interests of missile defense.
Regardless of the names we apply to our testing, we must
have the assets and infrastructure in the field if we are going
to begin to test the system in operationally realistic
conditions. If we do not have the weapons and sensors fielded
in operationally useful locations, we cannot really do a good
job of looking at how they work. This program and its budget
proposes to do just that.
Our intentions are to test the complete system as soon as
possible. Over the next 2 years we are planning another 68
flight tests, 58 ground tests, and about the same number of
intercept tests as before. We have done the testing and have
confidence to proceed, and we want to continue to strike the
right balance in the testing effort.
The elements of the testbed will also have some inherent
defensive capability. We can do operational testing while
having the system on alert. We should take advantage of that.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we are ready to take the next
step in missile defense for another reason. Our testbed
evolutionary approach to a missile defensive capability is
rational from a cost standpoint as well. We do not now have
adequate understanding of our long-term architecture to submit
a budget committing tens of billions of dollars, and we don't
need to submit such a budget to achieve our goals in the
interim.
FIELD CAPABILITY
We are able, however, to purchase a fielded capability,
through small numbers, and this approach will allow us to
control costs. With an increase of about $1.5 billion over 2
years, we can provide this country with a modest missile
defense capability where none exists today.
Mr. Chairman, America's missile defense program is on
track. The Missile Defense Agency is doing what we told
Congress it would do, and your support has been important to
the progress we have made. We listened to your concerns and we
sought to address them in a responsible manner. Our tests and
analysis have given us the confidence we can take the first
steps toward initial defensive operations while we continue to
prove out our technology and demonstrate missile defense combat
utility through a realistic testing regime.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I believe there are tremendous benefits in putting some
threat-precedented technology into the field in manageable
increments to provide some defense, to learn more about it and
gain experience, and improve it over time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and I think I will stop there to allow more time for
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Ronald T. Kadish
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. It is an
honor to appear before you to present the Department of Defense's
fiscal year 2004 Missile Defense Program and budget.
In early 2001 we restructured the missile defense program to
develop the capability to defend the United States, our allies and
friends, and deployed forces against all ranges of missiles in all
phases of flight. With the support of Congress, we have made
considerable progress in demonstrating key ballistic missile defense
(BMD) technologies and system integration. Our testing and analysis
give us confidence that hit-to-kill technology works and that we can
take the initial steps we are proposing to bolster defenses against
short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and introduce a modest
defensive capability to defeat a limited long-range threat. Today I
will review our progress, discuss why we are confident in our approach,
and outline our plans and challenges ahead.
Over the past two years we have conducted several successful
intercept tests. We achieved four for five successful long-range,
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) intercept flight tests,
demonstrating the hit-to-kill technologies of the Exo-atmospheric Kill
Vehicle, critical sensor technologies, and the integration of many
geographically dispersed missile defense assets. The failure of the
most recent such test (Integrated Flight Test-10) last December
resulted from the non-separation of the interceptor and the surrogate
booster rocket. This was not a failure of new missile defense
technology, but a failure of our quality control processes. We are
increasing our already focused quality control efforts. We are taking
steps to ensure this separation problem is not repeated. Furthermore,
future GMD tests will no longer use the surrogate booster and instead
will use one or both of the boosters currently under development.
We are three for three in our ship-based exo-atmospheric intercept
tests. Last year Aegis BMD successfully completed its Aegis Lightweight
Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) Intercept (ALI) project. Based on
these results we accelerated the insertion of the follow-on Aegis BMD
capability into the Test Bed. Our third intercept in November 2002 was
the first ever intercept of a ballistic missile in the ascent phase of
flight.
Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) has made significant strides.
Since January 2001, we have had five for seven successful intercepts of
ballistic missile targets and have begun fielding the first PAC-3
missiles. We also executed more than a dozen successful test flights of
the Airborne Laser (ABL) aircraft, completed significant aircraft
modifications, and accomplished successful subsystem testing and full-
up ground-tests of the first laser module. While we are in the
difficult phase of integrating the components into the ABL, our
progress to date has increased our confidence that ABL can eventually
be integrated into the BMD system (BMDS).
Mr. Chairman, America's missile defense program is on track. The
Missile Defense Agency is doing what we told Congress it would do. We
listened to your concerns and have sought to address them in a
responsible manner. We have faced significant technical and management
challenges, but through aggressive testing we have proven that hit-to-
kill technology works. We have demonstrated system integration through
complex system testing. These tests, combined with analysis of
simulations and exercises, give us confidence that the system can take
the first steps toward initial defensive operations while performing as
a test bed for further realistic testing and continued spiral
development.
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget will allow us to continue
this significant progress and is structured to incorporate the
recommendations of the Defense Science Board summer study of 2002.
Evolutionary Approach to Missile Defense
The BMD system involves many sensors and interceptors that are
integrated and layered to enable engagements against hostile missiles
in the boost, midcourse, and terminal phases of flight. Layered
defenses can allow multiple shot opportunities across all of the
engagement segments and potentially within each one of those segments,
greatly enhancing our ability to handle countermeasures and destroy in-
flight missiles and their payloads.
As I have explained in past hearings, we are building the missile
defense system using an evolutionary acquisition approach, so that the
system's capability can be enhanced over time. Our plan continues to be
one of incrementally providing the decision makers the ability to field
militarily useful capabilities based on their technological readiness,
suitability for operational use and threat developments.
Last December the President directed the Department to field an
initial set of missile defense capabilities in order to reduce the
vulnerabilities of the United States, our troops, and our allies and
friends. Given our fielding approach, and given the successful testing
we have accomplished to date, I believe we are ready for this. The
proposed budget for fiscal year 2004 and across the 2004-2009 Future
Years Defense Program (FYDP) supports Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation (RDT&E) activities to accomplish that goal. We plan to begin
operating modest land and sea defense capabilities in 2004 to provide
limited protection of our country as well as our troops and critical
assets overseas.
In missile defense, we deal routinely with revolutionary
technologies and unprecedented engineering requirements. The program we
are currently executing recognizes the unique challenges we face and
sets out a disciplined course to develop the BMD system in an
evolutionary way. Having spent the last couple of years looking at
different missile defense options, we are now narrowing our program
activities and focusing on development and fielding of the most
promising elements.
Consistent with the approach I have described in previous hearings,
we are building and fielding limited, militarily useful capabilities as
soon as they can be made available. This approach takes into account
known and projected threats and the present state of technology. With a
capability-based acquisition approach we put capability into the field,
test it, use it, get comfortable with it, and learn what works well and
what does not. We have structured Test Bed fielding opportunities to
occur in ``blocks'' every two years to improve what we have fielded as
needed. Block 2004 (initial defense capabilities) represents 2004-2005,
Block 2006 represents 2006-2007, and so on. These blocks will deliver
elements and components that are ready for continued rigorous testing
and full integration into the system.
With the President's decision, we now have a basic near-term
architecture for a limited system to address a range of missile
threats. I want to stress that we have no fixed, long-term
architecture. We will evolve and improve the capability of the Block
2004 system over time, so that what we propose to field initially in
2004 and 2005 may evolve to look very different a decade later. The
number and type of missile defense assets and their locations and
basing arrangements may be expected to change to make the system more
integrated and capable.
We have adopted this evolutionary approach because a single
acquisition cycle is not responsive to rapid changes in threat and
technology and is not structured to deal with surprise. We want to
avoid prematurely constraining system design by using the traditional
requirements process and waiting up to twenty years or more for a
defensive capability that would result from using traditional
acquisition rules. In a world marked by increasing ballistic missile
activity, our nation, forces, and allies cannot afford to wait that
long.
In using this evolutionary approach, we still have the ability to
incorporate the discipline and intent of the traditional acquisition
process. For example, the warfighting community has been heavily
involved from the beginning in the development of system elements and
components. We are successfully using a spiral development process to
put new technologies into play more quickly than if we were to use the
traditional approach. Spiral development requires regular dialogue and
active participation between user and developer for delivering a
militarily useful set of capabilities. Once we field the initial
capability, uniformed personnel will operate the system.
Despite the many uncertainties we face, this approach allows us to
be good stewards of the taxpayers' money. The President's recent
announcement stands as a good example of this. We are not making an
early commitment to large-volume serial production and very large-scale
investments. Our fielding commitment will be scaled over time and rise
with our confidence that we are on the right development path for this
complex, multifaceted system.
Aggressive Research, Development and Test Activities
As we prepare to implement the President's directive, we plan to
continue the program's intensive testing activities up to and beyond
the 2004-2005 timeframe. We have a single, robust RDT&E program
dedicated to the development and demonstration of missile defense
technologies and integration concepts. In fact, consistent with our
investments over the past two years, the lion's share of the fiscal
year 2004 budget request of $7.7 billion for the Missile Defense
Agency, roughly $6 billion, will support RDT&E activities that are not
directly tied to system fielding. Significant development efforts in
fiscal year 2004 include continued work on Theater High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD), ABL, and kinetic energy boost-phase interceptors in
the post-Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty environment.
These aggressive RDT&E activities are the basis for proceeding as
the President has directed and for continuing development work to build
a multi-layered BMD system. We will continue our practice of assessing
these activities on a regular basis to see if they can be accelerated
or whether they must be truncated or modified in some manner. RDT&E
activities occurring in fiscal year 2004 will contribute to Blocks
2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010.
We are still evaluating the impact of our withdrawal from the ABM
Treaty. The treaty successfully did what it was intended to do. It
severely restricted missile defense development and fielding options.
The President's action has made it possible to begin to develop and
test aggressively the full range of missile defense technologies and
pursue capabilities that make the most sense from the standpoints of
technology, operations, and cost.
For example, as a result of the treaty withdrawal, Aegis BMD, the
sea-based defense element, began its successful participation in GMD
integrated flight tests conducted last October and December. While
initially only collecting boost and ascent phase radar data, Aegis BMD
has begun engineering efforts to become a full participant in future
tests and will eventually provide fire control data to the BMD system.
Our intercept tests against long-range ballistic missiles are very
complex, yet since October 1999 we were forced to restrict ourselves to
the same intercept flight geometries because of artificial constraints
in our current Test Bed and our obligation to remain compliant with the
ABM Treaty. Today, in order to test our GMD interceptors, we must
launch targets from Vandenberg, AFB in California and interceptors from
Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. We are changing that. The Test
Bed we are building will introduce flexibility into our test approach
and help overcome some basic geographic and geometric limitations by
allowing us to test weapons and sensors against ballistic missiles of
all ranges along different azimuths and using different trajectories.
For test purposes we will introduce variable target launch and impact
points and engagement areas.
Robust, realistic testing is absolutely critical to developing an
effective missile defense system. Over the past two years we conducted
a total of 55 flight tests and 60 ground tests. Seventeen of these
tests were flight-intercept tests. Each test builds our confidence in
the BMD system. From our flight-testing, we know that the hit-to-kill
approach works. We know our sensors can successfully detect and track
the target and that our software algorithms can discriminate between
reentry vehicles and basic decoys and debris. We know our battle
management system can generate orders that put a kill vehicle in a
position to achieve intercept. We will continue to refine and improve
the system's performance in all areas. Our test program continues to
add to our confidence that the basic technologies are sound and that
they will work together to provide the nation an effective BMD system.
Our program and budget will continue to maintain a high tempo of
increasingly complex ground- and flight-testing. Over the next two
years we are planning another 68 flight tests, 58 ground tests, and
maintaining the same pace of intercept tests as before. We do system
testing to give us confidence that we have the ability to integrate
geographically dispersed missile defense elements and components into
an effective system. This does not include the many experiments we
conduct routinely, the modeling and simulation activity, and the
wargame exercises. Our computer predictions are very valuable in this
process and give us a great deal of confidence that we are on the right
paths.
We remain committed to our aggressive testing approach, where we
mature midcourse, boost, and terminal missile defense components and
elements through rigorous testing under increasingly realistic and
challenging conditions. When we have adequately demonstrated
technologies, decisions can then be made concerning their integration
into blocks for fielding. Testing activities remain central to what we
do and are well supported within our funding request.
Initial Defense Capabilities
The Congress has already funded plans to put five midcourse
interceptors into the test bed in silos at Fort Greely in Alaska,
develop Aegis BMD, and test the SM-3 interceptor at the Pacific Missile
Range Facility in Hawaii. Other activities are currently underway to
improve the missile defense Test Bed by upgrading or developing launch
sites (including Vandenberg, AFB), radar sensors, battle management and
command and control components, communications terminals and networks,
and associated test infrastructure in the United States and the
Marshall Islands (including airborne, sea-based, and ground-based data
collection assets).
Today we are asking the Congress to appropriate funds that will
allow us to add to this Test Bed and make it operational by 2004. These
initial defense capabilities, fielded over a two-year period, will
include ground-based interceptors to counter long-range threats, sea-
based interceptors to defeat short- and medium-range threats,
additional PAC-3 units, and early warning and tracking sensors based on
land, at sea, in the air, and in space.
Before the President's decision, the fiscal year 2004 President's
Budget would have reflected the development of a set of Test Bed
capabilities that could have been made operational. Instead of building
a Test Bed that might be used operationally, we are fielding an initial
defensive capability that we will continue to test. All RDT&E
activities will support the initial defense capability, and the system
elements and components we field will continue to support RDT&E.
Because of the relationship between initial defense capabilities and
testing, we are asking that all funding associated with both efforts be
under Defense-wide appropriations RDT&E. With the December announcement
we have quickened the pace at which we are moving forward, but we have
not changed the direction in which we are moving.
We are proposing to do in fiscal year 2004 what we said we were
going to do in previous hearings, that is, field tested missile
defenses a little at a time using a step approach. The missile defense
operations we are proposing are unprecedented, and there still is much
to learn. I believe there is tremendous benefit in putting this
unprecedented technology into the field, in manageable increments, to
provide some defense, to learn more about it, gain experience with it,
and improve it over time.
The Israeli Arrow program stands out as an example of how fielding
militarily useful capability in block increments and in a timely manner
can work and how successful it can be. With only four successful
intercept flight tests, Israeli officials declared their first Arrow
battery operational on October 17, 2000 and fielded that country's
first capability to defeat incoming ballistic missiles launched from
nearby states. The Israeli system has been operational for more than
two years now, and during that time it has conducted additional
intercept and flight tests to enhance the system's performance. Plans
are moving forward to augment it even further. Surrounded by states
having an active interest in ballistic missiles, Israel found a way to
field a limited defensive capability on an accelerated timeline and at
a time when it could not afford to wait for system testing to be
completed.
We in the United States, of course, are not strangers to fielding
an unprecedented military capability on an accelerated schedule. Our
leadership struggled in the early stages of deploying the first
reconnaissance satellites and land- and sea-based ballistic missiles.
Urgent national security requirements pressed us to deploy capability
soon, and through trial and error we did. Despite test failures, the
country persevered and made militarily useful capabilities operational.
Since that time, we have dramatically improved the capabilities of
those first-generation systems. The parallels between these pioneering
programs and the missile defense program are clear.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we are ready to take this next step
in missile defense. Our fielding approach will not only help
rationalize the force structure we deploy from the technological and
threat standpoints, but also from the standpoint of cost. We do not now
have adequate understanding to submit a bill of many tens of billions
of dollars for a huge, long-term fixed architecture. We are able,
however, to purchase, produce, and field capabilities in small numbers.
This approach will allow us to control costs. With a modest investment
and increase by the Department of a total of $1.5 billion spread over
the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 budgets, we will provide this country
with militarily useful capabilities where none exists today.
In short, this $1.5 billion primarily will add a small number of
ground-based interceptors as well as more SM-3 interceptors to the test
bed capability we are already building. Future fielding decisions, as
we have said all along, will be made in the outlying years based on the
progress of technology and the evolution of the threat, subject to the
annual congressional appropriations process.
Confidence in Initial Defensive Operations
In assessing our level of confidence with the planned initial
missile defense capabilities, we have to strike a balance between our
desire for perfection in the missile defenses we deploy and our desire
to have as soon as possible a defensive capability where none exists
today.
Adequate testing is the key to achieving that balance. And while
this testing may not fit the mold of classical operational testing that
would traditionally take place prior to full-rate production, we do
follow a testing discipline that I believe can give us the confidence
to say that what we deploy will work as we have said it would under
threat circumstances that we believe we might have to face.
I believe that to strike the right balance we must go through an
intense period of testing to demonstrate that the technologies on which
we are relying can work consistently under conditions that are
increasingly stressful and realistic. We have spent the past two years
demonstrating the technologies we propose to employ in the Block 2004
Test Bed. We have said all along that when we do field we will not
field a system that will fully meet our missile defense needs. We will
face limitations and have gaps, let there be no illusions there. The
system we are initially fielding will be limited operationally. But we
went down this road knowing that there would be gaps and with a process
that is specifically designed to fill those gaps and make up for
performance limitations as soon as practicable.
Among the limitations that should be included here is that of
operational experience. We need to build operational experience over
time with the system that will be guarding our nation and our troops.
There is no better way to do that then to put basic elements out into
the field and to begin working with those assets to develop the
doctrine and concepts of operation we will need and to train the
military personnel who will operate it.
We have spent significant amounts of money on testing the GMD and
Aegis BMD elements of system. All of the tests to date have been what
we have called ``developmental tests.'' Regardless of the names we
apply to our testing, we must have assets and infrastructure in the
field if we are going to begin to test that system under operationally
realistic conditions. If we do not have the weapons and sensors fielded
at operationally useful locations, we cannot really do a good job of
hooking it all up to make sure it works.
The President's decision allows us to put this materiel out in the
field for testing, in locations that make sense from an operational
point of view. Given the recent events in the international security
environment, the President's decision reflects an urgent need to make
that test bed as operational as we possibly can. That decision also
recognizes that we will not be fielding the perfect system at the
outset.
What we are faced with today is a timing issue. Must we do what has
been traditionally called ``operational testing'' before we can say
that we have a capability we can use in an extreme security situation,
or can we do both? Can we continue to test the elements and components
of a system we also could use to defend ourselves if needed? I believe
we can.
Why do I believe that? Because we have shown that the nuts and
bolts of the missile defense capabilities we are planning to field in
Block 2004 can work. We have had a significant degree of repeatability
represented in the tests we have conducted to date, and we are well
along in our goal of conducting these tests reliably. We are now to the
point where we need to assemble selected missile defense elements into
a test bed that will permit operationally realistic testing using
different azimuths and trajectories, different launch and target
points, and different arrangements in our sensors and weapons. That
test bed will allow us to test in different ways so that we can refine
our all-too-important battle management and command and control
infrastructure. The elements of the test bed also will have some
inherent defense capability. We can do operational development testing
while having the system on alert. We should take advantage of that.
Our intentions are to test the complete system and to be ready to
respond to ballistic missile threats against the United States, our
deployed forces, and our friends and allies. We have conducted the
rigorous testing needed to give us the confidence that we are far
enough along to do operationally realistic testing in an integrated
way. Testing will always be an important part of this system--always.
We will always be improving what we have in the field. The budget we
have submitted will support the testing required to ensure that the
elements of the Block 2004 system we would like to field will
adequately serve the defense needs of this nation.
Our RDT&E activities are extensive and are important part of our
acquisition approach. Below are three areas of special interest.
BMD System Radar Activity
The MDA's Family of Radar concept is continuous and flexible global
detection, tracking, discrimination, and hit assessment. Ideally, we
want to be able to watch missile payloads deploy and accomplish prompt
and early battle assessment. We are currently pursuing multiple sensor
technologies and identifying and developing sensors to give the BMD
system the ``eyes'' it will need. In order to identify the most
promising technologies and reduce risk, we are investigating, in
parallel, sensor alternatives on land-, sea-, air- and space-based
platforms to add robustness to the BMD system and improve opportunities
to collect multiple phenomenology on the threat missile or target
complex. Evaluations of different sensor and weapon combinations and
alternatives will help us assess their overall benefit to an
integrated, layered BMD system. An important element in this effort is
the mobile Sea-Based X-Band radar (SBX), which we plan to build by
September 2005 to greatly improve both testing and our initial defense
capability.
The BMDS Radar project, a new activity, is funded in the fiscal
year 2004 budget to expand the engagement battle space and assess
missile defense concepts of operation that we were not allowed to
consider under the ABM Treaty. We will validate the concept of forward-
basing and sensor layering and evaluate advanced algorithms using both
MDA- and non-MDA-owned sensors. Current plans call for the BMDS Radar
to be available for integration into the Test Bed in late 2006. We will
support continuous sensor research to improve capabilities and develop
advanced algorithms for Block 2008 and beyond.
BMD System Infrared Sensor Activities
The Department restructured the Space Based Infrared System-Low
(SBIRS Low) element in fiscal year 2002, renaming it the Space Tracking
and Surveillance System (STSS). We will explore new technologies to
enhance missile detection, improve reporting on ballistic missile
launches regardless of range, azimuth, or launch point, and provide
critical midcourse tracking and discrimination data.
The Russian-American Observation Satellites (RAMOS) project is a
cooperative effort between the United States and the Russian Federation
to improve early warning technologies. RAMOS represents an innovative
space-based sensor R&D initiative. We are proceeding towards a joint
Preliminary Design Review this summer and expect to conclude the design
and development phase in early fiscal year 2005. The United States is
actively striving to reach a bi-lateral agreement to conduct activities
beyond the design and development phase. If we are able to move forward
with this project, we would launch two satellites in late fiscal year
2008.
BMD System Interceptor Activity
Our longer-term goal is to develop low-cost enhanced interceptors
for integration with different platforms to defend against missiles in
the boost, midcourse, and exo-atmospheric terminal phases of flight. We
are consolidating all next-generation kinetic energy interceptor
(booster and kill vehicle) development efforts and placing them under
our BMDS Interceptor activity. Relying heavily on existing hardware and
proven technology, we will develop a hit-to-kill boost phase capability
by Block 2008 and deliver capability enhancements for Block 2010 and
beyond.
In fiscal year 2004 we will begin developing a space-based kinetic
energy interceptor Test Bed to explore the technological feasibility
and operational advantages of engagements from space. This plan is
consistent with the Defense Science Board's recommendation, released
last August, to establish a comprehensive development program for a
space-based kinetic system. Following up on last year's successful
experiments to understand key sensor technologies, we will conduct in
2004 a Near Field Infra-Red Experiment to observe from space a boosting
rocket. This data will assist in the selection of seeker and sensor
technologies for a ground-based boost interceptor and development of
interceptor guidance and homing algorithms.
Block Activities and Budget
We are working within the MDA and with the Department's operational
community to meet the President's objective to establish an initial
defense capability in 2004, which begins with Block 2004. The following
describes by block our planned fielding opportunities across the FYDP.
Block 2004
This block continues development and integration of elements,
components, and facilities in the Test Bed. Block 2004 RDT&E funding
will deliver capabilities directed by the President for operational use
in fiscal year 2004-2005. We plan to add different capabilities to
point-defense capabilities already provided by PAC-3 units. This
initial fielding will grow the RDT&E program and expand the physical
infrastructure of the Test Bed.
Funds in this block will enable us to conduct major target and
countermeasure development and capability demonstrations, integration
tests, and experiments. We are investing in a substantive system test
program to test system command, control, and battle management (C\2\BM)
and communications across the elements. The Block 2004 Master Test Plan
lays out the strategy for conducting a comprehensive set of integrated
and distributed ground- and flight-tests to verify performance and
characterize the capability of the system. This test program will form
the basis of operational and military utility assessments of the Block
2004 initial defense capability.
We will have three major system integration flight tests, the first
of which is a large-scale integration event that tests C\2\BM and
communications during multiple element intercept tests. We plan to
demonstrate C\2\ capabilities and communications among C\2\ and battle
management nodes, weapons, and sensors and to continue work with the
Services, Combatant Commands, and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to ensure BMD system interoperability with legacy and planned
Department systems and standards.
We are requesting $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2004 to support RDT&E
for fielding Block 2004. Our estimated expenditure for Block 2004
activities across the FYDP is $6.2 billion (see Table 1).
TABLE 1.--BLOCK 2004 FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2002-09
($M then-year) \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- FYDP Totals
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fiscal fiscal
Project year year
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2002-09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C\2\BMC Block 2004.................................. 21 80 114 79 ........ ........ ........ ........ 194 295
Hercules Block 2004................................. ........ ........ 18 27 ........ ........ ........ ........ 46 46
Joint Warfighter Support Block 2004................. ........ ........ 24 13 ........ ........ ........ ........ 37 37
Test & Evaluation Block 2004........................ 47 57 37 33 ........ ........ ........ ........ 70 174
Targets & CM Block 2004............................. 75 104 197 170 ........ ........ ........ ........ 367 547
THAAD Block 2004.................................... 808 888 622 635 65 ........ ........ ........ 1,322 3,018
GMD Test Bed Block 2004............................. 636 452 1,205 868 ........ ........ ........ ........ 2,073 3,161
Aegis BMD Test Bed Block 2004....................... 413 440 648 894 98 ........ ........ ........ 1,640 2,492
ABL Block 2004...................................... 454 348 345 150 ........ ........ ........ ........ 494 1,296
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS........................................ 2,454 2,369 3,212 2,868 163 ........ ........ ........ 6,242 11,065
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.
Boost Elements.--We are developing directed energy and kinetic
energy boost phase intercept capabilities to create a defense layer
near the hostile missile's launch point. We require quick reaction
times, high confidence decision-making, and redundant engagement
capabilities to counter ballistic missiles in this phase.
ABL is currently under development to acquire, track, and kill
ballistic missiles in boost phase using speed-of-light technology. ABL
integrates three major subsystems (Laser; Beam Control; and Battle
Management, Command, Control, Communications, Computers and
Intelligence (BM/C\4\I)) into a modified commercial Boeing 747-400F
aircraft. We will continue major subsystem integration and testing
activities. Block 2004 activities involve completion of ground-testing,
to include first light on the test bed aircraft, first flight of the
complete weapons system, and the successful track and high-energy laser
engagement of a missile-shaped target board dropped from high-altitude.
In fiscal year 2005, we will deliver one aircraft for BMD system
integration and testing and demonstrate a missile shoot-down against a
boosting threat-representative target.
Midcourse Elements.--Midcourse defense elements engage ballistic
missiles in space after booster burnout and before the warhead re-
enters the atmosphere. The GMD element defends against long-range
ballistic missile attacks, and Aegis BMD will counter from the sea
medium- and short-range ballistic missiles.
The Department's plans are to add by the end of fiscal year 2004
one more Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) at Fort Greely in Alaska for a
total of six GBIs at that site, and four interceptors at Vandenberg Air
Force Base, for a total of up to 10 interceptors at both sites. The
decision to develop two interceptor sites is consistent with our
layered approach and operational concept and will allow us to work
through critical integration, battle management, and command and
control issues early on.
There are a number of other activities we need to undertake in
fiscal year 2005. We are asking for appropriations to produce up to ten
additional GBIs for fielding at the Fort Greely site, for a total of
sixteen interceptors in Alaska and four in California. We also plan to
produce by the end of 2005 between ten and twenty SM-3 missiles for
deployment on three Aegis ships converted to the missile defense
mission. Because we are starting from a base of zero, each interceptor
we field between now and 2005, up to the full complement of twenty
ground-based and twenty sea-based interceptors, will increase
significantly our overall capability to defend this country, our
troops, and friendly countries against long- and medium-range threats.
Included in the Test Bed and as part of the initial missile defense
architecture are plans for integrating Early Warning Radars (EWR) at
Eareckson AS (the Cobra Dane radar at Shemya, Alaska) and Beale AFB
(Upgraded EWR). We will add to this infrastructure multiple fire
control nodes and improved lines of communications connecting sites in
Alaska and the continental United States using fiber optics and
satellites. As you know, the Administration is working to secure allied
approval to upgrade and integrate into the BMD system early warning
radars currently located in the United Kingdom and Thule, Greenland to
view threat missiles launched out of the Middle East. The United
Kingdom already has approved the use of the Fylingdales radar. We also
plan to build by September 30, 2005 a Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) to
improve the testing regime and enhance initial missile defense system
performance.
We have made dramatic progress in recent months with the GMD
element, including in the areas of silo construction, development of a
nationwide communications network, and integrated flight-testing. We
have excavated six silos at Fort Greely, seven weeks ahead of schedule,
and we are in the process of constructing and establishing appropriate
security for multiple Test Bed facilities at Fort Greely and Eareckson.
By the end of 2005, we will upgrade SPY-1 radars on fifteen Aegis
warships for enhanced surveillance and track capability. Three
prototype surveillance and track Aegis destroyers will be available
starting in 2003; we will modernize additional destroyers for
surveillance and track and BMD engagement capability. Two Aegis
cruisers in addition to the USS LAKE ERIE, our test cruiser, will
receive BMD engagement modifications.
The next SM-3 flight test, scheduled for later this year, will use
a reengineered Monolithic Divert and Attitude Control System (MDACS)
for the first time in the interceptor's kinetic warhead. MDACS has
proved to be more reliable than the previous model, faster to build,
and less expensive. Five at-sea flight tests and numerous tracking
exercises, including participation in GMD integrated flight-tests, are
planned through 2005. Our cooperative research with Japan will continue
to enhance the capabilities of the SM-3 interceptor. The focus of that
research is on four components: sensor, advanced kinetic warhead,
second stage propulsion, and lightweight nosecone.
Terminal Elements.--THAAD is designed to be rapidly deployable and
protect forward-deployed United States and friendly troops, broadly
dispersed assets, population centers, and sites in the United States by
engaging short- to medium-range ballistic missiles or their payloads at
endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes. THAAD could have more than one
intercept opportunity against a target, a layering potential that makes
it more difficult for an adversary to employ countermeasures
effectively. This terminal defense capability will help mitigate the
effects of a WMD payload.
This year we will complete missile and launcher designs, initiate
manufacturing of missile and launcher ground test units, and begin
testing the first completed radar antenna. We will continue fabrication
of the second radar and building the battle manager and launcher test
beds. A total of four exo-atmospheric flight tests at the White Sands
Missile Range, New Mexico are planned for fiscal year 2004-05.
PAC-3 provides terminal missile defense capability against short-
and medium-range ballistic missiles, anti-radiation missiles, and
aircraft with a low radar cross-section employing advanced
countermeasures. PAC-3 successfully completed initial operational
testing last year, intercepting ballistic missiles, aircraft, and
cruise missiles. The tests uncovered problems that we have since
corrected in collaboration with the Army. We have completed development
of the PAC-3 missile and made C\2\BM modifications to enable PAC-3's
integration into the BMD system. We will continue to conduct PAC-3
tests this year. Later in Block 2004 we will demonstrate PAC-3's
integration with other BMD system elements.
With the support of Congress, the Department already has
accelerated PAC-3 missile production and currently has a plan to
increase that production rate to 20 missiles per month in 2005. Given
current production plans, by the end of 2005 the PAC-3 inventory will
stand at 332 missiles.
The Department has transferred PAC-3 procurement and RDT&E funding
to the Army, which is reflected in the Army's fiscal year 2004 budget
request. The MDA will retain responsibility for defining and testing
BMD system interoperability and continue to work with the Army on PAC-3
engineering, development, and testing. The Department realigned the
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program on March 31, 2003 to
the Army.
The Arrow Weapon System, developed jointly by the United States and
Israel to counter short- to medium-range ballistic missiles, is
operational at two sites in Israel and interoperable with U.S. missile
defense elements. We worked with Israel to deploy its first two Arrow
batteries, and are currently assisting that country to procure a third
battery.
The Arrow System Improvement Program, a spiral development upgrade
of the current operational system, includes technical cooperation to
improve the performance of the Arrow system and test it at a U.S. test
range. The first flight test was conducted successfully on January 5,
2003. We continue to support additional Arrow flight-testing to assess
technology developments and overall system performance and to collect
data and conduct annual hardware-in-the-loop exercises with Israel to
enhance interoperability.
Block 2006
Block 2006 work continues to improve existing capabilities and
provide new sensors and interceptors for integration with fielded
elements. Our focus will be on evolving and integrating the capability
to achieve a more synergistic and layered BMD system. We will continue
rigorous system and element flight-test demonstration and validation
efforts and use wargames to help develop concepts of operation and
operational procedures.
We are requesting $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2004 to support RDT&E
for Block 2006. Our estimated expenditure for Block 2006 activities
across the FYDP is $11.3 billion (see Table 2).
TABLE 2.--BLOCK 2006 FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2002-09
($M then-year) \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- FYDP Totals
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fiscal fiscal
Project year year
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2002-09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C\2\BMC Block 2006.................................. 4 27 53 104 116 ........ ........ ........ 273 304
Hercules Block 2006................................. ........ ........ 19 18 45 45 ........ ........ 127 127
Joint Warfighter Support Block 2006................. ........ ........ ........ 12 24 12 ........ ........ 48 48
Test & Evaluation Block 2006........................ 1 1 2 9 41 39 ........ ........ 92 93
Targets & CM Block 2006............................. 1 4 32 110 213 172 ........ ........ 526 530
THAAD Block 2006.................................... ........ ........ 109 208 598 498 113 ........ 1,525 1,525
GMD Block 2006...................................... 2,460 2,109 1,605 1,774 1,354 1,235 ........ ........ 5,969 10,538
Aegis BMD Block 2006................................ ........ ........ 24 73 377 299 ........ ........ 773 773
ABL Block 2006...................................... ........ ........ 10 86 150 79 81 55 461 461
BMDS Radars Block 2006.............................. ........ ........ 101 145 134 ........ ........ ........ 380 380
STSS Block 2006..................................... 55 232 276 285 285 204 75 35 1,160 1,447
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................................... 2,520 2,372 2,232 2,823 3,335 2,583 270 90 11,333 16,225
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.
Boost Elements.--We will enhance and test the integration of the
ABL aircraft into the BMD system. Candidate enhancements include
improvements in BMC\4\I, interoperability, pointing and tracking, and
target engagement. We will continue evaluation of the ABL test aircraft
capability against a range of threats. This aircraft will be available
to provide an emergency operational capability except for a maximum of
six months during fiscal year 2007 when it may undergo modifications
and enhancements.
Midcourse Elements.--We plan to enhance defensive capability and
further develop the Test Bed by maturing hardware and software of all
GMD interceptor, sensor, and C\2\BM components. We will continue our
ground- and flight-testing to demonstrate improved weapon and
discrimination performance and critical interfaces with external
sensors. We also plan to complete the upgrade of the Thule EWR should
we get approval from Denmark.
Aegis BMD flight missions will incorporate remote engagements of
targets as well as demonstrations against intermediate-range ballistic
missile (IRBM) targets. We will continue development of Aegis BMD
sensor discrimination capability. Prototype BMD signal processors will
be tested aboard Aegis ships with SPY-1 radar modifications. SM-3
missile deliveries will begin in 2004. Our plans are to build an
inventory of up to thirty-five SM-3 interceptors by the end of 2006.
Also, if directed, we would prepare to field up to twenty additional
SM-3 interceptors in 2007. We will proceed with our cooperative BMD
research with Japan to enhance the SM-3. We have two joint flight tests
of the advanced nosecone planned in the fiscal year 2005-2006
timeframe, and we will continue to look at possibilities for co-
development.
Terminal Elements.--The THAAD interceptor begins in the third
quarter fiscal year 2006 a series of five flight tests that are
scheduled to conclude in first quarter fiscal year 2008. We will
improve THAAD's exo-atmospheric and endo-atmospheric endgame
discrimination capability against increasingly complex targets.
Sensors.--Current plans call for a new forward-based radar in late
2006 for positioning close to the threat at sea or on land. Enhanced
forward-based sensor capabilities and improved sensor netting will
enable the BMD system to handle threats posing a more difficult
discrimination challenge and provide a launch-on-remote capability. A
midcourse radar will be added as part of our layered approach.
Additional radar configurations will be procured as necessary to
satisfy Block 2006 objectives.
Current plans are to launch two low-earth orbit satellites in
fiscal year 2007 to validate space-based sensor concepts for target
acquisition, tracking, and discrimination and to provide a space node
for the Test Bed. STSS will improve in subsequent blocks to provide
data fusion, radar/sensor cueing over-the-horizon, and interceptor
handover and fire control. Production alternatives will be evaluated at
least annually based upon element performance and integrated BMD system
performance.
Block 2008
Block 2008 represents a major step in BMD system evolution. We plan
to complete multiple layers of weapons and sensors, based on fixed and
mobile platforms, to counter a range of ballistic missiles. This block
will include C\2\BM components that enable integrated control of all
system assets throughout the battlespace. Primary development projects
include adding boost phase weapons to the Test Bed, integrating space
sensor platforms, and fusing multi-sensor discrimination products. We
will integrate capability-based targets and payload suites (to include
new and more complex countermeasures) into our system testing to
demonstrate effectiveness against evolving threats.
We are requesting $572 million in fiscal year 2004 to support RDT&E
for Block 2008. Our estimated expenditure for Block 2008 activities
across the FYDP is $16.3 billion (see Table 3).
TABLE 3.--BLOCK 2008 FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2002-09
($M then-year) \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- FYDP Totals
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fiscal fiscal
Project year year
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2002-09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C\2\BMC Block 2008.................................. ........ ........ 1 12 27 144 145 147 476 476
Hercules Block 2008................................. ........ ........ 19 17 17 17 62 60 192 192
Joint Warfighter Support Block 2008................. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 12 29 31 71 71
Test & Evaluation Block 2008........................ ........ ........ 1 1 4 13 85 87 190 190
Targets & CM Block 2008............................. ........ ........ ........ 57 77 68 239 253 694 694
THAAD Block 2008.................................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 237 227 369 300 1,134 1,134
GMD Block 2008...................................... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 878 877 1,756 1,756
AEGIS BMD Block 2008................................ ........ ........ ........ 116 186 322 470 386 1,481 1,481
ABL Block 2008...................................... 11 237 256 402 582 561 366 267 2,435 2,683
BMDS Radars Block 2008.............................. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 136 102 22 261 261
STSS Blk 2008....................................... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 82 177 89 348 348
BMDS Interceptor Block 2008......................... 54 100 296 529 1,013 1,562 1,939 1,890 7,229 7,383
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................................... 65 337 572 1,134 2,145 3,146 4,862 4,409 16,268 16,669
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.
Boost Elements.--ABL will integrate new technologies to improve
performance and lethality and enhance operational suitability. We will
continue development of promising technologies for insertion into Block
2008 and beyond and design and develop a system-level ground-test
facility for ABL. We plan to test a second ABL aircraft in the Test Bed
during Block 2008.
Plans also are to develop and integrate a mobile ground-based boost
phase hit-to-kill capability into the Test Bed for flight-test
demonstration. We will initiate a space-based test bed development to
determine the feasibility of intercepting missiles from space. Initial
on-orbit testing would commence with three to five satellites in Block
2008.
Midcourse Elements.--We will conduct up to three GMD flight-tests
annually to demonstrate advanced engineering and pre-planned equipment
improvements for the boosters, interceptors, early warning and fire
control radars, and C\2\BM and communications software builds. We plan
to enhance the Aegis Weapons System AN/SPY-1 radar to improve
discrimination for engaging both unitary and separating targets. We
will assess GMD integration with the BMDS Interceptor and also test the
interceptor on board an Aegis warship.
Terminal Elements.--We will complete the development and testing of
the THAAD weapon system. We are planning up to eight developmental and
operational-type flight tests to stress interceptor, radar, and C\2\BM
performance in realistic scenarios that include advanced
countermeasures.
Sensors.--Our work will build on the initial BMDS Radar
configuration and conduct sensor research to improve capabilities and
develop advanced algorithms. We will improve Family of Radar coverage,
performance, and flexibility and address vulnerability within the
context of the overall BMD system global sensor network. STSS
operations will continue to be integrated with other BMD elements in
the Test Bed and support enhanced C\2\BM development initiatives. STSS
will demonstrate the ability to acquire, track, and discriminate
midcourse objects with space-based infrared sensors.
Block 2010
Work in this block will continue spiral development projects for
weapon and sensor improvements and platform integration. C\2\BM and
communications improvements will enable highly resolved sensor data to
be exchanged with all BMD system elements.
We are requesting $24 million in fiscal year 2004 to support RDT&E
for Block 2010. Our estimated expenditure for Block 2010 activities
across the FYDP is $4.7 billion (see Table 4).
TABLE 4.--BLOCK 2010 FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2002-09
($M then-year) \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- FYDP Totals
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fiscal fiscal
Project year year
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2002-09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEGIS BMD Block 2010................................ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 8 104 145 257 257
STSS Block 2010/2012................................ 179 55 24 44 232 565 750 1,065 2,680 2,914
BMDS Interceptor Block 2010......................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 97 146 585 974 1,803 1,803
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................................... 179 55 24 44 329 719 1,439 2,184 4,740 4,974
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.
Boost Elements.--Block 2010 activities will improve exo-atmospheric
BMDS Interceptor performance and enable greater basing mode
flexibility, to include possible adaptation to sea-based platforms. We
will develop and test an advanced space-based test bed to augment or
replace the Block 2008 space-based test bed.
Midcourse Elements.--We will continue flight-testing improved
weapon and sensor components and work toward the integration of an
advanced BMDS Interceptor. Aegis BMD will incorporate prior block
developments into the Navy-developed next-generation, open architecture
Combat System.
Terminal Elements.--THAAD will integrate proven technologies to
enhance its capability against longer range and faster ballistic
missiles without sacrificing existing mobility and performance.
Fielding and survivability upgrades also are planned to demonstrate a
capability against both IRBM and ICBM threats.
Sensors.--New technologies will be inserted into subsequent STSS
blocks to provide precise threat tracking and improved discrimination.
We will develop and launch a satellite with improved sensors integrated
into the first common satellite bus, and develop and integrate advanced
ground station equipment and software. The Block 2010 STSS will deliver
a space-based capability to acquire, track and discriminate ballistic
missiles based on larger aperture track sensors, increased vehicle
lifetime, and increased, near-real-time on-board data processing. The
funding also includes launch services for Block 2010 satellites. C\2\BM
funding focuses on integrating STSS data into the sensor net.
Mission Area Investments
Our Mission Area Investments are investments common to the entire
BMD system that enable us to implement over time our block fielding
approach. Mission Area Investments maintain core development and
testing infrastructure and facilitate the integration of future block
capabilities. The President's Budget requests $1.69 billion in fiscal
year 2004 for these investments. This program activity accounts for
about $11.3 billion, or just over 20 percent of the total funding
estimate across the FYDP. Table 5 provides a detailed breakdown of
funding for each investment activity.
TABLE 5.--MISSION AREA INVESTMENTS FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2002-09
($M then-year) \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- FYDP Totals
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fiscal fiscal
Project year year
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2002-09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Engineering.................................. 236 397 436 474 501 510 580 578 3,079 3,713
C\2\, BM & Communications........................... 16 16 119 125 178 201 204 218 1,045 1,076
Test & Targets...................................... 359 332 338 332 328 352 316 333 1,998 2,688
International Programs.............................. 211 205 148 215 129 100 89 89 769 1,185
Advanced Concepts................................... 347 176 388 418 363 437 524 534 2,664 3,187
Program Operations.................................. 232 170 264 252 283 306 317 333 1,754 2,156
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................................... 1,400 1,296 1,692 1,817 1,783 1,904 2,029 2,083 11,309 14,005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.
The significant Mission Area Investments are as follows:
System Engineering
The System Engineering activity defines, manages, and integrates
the layered BMD system. Capability-based acquisition requires continual
assessment of technical and operational alternatives at the component,
element, and system levels. Our system engineering process assesses and
determines system design and element contributions and the impact of
introducing new technologies and operational concepts to ensure
properly synthesized system blocks. These activities provide the
technical expertise, tools, and facilities to develop the BMD system
and maintain an intelligence and research capability to ensure that the
system evolves in a way that is responsive to known and anticipated
threats.
We are increasing our focus on risks related to producibility,
manufacturing, quality, cost, and schedule of the BMD system elements.
We dedicate resources to examine the applicability of technology to
system needs and transition readiness. Industrial and manufacturing
investment strategies for achieving system affordability and
facilitating insertion of successive new capabilities are increasingly
vital to the program.
Command and Control, Battle Management & Communications
(C\2\BMC)
Our activities related to C\2\BMC create interoperability among a
wide variety of legacy systems and emerging elements over joint and
coalition networks. The C\2\BMC activity will continue development and
integration of the C\2\BM and communications functions for the BMD
system. By fielding software development spirals that improve system
synergism, integration capability, and interoperability with external
systems, this activity expands the inherent C\2\BM capabilities of
fielded terminal, midcourse, and boost defenses. Communications funding
will develop and improve BMD system-wide communication links and sensor
netting functions to enable enhanced early warning and quicker
interceptor response times. The Joint National Integration Center
(JNIC) provides a common environment for the BMD elements to conduct
experiments, demonstrations, and exercises and is a key-operating
C\2\BM component of the Test Bed.
BMD Tests & Targets
The missile defense program includes significant test and
evaluation infrastructure, test execution capabilities, and analytical
tools for program-wide use. The Agency conducts risk reduction,
developmental, and operational element and component testing as well as
tests to collect critical measurements, such as plume signatures. We
also have a rigorous measurements test program to collect data in
support of design, development, and engineering activities.
Measurements from dedicated test events and targets of opportunity
enable us to design components, characterize potential countermeasures,
test algorithms, undertake lethality and kill assessment, and validate
our critical models and simulations.
Investments providing ballistic missile targets, countermeasures,
and other payloads support our test objectives. Presentation of the
targets and payloads for flight test events involves designing,
prototyping, developing, procuring, certifying, and qualifying for
testing. In fiscal year 2003 we will establish a single prime
contractor to further enhance system level management of targets and
countermeasures activities.
In fiscal year 2004 we will continue to resource critical test
facilities, launch capabilities, instrumentation, telemetry,
communications, and safety systems underpinning our testing regime.
With the enhanced realism of the Test Bed, the increasing complexity of
our tests, and the escalating tempo of test activity, our investments
in this area will emphasize flexibility, standardization, and mobility.
International Programs
The President has underscored the importance of working with other
countries to develop missile defenses and provide protection against
ballistic missile threats. We are building defensive layers that could
potentially involve a variety of locations around the globe and
probably involve many other countries. Last summer interagency teams
briefed key allies on the international participation framework. Today
we are well along in our discussions with several governments regarding
their possible participation in the missile defense program and
improvements in our industrial relationships.
Advanced Concepts
We have several Science and Technology (S&T) initiatives to
increase BMD system firepower and sensor capability and extend the
engagement battle space of terminal elements. In fiscal year 2004, we
will continue to focus on the Miniature Kill Vehicle (MKV) project,
which could lead to a flight-test in fiscal year 2005. Fiscal year 2004
funding will support investigating Early Detection and Tracking (ELDT)
technology, Laser/LADAR technologies for improved tracking, weapon
guidance, and imaging, and technologies for a space-based, high-power
laser. While our S&T activities are not on a critical path for
insertion into the BMD system, each one of them is being considered for
their block enhancement value.
Program Operations
Our Program Operations expenses are primarily for government
personnel performing management support activities, contractors that
assist in performing these activities, and O&M-like costs associated
with operations and maintenance at numerous facilities around the
country, supplies and equipment, communications and printing, travel
and training, and information technology management.
Management and Oversight
The missile defense program uses an acquisition approach tailored
to the unprecedented nature of the technology involved in missile
defense. We will continue to work very hard to ensure that the program
has adequate management and congressional oversight. There is an
improved process in place within the Department that preserves
management, technical, and financial oversight by cognizant authorities
on the Senior Executive Council and the Missile Defense Support Group.
Senior warfighters, including the Joint Requirements Oversight Council,
have reviewed missile defense objectives and will continue to do so
several times a year. Internally we have in place configuration
management procedures, and we produce on a regular basis the necessary
threat, system, and configuration control documentation to ensure that
our activities continue to support our development and fielding
objectives. As directed in the 2002 and 2003 Defense Authorization
Acts, we have identified cost, schedule, testing, and performance goals
and developmental baselines in the President's fiscal year 2004 Budget
justification materials and shown clear linkages between the Agency's
budget and key performance measures.
Closing
Mr. Chairman, we are on track with our missile defense program. We
know that the technology fundamental to the current generation of
missile defenses works. We have demonstrated many times over the past
two years that we can collide with a warhead and destroy it. We have
the confidence to proceed with plans for an initial defense capability.
A few years ago, I could not have said this to the American people.
Today I can. We will build confidence in the system over time as we
invest in the program.
We also recognize that we have much more work to do to improve the
BMD system. The architecture we have in 2004 and 2005 will probably be
very different a decade later, depending on how our RDT&E efforts
proceed. Our objective continues to be one of improving missile defense
capability over time. We have made considerable progress in missile
defense over the past three years. With the President's direction, and
with your approval of our budget request, we will take another
important step on that long road before us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OPENING STATEMENTS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General.
I apologize to my colleagues. I had some things in the way,
and I didn't call on the Senators. Senator Cochran, did you
have an opening statement?
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will
be glad to proceed to hear from Mr. Christie. I think they have
done a great job with this program, but I appreciate the
recognition.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Same with me. I'd rather hear from the
witnesses.
OPERATIONAL TESTING
Senator Stevens. Mr. Christie.
Mr. Christie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
members of the committee. I also appreciate this opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss operational test issues
involved with building a missile defense testbed that may also
have some inherent defensive capability.
Let me emphasize up front my strong support for building
this testbed as a means of conducting more realistic ballistic
missile defense testing. It will provide us with an excellent
capability to test the integrated missile defense system
against more challenging targets and under more realistic
engagement conditions. Designed to accomplish this testing
mission, this testbed will have some limited capabilities to
defend against an actual threat, depending of course on certain
assumptions about intelligence of an imminent attack and the
positioning of sensors to acquire, track, and target the
threat.
Regardless of what we call this initial collection of
equipment, communications, and personnel, the fact remains that
we must build this test capability and put it in the field
before we can test the system. Additionally, it is prudent to
develop operational concepts and to train personnel in concert
with the testbed's development so that whatever inherent
capability exists in the testing infrastructure, it could be
employed to defend the United States in the event of a
ballistic missile attack.
I understand and share the concerns raised by several
members of Congress with the precedent of fielding operational
systems without adequate operational testing. The Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) under General Kadish is proceeding with a
design and development strategy that is very proactive when it
comes to testing. My staff and I are involved on a daily basis
with the MDA and the program managers for the various ballistic
missile defense system developments. We are reviewing test
plans, participating in planning meetings, witnessing tests,
providing coordinated advice, and responding in written reports
to Congress on the adequacy of these testing programs. I have
access to all the information I need to fulfill these
responsibilities.
I have completed my assessment of the PAC-3 initial
operational test and evaluation and documented the results in a
classified beyond low rate initial production report that was
provided to the Congress last November. I have also completed
my annual assessment of the overall MDA testing programs and
submitted that report to the appropriate committee of this
Congress.
In that report I do conclude that the ground-based
midcourse defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile
Defense System (BMDS) has yet to demonstrate operational
capability. This conclusion is based on the fact that many
essential components of the GMD element have yet to be built.
We cannot test the GMD element without these critical
components and we cannot test it realistically without the
testbed.
This was illustrated recently when the exoatmospheric kill
vehicle failed to separate from the booster in Integrated
Flight Test 10. MDA subsequently restructured the flight test
program, eliminating further testing with the old booster
system. This decision considered the poor performance of the
surrogate booster system, and the risks of diverting booster
developers from the objective booster design effort, compared
with the advantages of gathering additional data from those
flight tests.
Beginning later this year and prior to the 2004 decision,
testing will resume with two flight tests for each of the
candidate boosters and a risk reduction flight for a target
launched from Kodiak in Alaska. Intercept testing will continue
in IFTs-14 and 15, using a new booster motor. This is followed
by integrated ground testing of the testbed and culminates in a
system test readiness review.
Current plans call for three more intercept flights for the
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system prior to the end of
fiscal year 2004; the first two intercepts against a non-
separating target and the last flight conducted against a
separating target. Additional flight testing beyond this point
is still in the planning stage. The purpose of the testbed is
to establish and define a baseline capability to realistically
integrate and test components of the BMDS, and to enhance
capability incrementally through block development.
The real challenge is to develop an operational concept for
using this testbed that integrates components of the BMDS as
they become available in order to evaluate the operational
capability of the system and to defend against a ballistic
missile attack, if needed. If we don't develop an operational
concept and an attack does come, then we will have failed in a
most serious way. On the other hand, if an effort to refine an
operational concept for an interim system significantly
distracts from building the objective system in an expeditious
fashion, then we risk similar failure against more
sophisticated threats down the road.
While the testbed is a research and development system,
this does not preclude us from addressing operational test and
evaluation. In fact, it is common for systems in development to
combine developmental and operational test objectives. The
testbed, including missiles, will provide us an early
opportunity to acquire valuable ground test data on intra- and
interoperability between the command and control center and the
silo/missile complex; on the system and missile health and
status built in testing capability; and on system safety,
reliability, maintainability, and logistics supportability.
Availability of this data will permit lessons learned from the
testbed to be considered in improving the objective GMD.
Every major GMD ground and flight test, both prior to and
after the 2004 testbed is available, formally addresses both
developmental testing and operational testing objectives,
consistent with the maturity level of the system. The Service
Operational Test Agencies personnel are dedicated to planning
the details of the operational test portions of these ground
and flight tests, and analyzing and reporting relevant
operational test data. My staff is working with these agencies
to define independent operational plans for the operational
test activities. I will review and approve these operation test
and evaluation plans and their associated data requirement. I
will use both developmental and operational test data as the
basis for my operational assessment in advising General Kadish
and the Defense Acquisition Executive. This assessment will
also be the basis for my annual report to the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my staff has worked
diligently with the MDA staff to build what I feel is a very
effective relationship. I will continue to work closely with
General Kadish to ensure that the mission of the testbed, as a
testbed, is kept in perspective. I will continue to monitor
planning and testing activities to ensure that we test as
realistically and as thoroughly as we can, advise the Director,
MDA of operational testing concerns, and report my assessments
of progress to the Secretary and to you.
This concludes my opening remarks and I welcome your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas P. Christie
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye and distinguished members of the
committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today and
discuss operational test issues involved with building a missile
defense testbed that may also have some limited inherent defensive
capability. Let me emphasize up front that I strongly support building
this testbed as a means of conducting more realistic ballistic missile
defense testing. It will provide us with an excellent capability to
test the integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) against
more challenging targets under more realistic engagement conditions.
Designed to accomplish this testing mission, this testbed will have
some limited capability to defend against an actual threat, depending,
of course, on certain assumptions about intelligence of an imminent
attack and the positioning of sensors to acquire, track, and target the
threat.
Regardless of what we call this initial collection of equipment,
communications, and personnel, the fact remains that we must build this
test capability and put it in the field before we can test the system.
Additionally, it is prudent to develop operational concepts and train
personnel in concert with the testbed's development, so that whatever
inherent capability exists in the testing infrastructure could be
employed to defend the United States in the event of a ballistic
missile attack.
I understand and share the concerns raised by members of Congress
with the precedent of fielding operational systems without adequate
operational testing. Let me take a moment here to discuss my assessment
of this situation.
The Missile Defense Agency under General Kadish is proceeding with
a design and development strategy that is very proactive when it comes
to testing. My staff and I are involved on a daily basis with the
Missile Defense Agency and the program managers for the Ballistic
Missile Defense System elements. We are reviewing test plans,
participating in planning meetings, witnessing tests, providing
coordinated advice, and responding in written reports to Congress on
the adequacy of the testing programs. I have access to all the
information I need to fulfill these responsibilities.
I have completed my assessment of the PAC-3 Initial Operational
Test and Evaluation test results, which is documented in a classified
Beyond Low Rate Initial Production report, provided last November to
the Congress. I have also completed my annual assessment of the MDA
testing programs and submitted the report to the appropriate committees
of the Congress. In that report, I conclude that the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense element of the BMDS in essence has not yet
demonstrated operational capability. This conclusion is based on the
fact that many essential components of the GMD element have not yet
been built. We cannot test the system without these critical
components, and we cannot test it realistically without the testbed.
This was illustrated recently, when the exoatmospheric kill vehicle
(EKV) failed to separate from the booster in Integrated Flight Test-10
or IFT-10. MDA subsequently restructured the flight test program,
eliminating further testing with the old booster system. This decision
considered the poor performance of the surrogate booster system and the
risks of diverting booster developers from the objective booster design
effort, compared with the advantages of gathering additional data from
those flight tests.
Beginning later this fiscal year and prior to the 2004 decision,
testing will resume with two test flights for each of the candidate
boosters and a risk reduction flight for a target launched from the
Kodiak target launch site in Alaska. Intercept testing will continue in
IFTs-14 and 15, using the new booster. This is followed by integration
ground testing of the testbed and culminates in a system test readiness
review.
Current plans also call for three more intercept flights for the
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system prior to the end of fiscal year
2004, with the last flight conducted against a separating threat
target. Additional flight testing beyond this point is still in the
planning stage. The purpose of the testbed is to establish and define a
baseline capability, to realistically integrate and test the components
of the BMDS, and to enhance capability incrementally, through block
development.
The real challenge is to develop an operational concept for using
the testbed that integrates components of the BMDS as they become
available, in order to evaluate the operational capability of the
system and defend against a ballistic missile attack if so needed. If
we don't develop an operational concept and an attack does come, then
we will have failed in a most serious way. On the other hand, if an
effort to refine an operational concept for an interim system
significantly distracts us from building the objective system in an
expeditious fashion, then we risk similar failure against more
sophisticated threats down the road.
While the testbed is a research and development system, this does
not preclude us from addressing operational test and evaluation issues.
In fact, it is common for systems in development to combine
developmental and operational test objectives. The testbed, including
missiles, will provide an early opportunity to acquire valuable ground
test data on intra- and interoperability between the command and
control center and the silo/missile complex; on the system and missile
health and status or built in testing capability; and on system safety,
reliability, maintainability, and logistics supportability.
Availability of this data will permit lessons learned from the testbed
to be considered in improving the objective Ground-based Midcourse
Defense system.
Every major GMD ground and flight test, both prior to and after the
2004 testbed is available, formally addresses both developmental
testing and Operational Testing objectives, consistent with the
maturity level of the system. The Service Operational Test Agencies
personnel are dedicated to planning the details of the operational test
portions of the ground and flight tests, and analyzing and reporting
relevant operational test data. My staff is working with the
Operational Test Agencies to define independent evaluation plans for
the operational test activities. I will review and approve these
Operational Test and Evaluation plans and their associated data
requirements. I will use both developmental and operational test data
as the basis for my operational assessment, in advising General Kadish
and the Defense Acquisition Executive. This assessment will be the
basis for my annual report to the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, my staff has worked diligently
with the MDA staff to build what I feel is a very effective
relationship. I will continue to work closely with General Kadish to
ensure that the mission of the testbed, as a testbed, is kept in
perspective. I am working with the Service Operational Test Agencies to
identify data requirements for an operational evaluation plan that I
will review and approve. I will continue to monitor planning and
testing activities to ensure that we test as realistically and
thoroughly as we can, advise the Director, MDA of operational testing
concerns, and report my assessments of progress to the Secretary and to
you.
This concludes my opening remarks and I welcome your questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Christie. Senator
Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I first want to congratulate both of you, General Kadish
and Mr. Christie, for a very workman-like and outstanding
performance in the duties that you have. This is a very
challenging task that we have given to you, but I think you
have demonstrated an ability to use the resources that you have
been given by the Congress and to develop tests and field some
very impressive missile defense systems. I think the
comprehensive approach is the right approach, for long-range
ballistic missile defense to shorter-range tactical challenges
that we face, and most recently in Iraq.
I would like, building on the experience we have had in
Iraq, to ask you what your assessment is of the missile systems
that we utilize to protect our troops and population centers in
the recent conflict. Could you tell us specific observations
that you have about the efficacy of the PAC group for example,
and other systems that we may have used?
General Kadish. Let me start first, Senator Cochran, and
give you some insight from where we sit on the Patriot as a
system and Patriot-3 in particular, and Mr. Christie can add to
it.
PATRIOT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
As you would expect, a lot of the data that I would like to
talk about is classified, so I will keep it in the unclassified
range. But I guess when you look at the performance right now
of Patriot as a system, which includes earlier versions of
Patriot as well as Patriot-3, I would characterize the overall
performance as very encouraging. And the reason I say it that
way is that I think it is probably more proper for us to
discuss this when the war is over and we have the chance to
look in detail at all the engagements of Patriot and Patriot-3
that occurred during the war.
Now having said that, I would like to talk about some of
the things that we really know about the engagements and some
of the things that we think we know about the engagements.
What we know about the engagements is that from a ballistic
missile standpoint, we have engaged I think nine ballistic
missiles of short range character. In addition, what we know is
we have engaged those nine targets with a combination of
Patriot-2s and 3s. And the final thing we know is that they
didn't hit their targets for one reason or another. There were
some shots that we let go because they did not threaten any
particular defended area, but overall, the performance is very
encouraging from that standpoint that we seem to have engaged
the targets successfully.
Now what we think we know enters into a lot of speculation
because of the data gathering from the war and those kinds of
things we have ongoing, and it is probably better to wait until
the end of the war and we will have some more information
coming in to make definitive statements about it.
But from every indication I have seen and from the data
available, we have a pretty good combination and capability
against these missiles, and effectively it provides a national
missile defense capability, if you will, for Kuwait and so
forth.
In addition to that, I think you know that the Israeli
system, the Arrow is working in combination with their own
Patriot-2s and are in country on that side. So overall, the
performance of Patriot, and particularly Patriot-3, which has
had two specific engagements against BDMs, has been very very
good and as expected, but there is a lot of data we have to
gather to make sure that we can stand behind those statements
based on the battlefield type of information we're getting.
But it is a major first step and kind of a microcosm of
what we are trying to do in missile defense, because I can
conclude now that if this data proves out to be as I expect,
that hit-to-kill works in combat conditions, at least against
short range missiles.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Christie, do you have any comments?
Mr. Christie. I would add a couple thoughts to that. You
have received my classified report of last fall which pointed
out some problems that we experienced in the initial
operational testing. I am heartened that it appears some of the
more serious problems encountered in the operational testing
had been addressed and fixed by the Army before the deployment.
While we cannot get into the classified aspects of Patriot
Performance, it appears to have worked quite well.
My other comment is that I am concerned about the
fratricide incidents, and of course they are under
investigation. We don't know at this point in time whether we
can blame them on Patriot or blame them on problems with the
aircraft that were engaged.
I support General Kadish's statements otherwise.
U.S. NAVY INTEGRATION IN MISSILE DEFENSE
Senator Cochran. The other day we had before the committee
the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Vern Clark, and he made
some comments about the Navy's capabilities that they were
testing and developing, that he said offered promise for I
think a midrange defense surveillance system based on cruisers.
Tell me what your assessment is now of our capabilities and the
promise that we may be able to utilize the Navy in that way.
Are you encouraged by the progress of testing programs or do
you have plans for more aggressive testing in this area to
prove these systems?
General Kadish. Yes, Senator. The Aegis system itself is
part of the testbed that we're talking about here, and the
early fielding of equipment. We are very encouraged by the SM-3
successes, which is a component of that system now. We were
three for three and planning more tests this year and next
before we actually start building more of these early missiles.
In addition to that, I will just point out again that in
the Gulf area, the U.S.S. Higgins has been providing early
warning cues to the Patriot system for these engagements, which
is again, the type of integration that we want to see between
the systems and among the systems to make them work better.
So, I am very encouraged with the Aegis BMD program and the
Navy is working very well with us to handle the operations
impact of having surveillance capability as well as potentially
a defense against medium range missiles in the 2004 time frame,
very big steps forward in that regard.
Senator Cochran. I'm only going to ask one more question
and then yield to others.
MISSILE DEFENSE TESTBED
The fact that you have made a decision to use the testbed
in Alaska as a deployed system in fact that would provide our
Nation some defense or a defense capability against ballistic
missiles is encouraging to me, and I applaud you for it, and I
want you to know you have supporters in that decision. And I
wonder, when do you think you will be able to have the first
test of that testbed, what is the timetable?
General Kadish. I think we're still nailing down some of
the details, but I think it will be in the first quarter of
calendar year 2005 is when we're planning the first integrated
test of the testbed with an intercept test. Prior to that time
we will be doing an awful lot of ground testing, integration
testing on all the equipment across the board. So if I'm not
mistaken, I think that's the target time frame.
Mr. Christie. In particular, we will be using different
geometries, firing the target from Kodiak with an intercept or
launching from Vandenberg. That would be the first time we have
gotten away from the relatively unrealistic geometries used in
testing to date with the interceptors out of Kwajalein and the
targets from Vandenberg.
General Kadish. The plan currently includes, and we're
still debating this internally, two to three tests a year out
of the testbed configuration involving intercepts, and many
more ground tests involved. And we are even starting the
planning to do multiple systems integration, where we will try
to do a test against a long-range missile and at the same time
will try to intercept a medium-range missile with Aegis and
other types of systems. So that planning is ongoing and we
haven't nailed all those things down because this is new and
quite complicated, but that's the direction we're going.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
MINIATURE KILL VEHICLE (MKV)
Senator Shelby. General, would you tell us what you can
about where the development of the miniature kill vehicle, the
MKV program currently is, and what improvements your 2004
budget request will allow you to make in this program? And just
say what you can. I understand where we are.
General Kadish. The miniature kill vehicle advanced
development is ongoing. We have an acquisition strategy to put
contractors on contract to actually build these vehicles and
start testing them. And I am very encouraged by the whole
process. In fact, we're looking even closer at how we can do
that better than where we started because of what we found out
over the past year.
And the budget request supports that effort in the overall
process, and we're looking cautiously optimistic about having
that added to the architecture in the latter part of the
decade, if we have the success that we expect.
STRATEGIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND
Senator Shelby. What about the role of the SMDC and the
Technical Center is playing in this? They are right in the
center of this, are they not?
General Kadish. That's right. The SMDC and the folks
surrounding that, particularly in the Huntsville area, have
been the key to a lot of our successes. In fact when I look
across the board, we have an awful lot of people counting on us
across the country, particularly in places like Huntsville and
others at SMDC, to make it successful. And we only have about
550 some odd days before we want to actually declare the
testbed in operational capability, and everyone is working hard
to make that work.
Senator Shelby. General, do you feel pretty confident that
the mission of the MKV is on track to meet your flight
experience test goal in 2005.
General Kadish. I do, Senator. It's not going to be easy.
Senator Shelby. Like Senator Cochran says, it's a real
challenge but, you have been meeting those challenges.
General Kadish. We have, and I'm confident in our planning
and the management approach that we're taking, it all comes
down to people in the end, and we have some good people.
Senator Shelby. General, I fully support the President's
plan to field initial BMD capabilities in 2004. Establishing
the testbed is a critical step for the ground-based missile
defense strategy. This initial BMD strategy will set the stage
as we have been talking about, for a more robust and realistic
testing of ground integration of the future layered ballistic
missile defense capability. I expect there's enormous
complexity to this program, more than complex, I guess, and
want you to succeed.
GROUND BASED MID-COURSE DEFENSE
But some of us are concerned about the health of the
ground-based midcourse defense segment. I am concerned that the
GMD segment has been used to cover other funding requirements
within the MDA, to the extent that near-term objectives are
threatened. Is the GMD segment currently facing a budget
shortfall and if so, how large?
General Kadish. Well, Senator, we always have more
requirements than we do funding. So starting from that premise,
as I look at the GMD budget, we have increased the budget over
our last year's request in the 2004 column by about $400
million. We have added some tasks to make the operational
testbed portion of this, and I would say that overall in every
program, we rebalanced and reallocated, and it was somewhere
around $400 million to $800 million that had to be readjusted,
but there is a net increase to the overall budget in GMD. And
it's a matter of prioritizing the tasks to be done, and at this
point in time, I believe our request is adequate for what we
have set out to do. However, just like any other program, if we
run into problems and we have issues that we have to use money,
we're going to have to make some tough decisions in the overall
process.
Senator Shelby. Do you believe that you will be able to
meet your deployment testing and development objectives of GMD?
General Kadish. I believe we can under the current
framework, and I will be the first to let you know if we run
short.
Senator Shelby. Yes, sir, let this committee know.
General Kadish. Yes, sir.
MDA NATIONAL TEAM
Senator Shelby. Lastly, we are concerned about the impact
of the National Team. Is it fair to say that the National Team
is central to the MDA's ability to accomplish its mission?
General Kadish. I believe it is, and we have been--there is
some misunderstanding about what I mean by the National Team.
What I mean by the National Team is it includes government,
contractors, industry members across MDA to pull together and
do the hard engineering among and between the systems. And
quite frankly, I don't know how to get the technical job done
without that kind of effort.
And we have been 14 or 15 months into it. I would like it
to be a little further downstream in terms of our ability to
solve some of the problems.
Senator Shelby. Is that your major concern?
General Kadish. I think so, it's a major concern, but you
know, from a realistic standpoint, I think we're doing about as
good as we possibly could do at this point in the process. And
by this time next year, I think we will be much better off than
we are today in that regard.
Senator Shelby. General, we appreciate the job you're doing
and the leadership that you have shown. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. I regret that I was
late, Mr. Chairman, and I request that my statement be made
part of the record.
Senator Stevens. It will be.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Today I am pleased to join our Chairman in welcoming to the
committee Lieutenant General Ronald T. Kadish, Director of the
Missile Defense Agency and Mr. Thomas Christie, Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation.
Missile defense is, of course, a program of great interest
to many, and one not without controversy. Indeed, the missile
defense program is one of the most critical national security
issues of today and for the foreseeable future.
There is no question that the ballistic missile threat
against our nation and our troops in the field will continue to
grow as technologies to develop and acquire ballistic missiles
continues to proliferate.
The question our country faces is how best to meet this
threat. The administration's plan calls for a ``layered''
defense to intercept ballistic missiles of all ranges, and in
all phases of flight to defend the United States, our allies
and friends, and our deployed forces around the world.
This is an expensive program. The fiscal year 2004 budget
request includes over $7.7 billion for the Missile Defense
Agency. It is also a complex program. Despite successes in
recent tests--and for that I commend you both--there are still
many technological hurdles to overcome.
Let me assure you, General Kadish, this committee views the
missile defense program as critically important to our national
security. And we will do our best to support your efforts.
Nevertheless, given the risks and costs of this program we will
remain ever vigilant in our oversight.
Today's hearing provides the committee an important
opportunity to understand the Department's fiscal year 2004
budget request and the priorities and challenges of the missile
defense program.
Gentlemen, we welcome your testimony.
AIRBORNE LASER (ABL)
Senator Inouye. General, can you give us an update to the
status of the airborne laser, its cost, its schedule, the so-
called weight increase, and why the funds were less for 2004
than this year?
General Kadish. Senator, the overall situation in the ABL
is that I guess I would characterize it is we are cautiously
optimistic about our ability to execute the ABL effort. We have
about 18 percent of the effort left to go if you measure it in
terms of the cost versus the tasks that we think we have to do.
So, about 80 percent done or thereabouts, with the toughest 18
percent to go.
From a cost standpoint, I believe we have enough budget to
handle the program as we currently understand it. We are
heading towards a shoot-down of a ballistic missile sometime in
the 18 to 20 month timeframe ahead of us. We're working that
schedule hard every day because when, if you look at Edwards
Air Force Base where we have all the hardware coming together,
it's all out there and we're putting it in the ground, and the
system that we have there in the carcass of a 747.
One of the things I'm looking forward to right now this
year is something we call ``first light''. That is, when we get
the laser to work in the ground-based configuration that we
have, and then we're going to put it in the airplane and do it
in the air, prior to shoot-down. If we accomplish that first
light this year, my confidence in meeting our scheduled goal of
18 to 24 months or thereabouts to do the shoot-down will go up
tremendously.
So that's what I'm looking for next, and we're having some
technical issues meeting those schedules, but I think on
balance we're doing pretty good given the technology.
There's this issue that kind of surrounds the program about
the weight of the laser modules in the airplane. Now certainly,
I would invite the committee members to go out to Edwards to
see this technical marvel, in my opinion. If you look in the
back of that 747, you can imagine how big the back of this
cargo airplane is. We fill up that cargo airplane with a lot of
plumbing and a lot of exotic material, and things that produce
this laser and the beam surrounding it.
The weight issue gets down to how heavy all this equipment
is for the overall airplane, and the fact that some of it is in
a certain part of the airplane. And you can overgross a part of
an airplane in terms of its floor weighting and that type of
thing, but not affect the overall weight of the airplane and
how it flies. So it's a complex interaction but the way I would
say it is, the weight issue is really not a problem with the
lasers, from my opinion. We know what it is.
What it affects is how long it flies; instead of 4 hours it
may be 3\1/2\ hours before refueling. And we know that it meets
the individual weight requirement for where we put it in the
airplane. So it's pretty heavy for the spot we put it in, but
it's still okay for the overall weight. Now what it means for
the long-term health of ABL is whether or not we can make the
airplane stay airborne longer from the overall operational
context, and certainly that will be desirable. But my main goal
right now, along with the many hundreds of people working that
program, is to make the laser work and shoot down a missile
with it, and the weight issue is not preventing us from doing
that and in fact is not something that we're worried about too
much for this configuration, it will be for later.
The budget request for fiscal year 2004, I think is a
little bit less than what we asked for last year, but that
reflects the fact that we want to be finished with this
particular part of the program in the fiscal year 2004 time
frame.
Now we're going to have to look at our performance on the
airplane to see whether or not we're actually going to finish
on time. As I said, we still have some uncertainty between 18
to 24 months, or when exactly that shoot-down is going to
occur. But to sum it all up, I am cautiously optimistic.
The cost issue, we potentially could overrun somewhere
between 15 to 20 percent on the program. We have enough budget
to cover the program effort and we are right on the edge of
making this very revolutionary technology to prove itself or
fail, and we just don't know the answer to that question, yet.
Senator Inouye. So we should not be too concerned about
your reduction in the request?
General Kadish. At least not right now, Senator. It's kind
of like I was telling Senator Shelby about the ground based. It
will depend on how well we can execute this year's budget for
ABL, and I think we have enough money now.
NAVY INTEGRATING, AEGIS
Senator Inouye. What is your arrangement with the Navy on
the Aegis system? There's a cruiser under your command isn't
there?
General Kadish. That's right. We needed to have a dedicated
vessel to do a lot of our testing for Aegis and in talking with
the Navy senior leadership, particularly the CNO, Admiral
Clark, we came to an arrangement where the Navy will actually
give us a cruiser to use for full-time testing. And they are
also working, having operational ships doing the mission for
the testbed that we described earlier. So we have been making
pretty good progress and we have the assets now, and we can do
the job.
Senator Inouye. So you would say you are pleased with the
agreement so far?
General Kadish. Yes, sir, very pleased.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
LASER FUNDING
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
General, I'm a little concerned about the reduction in
laser money funding too. Is there any real reason for that in
terms of, was that your decision or was that a decision of
others?
General Kadish. Well, Senator, that was done internally at
MDA and we basically made the allocation decisions I guess over
the past 6 or 8 months, and that's what you're seeing in the
final budget release. But as I said earlier, the time
difference between when we put the budget together and the
execution of the program may yield a different answer, but
right now I believe we have enough dollars to do the job. I
could get back with you later, both you and Senator Inouye,
with details of that for the record, and talk to you about it.
[The information follows:]
Airborne Laser
We were able to rephase ABL's fiscal year 2004 and fiscal
year 2005 funding between the submittals of PB03 and PB04. The
fiscal year 2004 reduction from $830 million to $610 million is
due primarily to the ``just in time'' payment schedule of the
``Green aircraft'' in fiscal year 2005 and stretching of the
iron bird funding and a better definition of the Block 2004
requirements.
MDA TESTBED, FORT GREELY
Senator Stevens. Is your Initial Operational Capability
(IOC) for Fort Greely still the same?
General Kadish. It is.
Senator Stevens. For 2004 or 2005?
General Kadish. We're heading--I have to be more precise in
order to manage the program and set goals, so our precise date
is September 30, 2004. Now recognize that date could move
depending on the problems we deal with in execution, but we are
driving the schedules to that date on balance.
Senator Stevens. And how many interceptors does that call
for at Fort Greely?
General Kadish. That's up to 10 interceptors.
Senator Stevens. Will there be any interceptors at Kodiak?
General Kadish. No, sir.
Senator Stevens. Will there be any at Vandenberg?
General Kadish. There will be four at Vandenberg and six at
Fort Greely, and then the next year we add 10 to Fort Greely.
AIRBORNE LASER
Senator Stevens. Back to the laser. Do you have a schedule
for that in terms of what its IOC is?
General Kadish. I guess the way, the sort of short answer
is no right now, because we have to actually do the
demonstration and the test before we can be confident on when
we can actually build more of those systems. But another way to
look at it is that once we have the shoot-down with the
airplane that we have today, we will have a basic capability in
that airplane if it's needed for other reasons, just like we do
with the ground-based testbed.
So, a prerequisite for me to answer that question with some
certainty is when we actually demonstrate the capability to
shoot down a missile with high energy laser from that airplane,
we could make a decision on whether or not we should proceed or
how we should proceed to build more of those systems. That
planning is ongoing now but we haven't nailed down a date. I
would assert that it would be as soon as practical if it's
successful, because it's such a big addition to the overall
architecture.
BOOST VEHICLE TESTING
Senator Stevens. Our staff tells me that the Director of
Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) fiscal year 2002 Annual
Report indicates that testing of boost vehicles thus far has
been limited to relatively low velocity intercepts, which tests
only a small portion of the threat engagement space. What's
your comment on that? Why is that?
General Kadish. That's true. This gets back to having the
test geometry that flies our targets out of Vandenberg and
intercepts the interceptors out of Kwajalein. Two years ago we
didn't know whether hit-to-kill could actually work, so what we
were trying to do with that basic test geometry is to show that
it not only can work but it can repeatedly do it in the same
geometry. We have proven that.
So it is true that the overall envelope, if you will, all
the different points that we could actually possibly intercept
an incoming missile, has not been tested. But the key element
of whether or not we could do it at all and do it reliably has
been tested in a very small part of that envelope. Now we have
models and simulations that tell us that all the other parts of
the envelope, even with that limited amount of testing, we
could be confident to some degree that this thing would work if
it was in the right place and deployed configuration.
So I think this is a natural progression, and that is why
we need the testbed, so that we could take different geometries
and plot them within the overall envelope, and then we would
have more confidence in our computer models and simulations,
even more than we do today, that it's accurate with real data.
So, we started out very legitimately with what we are
testing today, and that provides us some data but it's directed
to a very limited part of the envelope. Now we want to build a
testbed and over the next few years fill out the rest of it,
and that will give us more confidence in our operational
capabilities.
PATRIOT FRIENDLY FIRE INCIDENTS
Senator Stevens. Turning to Patriot, there have been two
instances in Iraq where the Patriot has really locked on to
friendly force equipment. It was explained to us that that was
the result of a failure of the use of proper Identification,
Friend or Foe (IFF) codes. Is that true?
General Kadish. Well, certainly that might be a
contributor, but I just don't think we know yet based on all
the things that we need to have from the investigation of that
problem. Now certainly what we call combat identification,
which these IFF codes help us with, has been a problem for
friendly fire incidents for a long time, and any system like
this has to deal with it. But I don't think we can definitively
answer that question until we get the investigation over with
and we get the ops tempo of the war to the point where we can
do even more investigation on it.
Senator Stevens. Have we ever tested the Patriot-3 against
Scuds?
General Kadish. Yes, Senator, we have, and Scud-type
materials, and we have a pretty good characterization of what
we think Patriot-3 can do against those types of threats. Going
beyond that, I would prefer to give you more classified
information on that.
PATRIOT TESTING/PERFORMANCE
Senator Stevens. I'm just interested in whether we have
really explored the full capability and envelope on what the
Patriot should be relied upon and whether there is a gap there
in terms of our basic missile defense system.
General Kadish. I would say that with the testing we've
done, we have anchored the models and simulations. I think
maybe Mr. Christie could add some comments to this, but we have
a pretty good analytical capability anchored in actual test
data on the capabilities of Patriot-3.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Christie?
Mr. Christie. As I stated earlier, we forwarded a
classified report to Congress last November which is explicit
as far as the PAC-3 system's demonstrated capabilities and
against the various threat targets, that we feel confident
about.
Senator Stevens. I'm not familiar with that report. Did you
give it to the Armed Services Committee?
Mr. Christie. That was a report sent to Congress in
November 2002, and we can certainly make sure that you get a
copy.
The report was based on the testing that was done prior to
that time, the initial operational testing for PAC-3. PAC-2 was
used during those tests also. As I stated earlier, problems
that we encountered in testing, the Army took action to clear
up. Without getting into detail, I would recommend that you
take a look at the classified report.
SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR
Senator Stevens. I will. Those are PAC-3s that are over
there now, right?
Mr. Christie. Yes. I think we have fired four.
General Kadish. We have fired four PAC-3s, but most of the
engagements have involved the PAC-2 version in the blast
fragmentation activities, so it's an integrated system, and
they've used it to good advantage. One of the reasons we're not
using only PAC-3s in my view is that we just don't have enough
of them in the initial production, and I think the PAC-2 is
handling it.
Senator Stevens. You know, I feel a little responsible for
that to a certain extent, given that we asked the question of
why it should be used solely against an incoming vehicle, I
remember that, but we asked the military to boot it up to a
PAC-2 level and now this PAC-3 level.
But I really don't totally understand the problem of
interception with a combat identification or IFF concept. Maybe
we ought to talk about that in classified session.
General Kadish. I think that would be helpful.
Senator Stevens. Why don't we do that, and I want to ask is
whether that's a defect in the system or a defect in the
application of the system.
General Kadish. I think it may be both, it could possibly
be both.
Mr. Christie. There are investigations underway into each
of the three incidents. I think we should wait until they are
complete before we begin jumping to conclusions as to where the
fault lies.
Senator Stevens. You talked before about this in terms of
the sea-based X-band radar concept. Where does that stand now
and where is the platform?
General Kadish. The sea-based approach is ongoing and they
are doing the engineering and naval architecture and everything
they need to do to build that radar. I believe the platform is
about ready to be brought to the United States for construction
and modification, and we're on the verge of doing that.
Senator Stevens. What's the time frame on that?
General Kadish. I believe that's imminent. I would have to
get you the exact date for the record.
[The information follows:]
Sea-based X-Band Radar
The SBX platform departed Sandefjord, Norway, under tugboat
power, on April 25, 2003. It arrived in Brownsville, Texas, on
May 30, 2003.
Senator Stevens. This has been significantly accelerated,
as I understand it; is that right?
General Kadish. I'm not sure it's accelerated, but it's an
aggressive plan that we had to build this radar. The platform,
we were planning on doing it by September 2005, have it in the
testbed and part of the test for architecture.
Senator Stevens. Is that going to be added or part now of
the ground-based midcourse defense system?
General Kadish. From a testbed standpoint, yes, and then we
will have to decide whether or not it can contribute from an
operational standpoint.
Senator Stevens. Is it planned to move that to various
portions of the world to test it?
General Kadish. There is a plan to move it all around the
Pacific, to be a part of the tests that we have been describing
here. And that's important, because that also has an envelope
that we have to characterize. And the disadvantage we have now
with the radar we have in Kwajalein is that it's out of place,
it's too far back in the trajectory. And these radars are
rather huge, this is a 5 million pound radar, the construct
it's going to sit on. And the advantage we have is that we can
move it around the Pacific, we don't have to place it on land
somewhere, and then do the types of trajectory tests that we
need to do. So it's key from that standpoint.
Senator Stevens. I hate to tell you, General, but my mind
goes back to the films my son showed me when he was the captain
of a king crab boat, a 170-footer, in the Pacific facing 30-
foot seas. I hope your people are nautical enough to know what
you're doing to put that kind of a weight on a barge and trying
to move it around the North Pacific.
General Kadish. That's something we're paying a lot of
attention to, Senator. The last thing we want to do is
jeopardize that type of an asset. We appear, and I have good
confidence in the naval architects that are doing this and all
the contractors involved, and I have seen the data on the 100-
year wave type of activity, and operationally I don't envision
we would be putting it in that kind of harm's way unless we
absolutely had to.
Senator Stevens. Well, respectfully, I don't think you can
tell you which direction they are going to come from out there.
That earthquake that hit Hawaii put a tidal wave up our inlet,
and it came across the sea as a 60-foot wave. Anything that was
even anchored on shore in either Hawaii or Alaska was destroyed
and a cruise ship. I really seriously question putting that
kind of equipment--it's going to be on a platform, it's going
to be barge-operated, isn't it, pulled by a barge?
General Kadish. No, it has its own power.
Senator Stevens. It's self-propelled? What's its dimension,
do you remember, how wide is it?
General Kadish. I would have to get the actual numbers for
the record but I think it's got, the platform on top is at
least 300 yards wide.
[The information follows:]
Sea-based X-Band Radar
The SBX platform is self-propelled, and when complete it
will be able to travel at a maximum rate of approximately 10
knots. Normal transit speed will be approximately 7 knots. The
Moss CS-50 platform is 238 feet across at its beam and 389 feet
long. It is 137 feet tall, from its keel to the main deck.
Senator Stevens. So it's self-propelled and 300 yards wide?
General Kadish. This type platform operates in the North
Sea today doing oil drilling, so it's designed to be
stationary.
Senator Stevens. I've seen it; in fact, it's Norwegian.
General Kadish. That's right.
Senator Stevens. It has a drilling rig on it, it didn't
have that kind of weight on it. Well, I'm not going to belabor
it, but I have serious questions in terms of, you know, the
shores of Alaska are just loaded with barges which got struck
broadside by a wave.
General Kadish. I understand, and we're taking those
concerns to heart, Senator.
MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS)
Senator Stevens. With regard to the MEADS concept, this is
an international program now with Germany and Italy, correct?
General Kadish. That's correct, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Last year we transferred that program to
MDA and this budget transfers it back. Is this going to be a
ping pong game? Why is it coming back within 1 year?
General Kadish. Well, I think there are a couple reasons
for that. One is that the basis of the MEADS program is the
PAC-3 missile. As a key component we decided to make that
particular weapons system, and overall it is an international
practical system designed to take a PAC-3 missile and make the
radars and the mobility of this system fit our operating style
for the next decade. It is fundamentally an air defense system
with a ballistic missile defense capability, basically what
Patriot is today.
And so that combination, along with the fact that we're
using the Patriot-3 missile which we basically developed
already, makes sense to put it under the management of the
United States Army as an integrated system, within Patriot, and
have a transition from Patriot to a MEADS type of configuration
over time. And we discussed this long and hard within the
Department, and the overall conclusion is that this is a better
way to manage the program and I think you will see management
or program improvements as a result of this process. And from
an overall funding perspective, it makes sense to integrate
these programs within the Army, and that's why you see it
coming back into the Army line.
It is more than just budget, it is how we manage the
program. Now, we will still have partnership with the Army over
its integration into the overall missile defense system and
we're working that management linkage today. But fundamentally
it needs to be an air defense and ballistic missile defense
integrated system, which is best managed with the Army handling
those issues. I don't know if you wanted to add anything.
Mr. Christie. No, I agree with that. In fact, we just had a
review of the program, I guess Monday morning, at which these
issues were aired in support of the decision to transfer the
overall management responsibility to the Army because of the
considerations that General Kadish has outlined here.
Senator Stevens. Have the current problems we have with
Germany and Italy at all affected this program?
General Kadish. I think actually we're coming to the end of
what we call the Program Definition and Risk Reduction (PDRR)
phase, the research and development stage of this program,
getting ready to negotiate the next section of the
international agreement. And I think overall, they haven't
affected the execution of the present program in the process.
Now we may need some adjustments as we go forward into the next
phase of the program.
Senator Stevens. This will require a contribution from all
three countries to affect this newest phase?
General Kadish. That would be the hope, yes, Senator, so we
can share some of the development costs with the partners that
are enrolled. If I recall correctly, I think the cost share is
somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 percent for our partners
and 55 percent for us, so if we can really make this
relationship work, we get a better deal from the overall
cooperative program.
MDA TESTBED--KODIAK
Senator Stevens. This is my last question. You made a
comment about the Kodiak phase of this, that there would be no
interceptors there, just the missiles to be tested, right?
General Kadish. Targets.
Senator Stevens. The target missiles; is that right?
General Kadish. That's the current plan.
Senator Stevens. Have you put a schedule out for that, so
we will know in advance how many of those will be tested there?
General Kadish. I think we're working on the next 2 years,
and we will get you that information.
[The information follows:]
Kodiak Targets Schedule
Over the next two years, our current plan shows two tests
using the Kodiak Launch Complex. A STARS target launch
conducted as part of a GMD Integrated Flight Test in the 1st
Qtr fiscal year 2004 and a STARS target launch conducted as
part of a GMD Risk Reduction Flight in the 4th Qtr fiscal year
2004. On the first test the target will fly a trajectory
towards Kwajalein. The second test will include a target flying
a trajectory toward the open ocean area west of Vandenberg AFB.
Senator Stevens. I was just wondering, how far out is it
going, 2 years?
General Kadish. Right now we're working on the next 2 years
with the follow-on program right after that.
Senator Stevens. That's fiscal year 2004?
General Kadish. Fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and then we
will work on the next 2-year process as soon as we get that.
Senator Stevens. Again, I congratulate you. I share Senator
Cochran's point of view that utilizing the testbed concept and
having some missiles available, due to the tensions that exist
in the North Pacific, is a very wise course to be on, and I
congratulate you for it. You were ahead of the curve on that
one.
Certainly with some of the developments taking place over
there now, I just told Senator Inouye, I went home and talked
to them about some of the things that have been going on, and
our people are very worried about what's going on in North
Korea, and we have every reason to worry about it.
But we look forward to perhaps getting a schedule,
gentlemen, if you wish, right after we come back, if we could
have a classified session, no hearing, just session where you
might talk to the people here who are really concerned about
the security phase of this, I would appreciate it.
General Kadish. I would be more than happy to, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran, further questions?
THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AIR DEFENSE (THAAD)
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I do have a
couple more questions. One is about the theater high altitude
air defense program, which seemed to have gotten off to a
pretty fast start, and there was some sense of urgency
following the Gulf War that we needed this system. But it seems
that it slowed down, and a fairly low risk schedule at this
point seems to characterize the program. I wonder what your
plans are for your next intercept test. I understand it's not
scheduled until fiscal year 2005. Is that going to be a program
that's going to go slower rather than faster?
General Kadish. I think, if I may take a crack at that
first, I think some of the lessons we learned from that in what
we call the PDRR phase in the latter part of the nineties, we
took it to heart and as you know, the last two intercepts were
very successful, gave us great confidence in proceeding with
THAAD and the program.
The program we put together basically redesigned the
missile and the processes involved within THAAD as well as some
of the radar work to get a much more capable system than what
we had been working on, even in the PDRR phase.
That flight test program was laid up, I guess we started
that in the 2000 time frame, and we have been working real hard
on that. And the first flight tests are still scheduled for
late 2004, early 2005, with the first two tests of the missile
being a non-intercept test.
And we believe that is exactly the right development
approach for us to take and there are two reasons for that. One
is that we're doing extensive ground testing right now at the
component level so that we can wring out the quality and design
flaws at the component level before we assemble them and then
test them in these first two or three flight tests. The second
reason why I think that's important is that if we are
successful in doing what I just described, that I would have
high confidence that our early intercept tests would all be
successful. And under those conditions, we could move faster
with the balance of the program than if we had failures in the
overall sequence.
So, I'm expecting now that we are about 30 percent and
climbing complete, almost 40 percent overall finished with this
design phase, that we will have done the job that I described
and we will set the foundation for success and that in the end,
we will have made THAAD in a deployed configuration sooner than
if he had tried to go faster. And I know that has been a major
debate, but only time will tell if we were right about that.
Mr. Christie. I totally agree with that. I think we learned
some harsh lessons, and in fact that's where the term rush to
failure was coined in the description of some of the activities
that we had underway in THAAD. As General Kadish says, we have
backed up and are doing some component testing which have been
successful recently, walking before we run and doing this
right, so when we get to the actual flight tests of the system
next year, the latter part of next year, we will have
confidence and we will not encounter some of the problems that
we had before.
SPACE TRACKING SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (STSS)
General Kadish. And I would add one thing. If we add those
successes early on, we will find it's taking major risks if we
accelerate, and we feel that it is adequate.
Senator Cochran. Last year you restructured the Space Based
InfraRed System (SBIRS) low program and renamed it STSS. What
does that stand for?
General Kadish. Space tracking and surveillance system.
Senator Cochran. My question is, it seems to be a less
ambitious program than the earlier version. Do you still think
that you need to have these advanced tracking systems deployed
in space, or are you rethinking that entirely?
General Kadish. I know we're rethinking the combination of
sensors we have without the treaty now. We want to make sure
that we have the best combination of sensors, and there is a
major debate inside the community, if you will, over whether we
should have space sensors or land-based or terrestrial-based
radars, or a combination of things based on affordability
reasons and a whole host of other catch phrases. In my view,
that debate is not resolved yet, and the STSS program that we
put together is designed to get us more data than just view
graphs to base the decision on, and it is important for us to
proceed in that regard.
So, we are rethinking the overall sensor requirements for a
system without treaty restriction. What I see today does not
dissuade me that we do not need to do--I should probably say
that I am persuaded that the track we're on is the right track,
and we need to get these systems better understood. And a
fundamental issue around STSS is whether the long-wave infrared
is the appropriate technology to use for that satellite, and we
will answer that question with the STSS program.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye?
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
MISSILE DEFENSE COUNTERMEASURES
Mr. Christie, some of the critics have suggested that very
inexpensive countermeasures such as balloons or chaff can foil
our very expensive missile defense systems. Are we testing more
complex countermeasures and decoys?
Mr. Christie. As we go on with our flight tests, yes, we
will, you know, address more complex countermeasures than we
have in the past. You know, one has to step back and think, do
these complex countermeasures, we have a difficult time
building them ourselves, and we have to wonder what kinds of
capabilities are really going to be there with the enemy's
system. But yes, we do plan to get into more complex, more
difficult countermeasures.
We, again, in the program or test flights that we've had to
date, we were trying to demonstrate primarily the hit-to-kill
capability, and we were using simple countermeasures to get
some idea about the ability of the seeker to discriminate. And
again, that was walk before you run, so some of the criticisms
I think have been misplaced. You can't just jump in with a
massive countermeasure to defeat the purpose of your original
test, which was more technology oriented. But as we go along
with our flight tests, our present plan is to increase the
complexity of the systems that we are targeting, yes.
MDA TEST SCHEDULE
Senator Inouye. So you're satisfied with your testing
schedule?
Mr. Christie. Well, as a tester, one would always want to
test more, but I understand and support the concepts of the
plan that we have underway right now, and I think it's so
important that we get this testbed in place in order to
overcome some of the artificialities that we have had in our
testing to date, which the critics have jumped on. This testbed
will permit us to do far more realistic testing, not just in
the context of countermeasures, but geometries, velocities that
we talked about, crossing angles and other parameters that we
need to be looking at in a more realistic fashion.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Inouye. Like my colleagues, I would like to tell
you that I am very satisfied with the work your agency is
doing, and I for one will be in favor of keeping your roles.
But, as you know, my friend from Alaska and I do live in the
Pacific, and we do get a little edgy once in a while. Thank
you.
Senator Stevens. Any more questions, Senator?
Senator Cochran. No, sir.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Ronald T. Kadish
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
AGGRESSIVE TESTING SCHEDULE
Question. Thomas P. Christie, Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation for the U.S. Department of Defense, cited the past tests
lacked realistic positioned midcourse sensor to track incoming enemy
missiles and variety in test intercept locations, and asserts more
stringent and improved testing procedures are needed to ensure the
success of the program.
Can you confirm that we have in fact embarked on an aggressive
testing schedule that adequately addresses the real world intercept and
decoy scenarios a missile defense system may face?
Answer. Yes, I can confirm that both the ground and flight testing
that is planned for the BMDS system and its elements are aggressive and
build in complexity, to include more realistic test geometries and more
sophisticated countermeasures. One of the characteristics of the
capabilities based approach is to take manageable steps toward the
objective system, while learning how to improve performance and expand
coverage based on its performance during earlier block testing. This is
particularly important in and evolving threat environment.
AVAILABILITY OF A MATURE EFFECTIVE BMDS
Question. At our current rate of testing and development, when do
you think we will have the technological maturity to fully field an
effective missile defense system?
Answer. Since the state of threat technology continues to progress,
we will have to continually improve BMDS performance and verify new
capabilities through testing. This will include conducting tests
against new, more challenging targets, and associated countermeasures.
In this respect, technological maturation will continue even after full
fielding is realized. If we successfully complete testing that is
currently scheduled, I believe that we will improve the BMDS and, more
importantly, our confidence in its performance, so that by the end of
the decade we will have a well-characterized capability that can be
relied upon. It is more difficult to predict whether or not
countermeasures designed to defeat the BMDS will keep pace with
development.
BOOSTER ENHANCEMENTS FOR AEGIS
Question. Before deployment, the Sea and Ground Based Mid-Course
segment will need to improve the effectiveness of the Standard Missile-
3 (SM-3) to intercept ICBMs during the ascent phase of mid-course
flight. To achieve this, the current SM-3 will need to be larger and
faster than the current model used for testing.
Is the improved SM-3 ready for testing?
Answer. Because the Block 04 Aegis BMD is not intended to engage
ICBMs, only SRBMs and MRBMs, no propulsion improvements to the SM-3
missile are currently planned. Consequently, readiness for testing
becomes moot.
NO AEGIS BOOST PHASE CAPABILITY IN BLOCK 04
Question. If not, will any delay dramatically affect the
capabilities of the Block 04 system the administration is looking to
deploy?
Answer. The lack of an enhanced booster for the Aegis BMD system
will not affect the capabilities of the Block 04 system. The role of
Aegis in the Block 04 system will be to provide engagement capability
against SRBMs and MRBMs, surveillance and tracking of long-range
targets, automatic search and acquisition of a target from a cue
provided by an external sensor, and limited ship self defense. The
target cue provided by Aegis will be used by the Ground-based Midcourse
element of the Testbed to launch ground-based interceptors at the
threat. Subsequent block development will include the enhancements to
the Aegis Weapon System for IRBM capability.
Question. The 2004 missile defense budget is seeking $7.7 million
for RDT&E (research, development, test and evaluation).
Given the high costs that have already been projected for RDT&E,
based upon current research and success, what do you estimate the
complete layered system will cost?
Answer. As directed by the President, we have a near-term
architecture for a limited missile defense system. A capabilities-based
architecture provides the flexibility to evolve the system over time in
response to changes in threat and technology. Fielding opportunities
occur throughout the development, starting with Block 2004. The cost of
a ``complete'' system is unknowable at this time because the threat we
may have to counter is unknowable. We're embarking on an affordable R&D
program that fields modest capabilities in fiscal year 2004 and then
improves them over time to keep pace with an evolving threat.
Question. The completed ballistic missile defense system will need
to be an overlapping system-of-systems that is reliable, robust,
capable of incorporating up-grade features as their feasibility is
demonstrated, and able to engage threats at each stage of their
employment-boost phase, midcourse, and terminal. The President
requested to have a missile defense system in place by fiscal year 2004
and the implementation of a final overlapping system-of-systems by
fiscal year 2010.
Based on the current success of the program, do you believe that
this milestone will be met?
Answer. We have an aggressive RDT&E program that is on track to
develop a set of missile defense capabilities for initial defensive
operations in fiscal year 2004. Our recent testing and analysis gives
us confidence in responding to the President's December direction to
deploy an initial capability, and we will continue robust RDT&E to
build on that initial capability in an evolutionary manner to keep pace
with emerging threats and technological advances.
Question. In the fiscal year 2004 budget request, there was a
request for an exemption of further operational testing of the
ballistic missile defense system. In March, the Undersecretary of
Defense, Edward Aldridge announced, ``It was not our intent to waive
operational testing.''
If the intent was not to exempt testing prior to fielding the
weapon system, what was the purpose of the exemption request?
Answer. The question refers to proposed section 8061, which read in
full:
``Sec. 8061. Funds available to the Department of Defense under the
heading, `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide' may
be used to develop and field an initial set of missile defense
capabilities, and such fielding shall be considered to be system
development and demonstration for purposes of any law governing the
development and production of a major defense acquisition program. The
initial set of missile defense capabilities is defined as `Block 04'
Ballistic Missile Defense system fielded in fiscal year 2004 and 2005.
Subsequent blocks of missile defense capabilities shall be subject to
existing laws governing development and production of major defense
acquisition programs.''
This was not drafted to waive operational testing, as the fielded
developmental items will continue to be tested. However, we understand
concerns that the language ``and such fielding shall be considered to
be system development and demonstration for purposes of any law'' would
have that effect, and agree to delete it and all that follows.
Question. Does testing under the guidelines of the Director of
Operational Testing and Evaluation negatively impact the program?
Answer. No, the program is not negatively impacted by DOT&E testing
guidelines. MDA and DOT&E have established an effective working
relationship. DOT&E is a member of the Missile Defense Support Group
and provides testing advice to the Director, MDA and to USD (AT&L).
Additionally, DOT&E produces a congressionally directed annual report
on the status and effectiveness of the MDA test program.
Question. What is the current MDA position on this request?
Answer. MDA supports striking all after ``capabilities'', so that
Sec. 8061 will read as follows: ``Funds available to the Department of
Defense under the heading, `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Defense-Wide' may be used to develop and field an initial set of
missile defense capabilities.''
______
Questions Submitted to Thomas P. Christie
Question Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Question. Is the Theater High Altitude Area Defense program
experiencing a shortfall in funding that will delay the program's
progress? If so, please explain your plan to remedy the situation.
Answer. The THAAD program is not experiencing a shortfall in
funding that would delay the program's progress. The THAAD element just
completed a program re-plan that provides for the most efficient use of
resources, the most effective program schedule, and realigns the flight
tests for a balanced program. The program is progressing well in Block
04 and executing on plan to initiate Block 04 flight-testing with first
flight in 4QFY 2004, followed by four additional flight tests to be
conducted before the end of Block 04 (December 2005). The THAAD program
is currently engaged in intensive piece part, assembly, and component
ground testing to assure Block 04 flight test success.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. Mr. Christie, in your statement, you mentioned your
initial assessment (annual review) concluding the GMD (Ground-based
Midcourse Defense) element of the BMDS has not yet demonstrated
operational capability is based on the fact that many essential
components of the GMD element have not yet been built.
What are these components?
Answer. Booster motors, sea-based radar (x-band), missile silo
complex at Fort Greely and Vandenberg.
Question. Are any of these components scheduled for procurement at
a later block?
Answer. Booster motors.--Booster motors that are currently under
development will be used for the Block 2004 Test Bed and initial
defensive operational capability. Testing of the OSC and BV+ boosters
is a high priority for MDA, and there will be four flight tests (two
booster verification flights and two integrated flight tests with
simulated intercepts) during the rest of this fiscal year.
SBX.--The SBX is planned to be added to Block 2004 at the end of
2005.
Missile silo complex at Fort Greely and VAFB.--The silos at Fort
Greely are currently under construction as part of the Block 2004
initial GMD parts of the BMDS Test Bed and IDO capability. The
additional silos at VAFB will be renovated to support Block 2004 IDO.
Question. When should we expect the essential components to be
fielded?
Answer. Booster motors.--Booster motors will be fielded in the
initial defensive operational capability no later than September 30,
2004.
SBX.--The SBX is planned to be added to Block 2004 at the end of
2005.
Missile silo complex at Fort Greely and VAFB.--Six silos at Fort
Greely and four at VAFB will be a part of the initial defensive
operations capability fielded in 2004.
Question. When will the MDS be accurately tested for operational
capability?
Answer. With the President's decision to field an initial set of
missile defense capabilities, we now have a clear, basic, near-term
architecture for a limited system to address a range of missile
threats. The initial testbed will be used to test maturing BMD systems
as they become available to evaluate the operational capability of the
system.
Current testing of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Element
developmental prototype is structured as combined Developmental
Testing/Operational Testing (DT/OT), occurring in a Combined Test Force
(CTF) environment. A CTF environment brings together developmental and
operational testers from both the prime contractor team and the
government in a common forum to plan and execute all testing in
accordance with combined DT and OT objectives to the maximum extent
practicable. Because GMD is an evolutionary development, at designated
intervals this process culminates in BMD Elements characterization,
performed by the Operational Test Agencies (OTAs), i.e., Army Test and
Evaluation Command (ATEC), Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation
Center (AFOTEC), and Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC).
The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Program has a Memorandum of
Agreement with Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force
(COMOPTEVFOR), the Navy's OTA, to participate in the planning and
observe all Aegis BMD Block 04 testing. Within 60 days of the
conclusion of each test, COMOPTEVFOR provides a ``Letter of
Observation'' which provides formal OTA feedback regarding system
performance to the Program Director, Aegis BMD. COMOPTEVFOR's
recommendations are then considered and, if possible, implemented in
subsequent testing. Flight Mission 9, which is currently the last test
of the Aegis BMD Block 04 program, is currently being planned as a
combined DT/OT in that COMOPTEVFOR will conduct a formal Operational
Assessment of the system.
Current planning efforts for Initial Defensive Operations (IDO),
scheduled to be in place on September 30, 2004, include the
identification of test objectives based upon element interoperability;
Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communication (C\2\BMC);
Engagement sequences, and Warfighter operational control issues. These
will be overlayed onto GMD and Aegis BMD element tests scheduled
between now and IDO that will afford an opportunity for an operational
assessment of BMDS Initial Defensive Capability (IDC). Tests will be
conducted in the BMDS Test Bed with operational configurations and user
participation.
Question. Mr. Christie, if the initial fielding of the BMDS is to
develop a testbed for further research and not employ an actual defense
system, wouldn't it be more cost effective to complete the testing
under the initial fielding, with minimum missiles, than to field the
budget request and have to go back later to retrofit?
Answer. Before the President's December decision to deploy a
missile defense, the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget reflected the
development of a set of test bed capabilities that could be made
operational. The fiscal year 2004 President's Budget I, based on the
President's direction, asks Congress to authorize and appropriate funds
to allow us to add to this test bed and make it operational in 2004.
Therefore, instead of building a test bed that might be used
operationally, we are fielding an initial defensive capability that we
will continue to test.
There is tremendous benefit to fielding this unprecedented
technology, in manageable increments, to provide some defense, to learn
more about it, gain experience with it, and improve it over time. To
achieve this benefit for MDA and our warfighters, we must have the
assets and infrastructure in the field if we are going to begin to test
the system under operationally realistic conditions. If we do not have
the weapons and sensors fielded at operationally useful locations, we
cannot realize these benefits and ensure the integrated system works in
a useful manner for our military.
Additionally, there is historical precedence in this approach as
evidenced with development of our first reconnaissance satellites and
land- and sea-based ballistic missiles. Urgent national security
requirements pressed us to deploy capability soon, and through trial
and error we did. The parallels between these pioneering programs and
the missile defense program are clear.
Our test bed evolutionary approach to initial defensive capability
is rational from a cost standpoint as well. We do not now have adequate
understanding of our long-term architecture to submit a budget for many
tens of billions of dollars, and we don't need to submit such a budget
to achieve our goals in the interim. We are able to purchase and field
capabilities in small numbers and this approach will allow us to
control costs and mitigate the requirement for retrofitting.
Finally, we have to strike a balance between our desire for
perfection in missile defenses that we deploy, and our desire to have,
as soon as possible, some defensive capability where none exists today.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General Kadish and
Mr. Christie. We appreciate you being with us this morning and
look forward to you talking to us after the recess.
The subcommittee will next meet on April 30 for the defense
medical program hearing. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., Wednesday, April 9, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
April 30.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 11 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens and Inouye.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Medical Programs
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES B. PEAKE, SURGEON
GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Just to advise the chairman of the
committee, I have just been advised Chairman Stevens is at the
White House meeting with the President. He will be slightly
delayed, so in his behalf I'd like to welcome you to our
hearing this morning to review the Department of Defense (DOD)
medical programs, facilities and the health program.
As you know, under the chairman's leadership, this
subcommittee has a long history of supporting and protecting
the medical needs of our military. As our soldiers, Marines,
airmen, and sailors are deployed in harm's way, our military
health system is vitally important. We have all been captivated
by the scenes displayed on television 24 hours a day, enabling
the public to witness our military in action.
What we do not see is the entire force health protection.
Our military health care covers all the bases from the TRICARE
program, medical treatment facilities, predeployment physicals,
medics and field hospitals to the continued monitoring of our
military personnel in the field and after they return. These
all are essential pieces to the health of our military.
Over 24,000 medical personnel have been deployed in support
of Operation Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom. Unfortunately, the services have been granted limited
authority to backfill those positions, and cannot afford to
contract all the additional support that is needed. In order to
address some of these shortfalls, Congress provided additional
funding in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations for
the medical treatment facilities and care for the service
members and their families at home.
At this morning's hearing, I hope the committee will hear
how the fiscal year 2004 budget request addresses our medical
treatment facilities, and our medical care, and how we do deal
with the potential gap in resources if the current OPTEMPO
remains as high during fiscal year 2004. And so we look forward
to a frank and open discussion this morning with our panels.
In particular, we will want to look into the status of the
next generation contracts for TRICARE, our force health
protection system, optimization, and the rising costs of health
care, among others. I'd like to thank our chairman for
continuing to hold hearings on these issues, which are very
important to our military and their families.
If I may, I'd like to call upon the first witness,
Lieutenant General James Peake, Surgeon General for the United
States Army.
General Peake. It is an honor to represent Army medicine
before you today. Once again, it is the support of this
committee that it has given to the care of soldiers and their
families, support of the committee for military medical
infrastructure to train the medical force, their research over
an extended period of time that really has allowed us to field
items like advanced skin protectant, or chem/bio protective
systems for medical units, or vaccines to protect the soldiers,
or for hemostatic dressings.
That support has paid off for the men and women injured and
wounded in the service to their nation. Wounded soldiers have
been treated far forward with surgical teams that we really
didn't have during Desert Shield, Desert Storm. They moved
rapidly back through our combat support hospitals, now
modularly configured hospitals. They flew back on Blackhawk
medevac helicopter fleet, not the old UH-1s, military
helicopters, including the UH60 Limas with specially designed
patient care compartments facilitating in route care.
Our soldiers have been strategically evacuated with
critical care teams back to Landstuhl or Rota. I had the honor
of pinning a Purple Heart on one of our noncommissioned
officers at the burn unit at Fort Sam Houston last week. Both
arms were outstretched with fresh skin grafts. The burns on his
face were extensive and covered with silvadene cream which had
its genesis from the burn research unit in years past.
He told me about each of his men, and he told me about the
tremendous care that he received as he and they moved back from
the theater of operations on Army hospitals on the U.S.N.S.
Comfort back to Landstuhl, and at the burn unit.
I can tell you that the soldiers with me that were taking
care of him stood taller as he related the story to us.
That burn unit is another story. It is an institute for
surgical research working not only on burns, but on the
physiology of injury. It is where some of the work on
hemostatic bandages is going on now, where we have done key
studies on orthopedic consequences of land mines. There they
deal with trauma every day as part of the Trauma Consortium in
San Antonio. It is commanded by Colonel John Holcomb, a trauma
surgeon with our special operations forces in Somalia during
Blackhawk Down.
The issue is key people at the right places who understand
not only the environment in which we work, but the bonds of
soldiers in combat. Key people in the right places like the
Ranger doc whose hand of Private First Class (PFC) Lynch would
not let go of during her rescue, medics at the tip of the
spear.
At Walter Reed, our land mine center of excellence is a
strong partnership with the Veterans Administration as we look
at the long-term care and leveraging the very best care across
the country. As we do all of this, military medicine is
resetting the TRICARE contract, looking to improve the service
we give with fewer regions, with some functions returning to
the direct care system in 2004 with the national pharmacy
coverage, to improve portability and all of that is important
to taking care of our soldiers, but also in keeping a full and
rewarding practice for those doctors that are in Iraq today
taking care of patients.
It is fundamental to our medical readiness and medical
retention. Our joint training programs at places like Walter
Reed and Wilford Hall and San Diego are the force generators of
our medical force of the future. The care we give in such
places as the 121 Hospital in Korea or Fort Irwin or Fort Polk
or on a distant battlefield is linked to the quality base that
those centers provide.
As always, this committee's support for keeping the full
spectrum of military medicine of a quality befitting our
soldiers, sir, and their families, is appreciated by all of us
here and by those across the world serving our Nation.
Things as important and as big as the things we talked
about, things as important as being able to purchase clothing
for our soldiers as they are evacuated back from military
treatment facilities or the authority recently authorized in
the supplemental in that allow military families to see their
patients that are in military treatment facilities (MTFs), and
for us to be able to facilitate that. And so for the little
things, sir, and the big things, we thank you for your support
and the chance to be with you today.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, General Peake. May I
now call on Vice Admiral Michael Cowan, Surgeon General of the
Navy.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General James B. Peake
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Lieutenant General
James B. Peake. I thank you for this opportunity to appear again in
front of your committee. This is my third time before you as the Army
Surgeon General and each time it has been a different environment of
challenges. Each has underscored the importance of Army Medicine
specifically and military medicine in general.
All around the world, Army medical personnel are serving in
splendid fashion to carry out our mission of supporting America's Army
as it defends freedom.
That a soldier could be severely wounded in Afghanistan on a Monday
and on Saturday night be at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in
Washington, D.C., telling me of his care at the forward surgical team
in Afghanistan, his movement to the combat support hospital in
Uzbekistan; the transit through the Air Force facility at Incerlick,
Turkey, and the operation he got at Landstuhl, Germany--all in less
than a week--is nothing short of miraculous.
The Army fighting for freedom in Iraq has confidence in its medical
support. While we help carry out national policy in that arena, we also
carry on other missions. We are providing quality medical assistance in
over 20 countries today. Medics are helping keep the peace in the
Balkans, standing guard in Korea and Europe, supporting anti-terrorist
efforts in the Philippines, training on medical assistance missions in
Central America and supporting assistance missions in Africa.
We made visible progress in the past year transforming our field
medics into the new 91W Healthcare Specialist Military Occupational
Specialty. I am frankly excited at the increase in emphasis on medical
skills that can mean the difference between life and death for a
soldier on the battlefield.
To continue this success between the garrison and field units is
paramount. Visiting the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii, I walked the
lanes for combined Expert Infantry and Expert Field Medical Badge
testing. It reaffirms the unique link that we in the Army Medical
Department (AMEDD) have with those who close with and destroy the
enemy, and underscores the need to hone medical skills as we are doing
with the 91W program.
This marriage between garrison and field operations is also where
we need to go for the longitudinal, digital record of patient care. We
are not where we need to be, but we have an exciting axis of advance
with CHCS (Composite Health Care System) II and the linkage with the
corresponding theater system, CHCS II (T). I am anxious to see the
Stryker Brigade at Fort Lewis demonstrate the use of the hand held
input devices at the level of the medic, in garrison or in the field.
This device digitizes the key information of the patient encounter at
the first level of care and will follow that patient, ensuring that
vital information is archived and longitudinally available, to enhance
his or her care wherever in our system he receives his follow on care.
Resourcing this transformational process will create the model for
health care across the nation.
We have transformed 28 percent of Corps and Echelon Above Corps
medical force structure through the Medical Reengineering Initiative
(MRI). The transformed units promote scalability through easily
tailored capabilities-based packages that result in improved tactical
mobility, a reduced footprint and an increased modularity for flexible
task organization.
MRI supports the Army Legacy and Interim Forces and is the
organizational ``bridge'' to the Objective Medical Force. MRI enables
supported Army, Joint Force, Interagency and Multinational leaders to
choose among augmentation packages that result in rapid synchronization
of enabling medical capabilities.
Within the Army Reserve, this force structure results in improved
personnel readiness due to reduced personnel requirements. It also
improves the average age of Army Reserve hospital equipment sets, due
to redistribution of newer sets against reduced requirements. We must
keep moving along this path to improved responsiveness.
Medical Research and Materiel Command is making great progress in
equipping medics to serve with the transformed Army of the future on
expanded, technology-dense, rapidly-changing battlefields.
Some of the recent initiatives include:
--The Forward Deployable Digital Medical Treatment Facility, a
research platform to develop lighter, more mobile field
hospitals using new shelters and technology. Plans are for two
to four soldiers to be able to carry and set up a tent and all
the equipment in it. The facility will include a wireless local
area network and a communication system interoperable with the
Warfighter Information Network architecture.
--Portable oxygen generators to avoid the necessity of transporting
numerous 150-pound canisters of oxygen to field medical units.
We have already seen the value of this as we prototyped into
Afghanistan.
--The Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center is
exploring how personal digital assistants can be used to
improve medical record keeping, give providers instant access
to medical information and patient histories, alert providers
of lab results, speed the flow of information and shorten the
time medics on the battlefield must spend filling out forms.
One deploying brigade has been outfitted with a prototype of an
electronic ``dog tag'' to make sure we understand how this
might change our business practice and improve our record
keeping in the ground combat scenario.
--The U.S. Army Medical Materiel Development Activity and Meridian
Medical Technologies developed an improved autoinjector for
nerve-agent treatment shots, which was approved by the Food and
Drug Administration last year. The injector allows a soldier to
inject atropine and 2 pralidoxime chloride through the same
needle. Compared to older equipment, it will take up less
space, is easier to carry, easier to use and puts the drugs to
work faster.
The Interim Brigade Combat Teams are beginning to receive the first
Stryker Medical Evacuation Vehicles. With a top speed of 60 miles an
hour, this armored ambulance will be able to keep up with the fight. It
can carry four litter patients or six ambulatory patients, and allows
basic medical care to be provided during transport. The excitement is
palpable in our young soldiers who have had their first hands on
experience with this vehicle. They see it designed with enroute care in
mind; a medical vehicle that can keep up with the force, share a
common, maintainable platform, and link to the common operating picture
with those they support.
The deadly potential of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear
or high-yield explosive (CBRNE) weapons has been known for centuries,
but never before has the threat seemed as evident or as imminent.
This history underscores the importance of the medical system as
the front line of defense. In the past year we have emphasized the
training of all Army Medical Department (AMEDD) personnel to ensure we
have the edge when it comes to responding to the threat of terrorism
using CBRNE weapons. The Army Medical Department Center and School has
prepared exportable, tailored and scalable courses for use at medical
treatment facilities; it is addressing CBRNE in every short and long
course; and addressing CBRNE casualties in every ARTEP (Army Training
and Evaluation Program) unit testing program.
Among the course changes:
--AMEDD soldiers common skills.--In addition to long-established NBC
defense skills and buddy aid, all AMEDD soldiers get CBRNE
orientation and patient decontamination training.
--Advanced Individual Training and functional courses.--Military
specialty training courses and specialized skill courses have
incorporated specialty-specific CBRNE instruction, including
both classroom and field exercise segments.
--Leadership courses.--These now include basic, intermediate or
advanced Homeland Security classes including information about
the Federal Response Plan, the Army's CBRNE role and leader
skills required by the audience.
--Primary Care courses.--Army medics are learning CBRNE first-
responder skills. CBRNE training for physicians, nurses,
physician assistants and dentists is part of officer basic
training. ``Gold standard'' courses, such as the Medical
Management of Chemical and Biological Casualties, and Medical
Effects of Ionizing Radiation, are being incorporated into
physician/physician assistant lifecycle training plans.
--Postgraduate Professional Short Course Program (PPSCP).--These
courses now embody course-specific CBRNE training, plus a Web-
based ``Introduction to CBRNE'' review that is now a
prerequisite for PPSCP enrollment. The interactive program is
available at www.swankhealth.com/cbrne.htm. It provides both
narration and text, with additional details available at the
click of a mouse. It includes a history of CBRNE incidents, the
nature of the terrorist threat, descriptions of agents and
symptoms, a glossary of terms and links for additional
information.
Our AMEDD Center & School is also developing and disseminating
exportable products, including emergency-room training materials; a
SMART (Special Medical Augmentation Response Team) training package; a
CBRNE mass-casualty exercise program for medical treatment facilities;
ARTEP tests that embody CBRNE challenges; and proficiency testing
materials.
A three-day CBRNE Trainer/Controller course was held in San
Antonio, Texas. It brought in 226 people from all Army medical
treatment facilities--including caregivers and officials charged with
planning emergency-response plans. The audience was schooled on both
clinical aspects of managing CBRNE casualties and the organizational
aspects of managing CBRNE mass-casualty emergencies. Attendees went
home with materials they can use to deliver CBRNE instruction to their
colleagues, guidance for developing CBRNE emergency plans that meet
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
standards; and scenarios and evaluation guidelines for CBRNE exercises.
Planners at the U.S. Army Medical Command have drafted formal
guidance to medical treatment facilities for planning, training and
preparing to support their installations, communities and regions
during CBRNE incidents. They are aggressively pursuing links with other
commands and civilian agencies to smooth the processes of
communication, synchronization, coordination and integration needed to
support the Federal Response Plan.
We have organized Special Medical Augmentation Response Teams
(SMART) to deliver a small number of highly-skilled specialists within
hours to evaluate a situation, provide advice to local authorities and
organize military resources to support response to a disaster or
terrorist act. These teams, located at Medical Command regions and
subordinate commands throughout the country, have critical expertise in
nuclear, biological and chemical casualties; aeromedical isolation and
evacuation; trauma and critical care; burn treatment; preventive
medicine; medical command, control, communications and telemedicine
systems; health facilities construction; veterinary support; stress
management; and pastoral care.
These teams are organized, equipped, trained and ready to deploy
within 12 hours of notice. Their capabilities were demonstrated last
year when seven members from Tripler Army Medical Center deployed from
Hawaii to the Pacific island of Chuuk to assist residents injured
during a typhoon.
Last year patient decontamination equipment was fielded to 23
medical treatment facilities with emergency rooms, and personnel have
been trained in its use. With this equipment, up to 20 ambulatory
patients an hour can be decontaminated. Another 33 MTFs will be
similarly equipped during the current fiscal year.
We also purchased 1,355 sets of personal protection equipment for
emergency responders and SMART team members; and 11 chemical detector
devices for selected medical centers and the SMART-NBC.
We are partners with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
in the Laboratory Response Network, which is augmenting a regional
system of reference labs to quickly test and identify suspected
pathogenic agents like anthrax. The AMEDD is designing seven high-
containment Biosafety Level 3 labs--five in the continental United
States, one in Hawaii and one in support of our Forces in Seoul, Korea.
Construction is scheduled to begin in September.
The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases
(USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Md., is a great national resource of
expertise on dealing with dangerous diseases, whether natural outbreaks
or the result of biological warfare. When anthrax-laced letters were
sent through the mail in 2001, USAMRIID geared up for a phenomenal
effort to analyze thousands of samples collected from possibly-exposed
sites, looking for the deadly bacterium. They continue to assist law
enforcement agencies attempting to identify the criminal responsible
for these acts of terrorism.
USAMRIID now is partnering with the National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at Fort Detrick on biodefense-related
diagnostics, drugs and vaccine research. This effort will marshal
research capabilities while leveraging resources in response to the
nation's changing needs and builds on a long, productive relationship
in collaborative research.
Addressing these changing needs required additional research
infrastructure. USAMRIID is planning to expand its current facilities
and continue its mission of research on drugs, vaccines and diagnostics
to safeguard the health of the nation's armed forces. NIAID is set to
construct an integrated research laboratory to implement its
complementary mission of conducting biodefense research to protect the
public health. The new facilities will house biosafety laboratories
comprised of Biosafety Level 2, 3 and 4 areas.
USAMRIID and NIAID have been joined by representatives from the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture and
other federal agencies to lay the groundwork for an Interagency
Biodefense Campus at Fort Detrick. The interagency campus takes
advantage of existing infrastructure and security at Fort Detrick to
promote potential sharing of facilities and leveraging of intellectual
capital among federal researchers studying disease-causing microbes
that may be used as agents of bioterrorism. Construction is expected to
take place over the next several years.
While all this is going on, we still have a mission of operating
hospitals and clinics, providing day-to-day health care for our
beneficiaries. Last year we began providing care under TRICARE For
Life, and we are preparing for a new generation of TRICARE contracts.
It seems one cannot open a newspaper or a magazine without reading
about the soaring cost of health care; about the escalating malpractice
crisis that is driving physicians to leave the practice of medicine;
about the increasing cost shifting from employer to individual; about
the restrictive practices that third-party payers impose to be able to
profit and survive in this market.
We in Army Medicine coexist in that world of health-care costs. But
we continue to place our patients first, whether we are talking about
families, retirees or soldiers on point. The ability to respond to
warfighters, providing care from forward surgical teams to combat
support hospitals, depends on the quality base of our direct-care
system.
We are in the era of accountability--for efficiency as well as
outcomes and quality. We have adopted a business case approach to
justifying requirements that has established credibility for our
efforts.
Metrics show improvement in medical board processing, operating-
room backlogs and cancellation rates. Routine things like officer and
NCO efficiency report timeliness; travel card payment and data quality
show positive trends. Both Congress and the GAO have cited the AMEDD as
a leader in health facility planning and lifecycle management.
Recently we presented the second annual Excalibur Awards,
recognizing excellent performance by AMEDD units and providing an
opportunity to share information and stimulate improvements. The
medical activity at Fort Hood, Texas; the AMEDD Center and School at
Fort Sam Houston, Texas; the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg,
N.C.; and the Kentucky Army National Guard's 1163rd Area Support
Medical Company were recognized for initiatives in management of
patients with resource-intensive medical conditions, use of satellite
communications for extended learning, and innovative approaches to 91W
training.
I am confident that the restructuring of the new TRICARE contracts
will lead to smoother business processes and better fiscal
accountability across the Military Health System. The reduction in
contract regions will have a direct effect on the portability issue, as
will the national carve-out for pharmacy services. All of this is an
important component of our ability to keep faith with the promise of
health care for those serving and those who have served. But the
TRICARE Contracts are only a component. The heart of our ability to
project the right medical force with and for those we put in harm's way
comes from our Direct Care base. The quality of the training programs,
the focus on the unique community of soldiers with their world wide
movement in support of our National Military Strategy, understanding
unique stresses and strains on their families, the trust and confidence
engendered by customer focused quality care is a force multiplier for
the service member and the insurance for quality care on the
battlefield. General Shinseki has established THE Army as our standard.
It underscores the tremendous importance of our Reserve Components. The
importance of the interplay with the direct care system of these Twice-
the-Citizen Medical Soldiers cannot be overstated. The current tempo of
this Global War on Terrorism could not be sustained without them. The
continuity of our system with consistent care and in the familiar
medical environment--``Institutional Continuity of Care'' even if their
usual doctor is deployed is important and a constant in a disrupted
life. It is our dedicated reservists who train to this mission, and to
whom we turn to sustain the care and continue the quality of our
training programs that are feeding the force for the next battles in
this Global War on Terrorism.
We looked closely at the lessons of Desert Storm and Desert Shield
on the use of our Reserve medical force and have implemented 90-day
rotation to minimize the impact on the home communities and to reduce
the potential for unrecoverable financial hardships. We have made
extensive use of Derivative Unit Identification codes that allow us to
identify and only mobilize the exact skill sets that we need in the
minimum numbers to sustain the mission and targeting them specifically
to the location where they are needed. This is in contrast to the
wholesale mobilization of these units and later sorting out where and
how they might be best used. Many Medical professionals want the
opportunity to serve their country. These policies and procedures will
enable them to stay with us in the Reserves and contribute to this
important mission.
We appreciate the support from this committee to improve the
medical readiness of the Reserve components and their families. The
Federal Strategic Health Alliance (FEDS-Heal) program is improving our
visibility of their health care needs and the potential for allowing
dental care during the annual training periods using FEDS-Heal would be
a step towards improved readiness.
The level of quality, the ingenuity, the leadership of our
noncommissioned officers, the flexibility and agility of leaders at all
levels meeting the unique demands of each mission, tailoring the
capabilities packages as missions demand--all make me proud of our
AMEDD. It is the kind of ``quiet professionalism''--as it was described
by a senior line commander--that will assure our success in supporting
the force as we continue to root out terrorism.
All that I have highlighted reinforces our integration into tenets
of General Shinseki's transformation strategy. One can only speculate
on what this new year of 2003 might bring--where we in the Army Medical
Department might find ourselves committed around the globe. However,
one can confidently predict that wherever we find ourselves, we will be
caring for soldiers and soldiers' families with excellence and
compassion.
I would like to thank this Committee for your continued commitment
and support to quality care for our soldiers and to the readiness of
our medical forces.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL MICHAEL L. COWAN, SURGEON
GENERAL OF THE NAVY
Admiral Cowan. Thank you, Senator Inouye. I'm also pleased
to be here to be able to share Navy medicine's activity and our
plans for the future. At this time foremost on all of our minds
is the U.S. global war on terrorism and military efforts in
Iraq even as they wind down.
As the men and women of the Navy and Marine Corps go in
harm's way, I take special pride in the men and women of Navy
medicine who are present with them on the front lines
throughout the theater of operations and back home providing
health protection.
A Marine general eloquently summed all of this up by saying
``no Marine ever took a hill out of the sight of a Navy
corpsman.'' As we move into this new millennium, we are likely
to be continued to be challenged by a growing variety of
worldwide contingencies. Deployable medical assets might have
the capability to respond to various missions. Today we are
more flexible than yesterday.
Our new forward resuscitative surgical systems and the
expeditionary fleet hospitals that General Peake alluded to in
the Army have proven their unique life and limb saving value in
Operation Iraqi Freedom. I have been unable to document a
single case of anyone entering our health care system who is
more than an hour between the time he was wounded in battle and
first received resuscitative care.
Our wounded patients at Bethesda tell me about these rapid
response of the first responders tending to them instantly and
timely, and of the lifesaving surgical care nearby. Further, it
is not just casualty response that has improved.
The net of environmental and weapons of mass destruction
protection that surround our deployed forces is unparalleled in
military history. Through military medical research and
development programs, we continue to develop and to field new
lifesaving products, practices and policies for the best of
force health protection.
As only one example, individual Marines deployed to Iraq
were equipped with a new clotting accelerator called Quick
Clot. It is a bandage that with one hand a wounded Marine can
open and administer immediately and effectively stemming
hemorrhage before the arrival of any health care professionals.
Navy medicine cares not just for deployed sailors and
Marines, but also for their families and our retired
beneficiaries. All of these responsibilities are carried out
through our mission of force health protection which consists
of four key components. That is first fielding a healthy and
fit force.
Second, deploying them to protect against all possible
hazards; third, providing world-class restorative care for
sickness or injury on the battlefield, while at the same time
caring for those who remain at home and providing health care
for our retirees and their families.
To serve these diverse needs, Navy medicine has made
substantial investments to become family centered. We believe
that promotion of the health and welfare of the entire family
is paramount to the health of the service member.
Furthermore, for active duty members and their families,
health care is a key quality of life factor affecting both
morale and retention, and that is why I say with no sense of
irony that family centered services such as perinatal care--
having a baby--are readiness and retention issues. One might
think that combat support and having babies are worlds apart,
but they are not. Our warriors love their families and cannot
be distracted by unnecessary concerns for family's health.
We understand that, and are dedicated to being there for
all the health needs of the entire family. Accordingly,
military medicine has moved away from being a system that
provided periodic and reactive health care to one whose
portfolio is invested in health promotion, disease prevention
and family centered care. With our sister services and TRICARE
partners, we are dedicated to meeting all the needs of all of
our patients in every way.
Finally, I would note that the global war on terrorism has
been a watershed for military medicine, as well as for American
medicine in general. The aftermath of the terrorist attacks of
2001 have revealed that Americans are vulnerable in our
homeland and that the very nature of threats against us has
changed. We understand conventional violence. We now must
understand chemical violence.
We understand germs as disease. We now must understand
germs as a weapon. We understand protecting our citizens by
fighting our Nation's battles overseas, we now must understand
protecting them in their own homes. Over the months and years
to come, America's medical and public health infrastructures
will evolve to become a defensive weapons systems in ways never
before imagined.
In partnership with the Nation's medical agencies, military
medicine will play a vital part in that defensive shield
against biological, radioactive, and chemical weapons and will
serve our Nation well in these uncertain times. I'll end my
opening remarks by saying I still wear the cloth of my Nation
for 30 years and one of the reasons I do this is the privilege
to associate with some of the finest men and women this Nation
has ever produced.
I was speaking to a corpsman in Bethesda, who lost his foot
to a land mine while running to tend to a wounded Marine. When
he appeared somewhat sad, he was consoled that certainly the
loss of a foot would affect anyone that way, to which he
responded, ``No, sir, that is just a foot. In fact, I have
another one. What I'm worried about is that I do not know who's
taking care of my Marines.''
PREPARED STATEMENT
We can be proud of all of them, Army, Navy and Air Force as
they serve in homeland and abroad and it is an honor to serve
them. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chairman Stevens.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Michael L. Cowan
This has been a challenging and rewarding year for the Navy Medical
Department. We have successfully responded to many challenges placed
before us, and we continue to face a period of unprecedented change.
For Navy Medicine, it meant changing our very being and even our
motto from Charlie-Golf-One, which means in naval signal flag
vernacular ``standing by, ready to assist'' to Charlie-Papa, ``steaming
to assist,'' deploying with Sailors and Marines who will go in harm's
way, taking care of the full spectrum of world events from peacemaking
to major regional conflicts.
It has been a decade of uncertainty, and what has emerged from the
confusion and uncertainty is the ascendancy of enemies who know our
military superiority, yet won't allow it to dampen their ardor to harm
us and influence our power, prestige, economy, and values.
Our enemies have struck with tools that are seemingly effective:
global terrorism and asymmetrical warfare. During the years of the Cold
War, America's paradigm was to train and prepare for war in safe
homeland bases in our country that were protected by two large bodies
of water. We defended the citizens of the United States by fighting our
wars overseas. But these enemies have successfully brought the war to
our backyard. Now the challenge is how to also protect the citizens of
the United States in their own homes.
FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION
The primary focus of Navy Medicine is Force Health Protection. We
have moved from ``periodic episodic healthcare'' and the intervention
and treatment of disease to population health and prevention and the
maintenance and protection of health. This doesn't, however, change the
physiological deterioration of the human body when pierced by a bullet.
Medical support services are more essential than ever since those fewer
numbers have greater responsibilities within the battle space. Take
these complexities, and translate them into providing good medicine in
bad places over great distances and the challenge become even more
daunting. Yet one thing is certain--no organization in the world
provides healthcare from the foxhole to the ivory tower the way Navy
Medicine does.
Force health protection can be summed up in four categories: First,
preparing a healthy and fit force that can go anywhere and accomplish
any mission that the defense of the nation requires of them. Second, go
with them to protect our men and women in uniform from the hazards of
the battlefield. Third, restore health, whenever protection fails,
while also providing world-class health care for their families back
home. And fourth, help a grateful nation thank our retired warriors
with TRICARE for Life. Navy Medicine has to make all those things work;
and they have to be in balance. Any one individual may only see a bit
of this large and complex organization. But if each of us does our part
right, we end up with force health protection.
To ensure its ability to execute its force health protection
mission under any circumstances, Navy Medicine has executed multiple
initiatives to ensure optimal preparedness, which includes establishing
a Navy Medicine Office of Homeland Security. The office is fully
operational and has executed an aggressive strategic plan to ensure
highest emergency preparedness in our military treatment facilities
(MTF's). Its accomplishments include:
Execution of an MTF Disaster Preparedness Assist Visit Program.--
The Navy Medicine Office of Homeland Security crafted a multi-pronged
assist visit program to strengthen preparedness in Navy MTFs. A team of
homeland security experts is visiting each MTF between November 2002
and April 2004 to conduct a unique program known as ``Disaster
Preparedness, Vulnerability Analysis, Training and Exercise'' (DVATEX).
Through this activity, each facility receives a hazard vulnerability
analysis to identify where they may be vulnerable to attack or the
impact of disaster, emergency medical response training, and an
exercise of the hospital's emergency preparedness plan is executed--a
critical step in enhancing readiness. This, and multiple other critical
initiatives, were funded by a mid-year Congressional supplemental
funding action.
Enhanced Education for Medical Department Personnel.--Well-educated
clinicians are a critical part of homeland security. Navy Medicine sent
over 450 physicians, nurses and corpsmen to the ``gold standard''
medical management of chemical and biological casualties training
program at the U.S. Army Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID). An
extensive online training program for Navy Medical Department personnel
on response to weapons of mass impact and emergency preparedness is in
development at the Naval Medical Education and Training Command.
Pharmacy Operations Emergency Preparedness.--A task force of Navy
Medicine pharmacy experts is taking action to ensure strong emergency
pharmacy operations and adequate stockpiles of critical medicines and
antidotes.
Smallpox Threat Mitigation.--Navy Medicine is leading 2 DOD
Smallpox Emergency Response Teams (SERTs) and has executed the initial
phase of the DOD smallpox immunization plan.
READINESS/CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
As we move into this new millennium, our Navy and Marine Corps men
and women are called upon to respond to a greater variety of challenges
worldwide. This means the readiness of our personnel is now more
important than ever. Military readiness is directly impacted by Navy
Medicine's ability to provide health protection and critical care to
our Navy and Marine Corps forces, which are the front line protectors
of our democracy. That's what military medicine is all about--keeping
our forces fit to fight. Our readiness platforms include the two 1,000
bed hospital ships, 6 Active Duty and 4 Reserve 500 Bed Fleet
hospitals, as well as different medical units supporting Casualty
Receiving and Treatment Ships (CRTS) and a variety of units assigned to
augment the Marine Corps, and overseas hospitals. Navy medicine is more
flexible now than we were even a few short years ago. Fleet hospitals
have been modified to allow smaller and lighter expeditionary modules
to be deployed. Yet even those are not flexible enough. Our combat
planners are designing a more modular approach to enhance our
operational capabilities. The ultimate goal is an ability to task and
organize a medical force to rapidly provide support for the full range
of potential military operations anywhere on the globe.
I am very glad to report that the Next Generation 4/2 (DUAL SITE)
Concept Fleet Hospital (FHSO) gained final approval in April 2002. The
first ever-major Fleet Hospital reconfiguration and program change
since the command's inception over 20 years ago, this achievement will
provide a truly modular, plug and play hospital that will better meet
the challenges of today and provide a bridge to the development of the
``Fleet Hospital of the Future''. This month we will begin building the
first 4/2 concept hospital as part of the Integrated Logistics Overhaul
(ILO) of Fleet Hospital NINE and will ultimately provide greater
flexibility and operability to the Maritime Preposition Forces. In
addition, a design for a small 10-bed Expeditionary Surgical Unit (ESU)
with an even smaller 4-bed Surgical Component (SSC) is being developed.
These new, smaller products have been imbedded into the recently
approved Next Generation 4/2 Concept Fleet Hospital for less than
$100,000, and provides Navy Medicine with a new response package to
meet the new threat of asymmetrical warfare by providing between Level
II and III care. Both the ESU and SSC are intended to provide the FH
program with its first ever air-mobile asset and will serve as the
foundation for providing humanitarian and disaster relief. The first of
these products was implemented with the rebuild of FH08 EMF in
September 2002.
Last year, Navy medical personnel supported numerous joint service,
Marine Corps, and Navy operations around the world. We flawlessly
performed dozens of deployments supporting the war in Afghanistan, and
in support of our national strategy, a fleet hospital still provides
daily health care services to the Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Our medical personnel have also provided
preventive medical services, humanitarian care and relief to many
countries around the globe.
Over the last few weeks, thousands of Navy Medical Department
personnel have deployed to the 1,000 bed hospital ship USNS Comfort, to
three fleet hospitals (in their 116 bed Marine Expeditionary Force
Configuration) and have augmented Navy and Marine Corps forces world
wide, many of whom are deployed in forward areas.
Navy Medicine will continue focusing on improved contingency
flexibility in the field and afloat. Our medical care starts right in
the midst of battle through the service and dedication of hospital
corpsman. Navy Hospital Corpsmen have been awarded the Medal of Honor
more often than any specialty in the Navy. Navy-Marine Corps history is
filled with heroic acts performed by corpsmen to reach and retrieve
wounded Marines. As the Marines deployed to Afghanistan and now to the
Middle East, there are always hospital corpsman with them. The ratio
can vary according to the mission, but the ratio is around 11 corpsmen
per infantry company, which has between 120 and 130 Marines.
Corpsman training includes surgically opening an obstructed airway,
field dressing battle wounds, starting IVs, patching a lung-deep chest
wound, treating battle injuries in an environment contaminated by
chemical or biological weapons, and immobilizing spines of Marines
whose backs are broken by explosions.
Navy Medicine has also established training for combat surgical
support to enhance the capabilities of the Forward Resuscitative
Surgical System deployment by USMC. The cornerstone is the Navy Trauma
Training Center at LA County/University of Southern California Medical
Center, which convened its first class in August 2002 of physicians,
nurses and hospital corpsman tasked with far forward surgery
operational assignments. The program is projected to train
approximately 120-150 students annually.
In the 1991 Gulf War, our forward units moved so quickly into Iraq
that it took an average of two hours to get a casualty to rear-guard
medical facilities. Navy Medicine now has trauma doctors with the
equivalent to a six-bed emergency room, as part of the Marine Corps'
Combat Service Support Company, that follows the front lines on trucks
and helicopters. Navy medicine will have trauma doctors available
within 30 to 60 minutes of an injury, which reflects our persistent
effort to push high quality medical care close to combat. The
physicians staffing these units are combat doctors, who the Marines
refer to as ``Devil Docs'' in reference to the nickname ``Devil Dogs''
that the Marines earned in World War I. Its expected that the emergency
and surgery teams will receive the 10 to 15 percent of casualties who
will need immediate treatment to stay alive before they can be sent to
more fully equipped echelon II or III facilities in the rear. These
teams of two general surgeons, one anesthesiologist and five nurses and
corpsmen can perform basic tests and can handle 18 casualties in 48
hours without resupply from the rear. In just one hour, the team can
pack up its two tents, one a holding area and the other a surgery room
with operating lights, along with ultra-quiet power generators and X-
ray and hand-held sonogram machines.
As your aware one of our hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, deployed
to the Persian Gulf on 6 January 2003, and is now being fully staffed
to provide 1,000 hospital beds, 12 operating rooms, CAT Scan capability
and advanced medical care equivalent to university medical centers.
Yet, the Navy's first-response medical vessel for injured troops may be
a gray hull and not the white USNS Comfort. At the tip of the spear are
amphibious assault ships like the USS Tarawa. They launch Marines by
helicopter and giant hovercraft, but also serve as Casualty and
Treatment Receiving Ships (CTRS: secondary floating hospitals). The USS
Tarawa, comes with four operating rooms and beds for 300 patients when
Marines are ashore. The medical team manning the facility includes
surgeons, neurologists, anesthesiologists, nurses and hospital
corpsmen. They know how to treat nearly every battlefield trauma,
including gunshot wounds and exposure to chemical and biological
attacks. Their training also included the Navy's new hand-held ``Bio/
Chemical Detection Devices. The detection devices can determine within
minutes if Marines or sailors have been exposed to chemical agents, and
identify the agents. Patients treated on-board are stabilized and
transferred either to hospital ships or military hospitals in Europe or
the United States.
PERSONNEL READINESS
Navy Medicine tracks and evaluates overall medical readiness using
the readiness of the platforms as well as the readiness of individual
personnel assigned to those platforms. One of our measures of readiness
is whether we have personnel with the appropriate specialty assigned to
the proper billets; that is, do we have surgeons assigned to surgeon
billets and operating room nurses assigned to operating room nurse
billets, etc.
The readiness of a platform also involves issues relating to
equipment, supplies and unit training. Navy Medicine has developed a
metric to measure the readiness of platforms using the Status of
Resources and Training System (SORTS) concept tailored specifically to
measure specific medical capabilities such as surgical care or
humanitarian services. Using the SORTS concept, Navy Medicine has
increased the readiness of 34 ``Tier 1'' deployment assets by 23
percent.
Navy Medicine also monitors the deployment readiness of individual
personnel within the Navy Medical Department. Feeding the SORTS system
is a program known as the Expeditionary Medical Program for
Augmentation and Readiness Tracking System (EMPARTS), which Navy
Medicine uses to monitor the deployment readiness of individual
personnel and units within the Navy Medical Department. Personnel are
required to be administratively ready and must meet individual training
requirements such as shipboard fire fighting, fleet hospital
orientation, etc. Individual personal compliance is tracked through
EMPARTS.
Augmentation requirements in support of the operational forces have
significantly increased. Our Total Force Integration Plan utilizing
both active and reserve inventories has greatly improved our ability to
respond to these requirements. Navy Medicine's demonstrated commitment
to supporting the full spectrum of operations is mirrored in our motto
``steaming to assist'' and is in full partnership with the Navy's
``Forward Deployed, Fully Engaged'' strategy.
I also believe that in order to achieve Force Health Protection we
need a metric for measuring the health readiness of our fighting
forces. This measure must be beyond the traditional ``C-Status
metric'', which lacks a true measure of one's health. Navy Medicine has
developed a measure of individual health, which will also facilitate
our measure of population health. Our model has been accepted by the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs, and is
being expanded for use by all the Services. A final version of the
model and a Health Affairs policy memorandum is expected in a few
weeks. In short, the model develops a metric that categorizes an
individual's readiness status in one of four groups. The categories to
be used include: Fully Medically Ready; Medically Ready with minor
intervention; Unknown (i.e. no current evaluation or lost medical
record) and Medically Not Ready. Each active duty member will fall into
one of the four categories. The elements that will decide what category
an individual falls into includes: Periodic health assessments, such as
the physical exam, deployment limiting conditions, which include
injuries, or long term illnesses, dental readiness using the same
standards that have always been established, Immunization status and
possibly vision evaluations and individual medical equipment like gas
mask eye-glass inserts. The software needed to collect and track the
data has already been developed and is compatible with current data
systems. Readiness data can either be entered via SAMS (Shipboard
automated medical system) or through our Navy Medicine on-line program.
The information can also be stored in the DEERS database. Secure
individual readiness data will therefore be available from SAMS, DEERS
or Navy Medicine on-line. Reports will array data by command and drill
down to an individual, and can be accessed by line leadership.
I am also pleased to report that we recently implemented a new
Reserve Utilization Plan (RUP) that has optimized our use of reservists
during peacetime and contingencies. The Medical RUP is Navy Medicine's
plan for full integration of Medical Reserves into the Navy Medical
Department. The RUP is being currently used to support the allowed 50
percent reserve augmentation of our deployed active duty staff and
matches up reserve specialties with the needed services at each of our
hospitals.
OUR PEOPLE
People are critical to accomplishing Navy Medicine's mission and
one of the major goals from Navy Medicine's strategic plan is to
enhance job satisfaction. We believe that retention is as important if
not more so than recruiting, and in an effort to help retain our best
people, there has been a lot of progress. Under our strategic plan's
``People'' theme, we will focus on retaining and attracting talented
and motivated personnel and move to ensure our training is aligned with
the Navy's mission and optimization of health. Their professional needs
must be satisfied for Navy Medicine to be aligned and competitive.
Their work environment must be challenging and supportive, providing
clear objectives and valuing the contributions of all.
All Navy Medicine personnel serving with the Marine Corps face
unique personal and professional challenges. Not only must they master
the art and science of a demanding style of warfare, but they must also
learn the skills of an entirely separate branch of the armed services.
Whether assigned to a Marine Division, a Force Service Support Group,
or a Marine Air Wing, Navy medical personnel must know how Marines
fight, the weapons they use, and the techniques used to employ them
effectively against harsh resistance. To excel in this endeavor is an
accomplishment that should be recognized on a level with other Navy
warfare communities.
As we work to meet the challenges of providing quality health care,
while simultaneously improving access to care and implementing
optimization, we have not forgotten the foundation of our health care--
our providers. We appreciate and value our providers' irreplaceable
role in achieving our vision of ``Navy Medicine being the provider of
choice by achieving superior performance in health services and
population health.''
Within each of our medical facilities there has been an overall
initiative to reward clinical excellence and productivity and to ensure
that those who are contributing the most are receiving the recognition
they deserve. Additionally, selection board precepts now emphasize
clinical performance in the definition of those best and fully
qualified for promotion.
I would like to report to you on the status of our corps:
Medical Corps
The Medical Corps is currently manned at approximately 101 percent.
This number is deceptive because there are several critical specialties
in which undermanning is high and needs to be watched to avoid
impacting our ability to meet wartime requirements and provide INCONUS
casualty medical care: Anesthesia (82 percent manned), General Surgery
(72 percent manned), Pathology (82 percent manned), Dermatology (83
percent manned), Diagnostic Radiology (79 percent manned) and Radiation
Oncology (80 percent manned). Because the average loss of providers
exceeds the currently programmed input, shortages are expected in
fiscal year 2005 in Anesthesiology, General Surgery and its
subspecialties, Urology, Pathology, Radiology, Gastroenterology, and
Pulmonary/Critical Care. We are also monitoring specialties in which
we're currently overmanned. Because of the nature of medical training,
it can take from 8 to 12 years to train a medical specialist. Various
training and accession programs feed that pipeline and loss rates are
often hard to project. We have improved our management oversight of
those communities and will continue to seek improved means of meeting
end-strength goals.
In order to compete in the marketplace for a limited pool of
qualified applicants for medical programs, and to retain them once they
have chosen the Navy as a career, adequate compensation is critical.
The civilian-military pay gap that has always existed has increased
steadily, which makes it almost impossible to recruit or retain
physicians in these high demand specialties. Strategic increases in the
use of Incentive Special Pay, Multiyear Specialty Pay and use of
Critical Skills Retention Bonuses that correspond to the Navy's medical
specialty shortages may help improve retention in these critically
manned specialties.
Dental Corps
Despite continued efforts to improve dental corps retention, the
annual loss rate between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2002
increased from 8.3 percent to 11.8 percent. Current projections for
fiscal year 2003 predicts a 12.6 percent loss rate. These numbers
represent higher actual and projected loss rates compared with similar
data from last year. In addition, declining retention rates of junior
officers has negatively impacted applications for residency training,
which have dropped 16 percent over the last five years. The significant
pay gap compared to the civilian market and the high debt load of our
junior officers seem to be the primary reasons given by dental officers
leaving the Navy.
Nurse Corps
Closely monitoring the national nursing shortage and increasing
number of competitive civilian compensation packages, Navy Medicine
continues to meet military and civilian recruiting goals and
professional nursing requirements through diversified accession
sources, pay incentives, graduate education and training programs, and
retention initiatives that include quality of life and practice issues.
Successful tools have been the Nurse Accession Bonus, Certified
Registered Nurse Anesthetist Incentive Pay, Board Certification Pay,
and Special Hire Authority; it is imperative that they are continued in
the future years to meet our wartime and peacetime missions. In
addition, clinical and patient care needs are continuously evaluated to
target our education and training opportunities in support of specific
nursing specialties, such as advanced practice nurses, nurse
anesthetists, nurse midwives, and perioperative nurses. Over the past
2-3 years, CRNAs have been successfully retained in the Navy, creating
a consistent fill of available billets based on a variety of factors.
The combination of special pays (Incentive Specialty Pay and Board
Certification Pay), lifting of practice limitations, and a focus on
quality of life issues have been the major factors for this success.
The most recent Critical Skills Retention Bonus has had a positive
influence on CRNAs staying beyond their obligated service period.
Medical Service Corps
Medical Service Corps (MSC) loss rates in general are relatively
stable at about 8.5 percent, but as with the rest of the Navy, were
lower than that in fiscal year 2002 (6 percent). Loss rates vary
significantly between specialties however, and are not acceptable in
all MSC professions. A key issue for this Corps is increasing
educational requirements and costs. Many of our health professionals
incur high educational debts prior to commissioning. Recent increases
in loan repayment requirements causes issues for many junior level
officers trying to repay their education loans. Additionally, the
increasing number of doctoral and masters level requirements for the
various healthcare professions is beginning to put a strain on the
Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) promotion constraints
for this Corps, an issue we will be monitoring. Currently our critical
specialties to recruit and retain are optometry, pharmacy, clinical
psychology, social work, entomology, and microbiology. When funded, we
expect the new pharmacy and optometry special pays to help our
retention in those two communities. Further we have begun using the
Health Profession Loan Repayment Program for some specialties and are
having success with it.
Hospital Corps
Within the Hospital Corps, we are currently under-manned, defined
as being below 75 percent, in seven Navy Enlisted Classifications
(NECs). In the operational forces, USMC reconnaissance corpsman are
currently manned at 53.8 percent. In the MTFs, cardio-pulmonary
technicians are staffed at 74.3 percent, occupational therapy
technicians 63.2 percent, bio-medical repair technicians 66.3 percent,
psychiatric technicians 72.4 percent, morticians 50 percent and
respiratory technicians at 73.5 percent. In the Dental technician
community, we are currently under-manned in the dental hygiene
community at 63.1 percent. An enlistment bonus for hospital corpsman
and dental technicians would assist in competition with the civilian
job market.
Medical Special Pays
The primary mission of the Military Health System (MHS) is Force
Health Protection. This readiness focus involves programs to ensure we
maintain a healthy and fit force, providing medical care in combat. The
MHS also has an important peace time mission of providing health
services to active duty members and other beneficiaries. In order to
provide these services, the MHS must retain health providers that are
dedicated, competent and readiness trained. This challenge is
particularly difficult because uniformed health professionals are
costly to accession, train, and are in high demand in the private
sector.
It's essential for the MHS to maintain the right professionals, the
right skill mix and the right years of experience to fulfill our
readiness requirements. Continued military service is not only based on
pay, but also the conditions and nature of the work. Yet, adequate
compensation must be provided. One of the major tools used to retain
providers are special and incentive pay bonuses.
National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2003 (NDAA 03)
set new upper limits for specific medical pays. Where as this act
delineates the dollar limits at which pays may be paid; it leaves the
administration of these pays to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs and the Services. The administrative policy for special
pays is accomplished through a tri-service effort where specific
manpower needs for each service and community pay is evaluated and
applied to an annual tri-service pay plan. It is this pay plan that
determines at what pay levels will be paid for specific specialties at
any given time. Currently there have been no decisions or budgetary
inputs to provide for any increase in these pays for fiscal year 2003
or fiscal year 2004.
Workgroups both within each service and as a tri-service collective
are examining the application of special pays to include increases
utilizing the new upper pay caps. However, it is too early to comment
on possible applications.
UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES
As the Executive Agent of the Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences (USUHS), I would like to comment on the extraordinary
achievements of the University in 2002. USUHS granted 163 Medical
Degrees for a current total of 3,268 uniformed physician graduates
since the first USUHS graduation in 1980. USUHS graduates, with
retention averaging twenty years of active duty service, now represent
over 22 percent of the total physician officers on active duty in the
Armed Forces. And, as provided to the Congress during 2002, the median
length of non-obligated service for physician specialists in the
Military Health System, not including USUHS graduates, is 2.9 years;
however, the median length of non-obligated service for USUHS graduates
is 9 years. Thus, USUHS graduates are exceeding the original
expectations of Congress when the university was established, thus
ensuring physician continuity and leadership for the military health
care system. In addition, a total of 183 Masters of Science in Nursing
Degrees have been granted since the establishment of the USUHS Graduate
School of Nursing in 1993; and, 728 Doctoral and Masters Degrees have
been granted through the USUHS School of Medicine Graduate Education
Programs.
The military unique curricula and programs of the Uniformed
Services University, successfully grounded in a multi-Service
environment, draw upon lessons learned during past and present-day
combat and casualty care to produce career-oriented physicians,
advanced practice nurses, and scientists with military unique
expertise. The USUHS-unique training centered in preventive medicine
and combat-related health care is essential to providing superior force
health protection and improving the quality of life for our service
members, retirees, and families. USUHS also provides a significant
national service through its continuing medical education courses for
military physicians in combat casualty care, tropical medicine, combat
stress, disaster medicine, and the medical responses to weapons of mass
destruction (WMD).
Four USUHS activities, internationally recognized by the emergency
responder and health care communities, stand by ready to provide cost-
effective, quality-assured WMD-related training and consultation. The
Casualty Care Research Center; the Center for Disaster and Humanitarian
Assistance Medicine; the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress; and,
the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute have established
credibility in providing military unique expertise covering four areas
of WMD-related concerns: (1) the preparation of emergency responder
communities; (2) ensuring communication and assessment of military
medical humanitarian assistance training; (3) addressing traumatic
stress of both civilian and uniformed communities during WMD-related
incidents; and, (4) the development of medical radiological
countermeasures to include the provision of unique training for the
response to radiological emergencies.
I am pleased to report that USUHS has begun collaborative efforts
with the Department of Veterans Affairs on its WMD-related educational
and training programs. As directed by H.R. 3253, The Department of
Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Act, Public Law 107-287, VA
education and training programs on medical responses to terrorist
activities, shall be modeled after programs established at USUHS. The
cost-effective provision of quality-assured, web-based training and
expertise for the medical response to WMD for the emergency and health
care provider communities is ready to be transmitted from the USUHS
Simulation Center located in Forest Glen, Maryland. I look forward to
the further development of these collaborative efforts and the future
contributions of USUHS.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NAVAL MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND
The Naval Medical Education and Training Command (NMETC) was
established under the command of a Flag Officer, as a result of BUMED
realignment activities. NMETC is going to be a central source of
learning that will act as a catalyst for web based education and
training initiates available to our staff on a world wide basis. The
Command's mission also dovetails well with CNO's Task Force Excel (TFE)
initiative, whose cornerstone is the stand up of primary organizations
with responsibility for training, education, human performance/
development, and alignment of resources and requirements. Current Navy
Medicine training staff is conducting a gap analysis between NMETC key
functions, and those functions envisioned in CNO's training commands,
in collaboration with TFE staff.
FAMILY CENTERED CARE
Our health system must remain flexible as we incorporate new
technologies and advances in medical practice, struggle to maintain our
facilities, optimize our health care delivery, embrace new health
benefits, enhance patient safety, and increase our ability to provide
care to beneficiaries over age 65 in the coming months. Navy Medicine
has been working tirelessly to maintain our superior health services in
order to keep our service members healthy and fit and ready to deploy
while providing a high quality health benefit to all our beneficiaries.
As you know, healthcare is an especially important benefit to service
members, retirees and family members. It is an important recruitment
and retention tool. For active duty members and their families it's one
of the key quality of life factors affecting both morale and retention.
A deployed service member who is secure in the knowledge that his or
her family's healthcare needs are being met is without question, more
effective in carrying out the mission. Additionally, the benefits
afforded to retirees are viewed by all as an indicator of the extent to
which we honor our commitments.
I'm proud of the cultural transformation Navy medicine has
undertaken in support of Family Centered Care. Our patients, our Navy
leadership, and Navy medicine understand that if we want to evolve
beyond being a reactive health care system--with periodic, episodic,
reactive healthcare--we have to make our customers partners in their
care. Our goal is to be a proactive health system with the achievement
of unprecedented levels of population health, the ultimate measure of
our success. But we can't get there if patients aren't comfortable with
their healthcare. We can't achieve higher states of health without
individuals being actively involved in the process. Navy medicine has
made a commitment to the cultural transformation. We are working every
day towards being patient-centric.
We have placed particular emphasis on achieving customer
satisfaction with our perinatal services. Delivering babies is a very
important component of our force health protection. It is one of the
richest opportunities we have to affect health behaviors, and for
building strong families from the beginning. What better opportunity is
there to interest our Sailors and Marines in their health than when
they are creating a family? The Navy's Family Centered Care (FCC)
program promotes practices that enhance patient safety, health, cost
efficiency, and patient and staff satisfaction. Elements of the FCC
program were derived directly from patient and staff responses to
multiple survey instruments and convenience samples. During 2002, Navy
Medicine demonstrated its commitment to patient-centered care by
investing $10.2 million in the FCC program. MTFs were able to upgrade
equipment and furniture and received enhanced maternal-infant safety
and patient-centered care training. Our accomplishments include a Tri-
service effort to develop a uniform Family Centered Care program. We
have collaborated with Army and Air Force Medical departments to
develop coordinated plans since February 2002. We have also increased
the availability of private post-partum rooms in Navy MTFs by 52
percent from 2001, while simultaneously increasing provider continuity
for prenatal visits to at least 75 percent in those MTFs not affected
by the current OPTEMPO. We have deployed the DOD developed Interactive
Customer Evaluation (ICE) system to monitor patient satisfaction with
the FCC program and have established partnerships between the BUMED
Perinatal Advisory Board, Health Services Organizations, and the BUMED
Inspector General to assist in implementing and monitoring of the FCC
program.
We have standardized and enhanced prenatal education in all MTFs
through the purchase of the USAF developed Spring Garden interactive
education material and have contracted with a nationally recognized
expert on Single Room Maternity Care to provide consultative services
at MTFs undergoing the construction of Labor, Delivery, Recovery and
Postpartum units. We are ensuring that MTFs review and revise policies
to include family members at prenatal visits and at the delivery and
are currently implementing the DOD/VA Clinical Practice Guideline for
Uncomplicated Pregnancy in Navy MTFs.
Finally, we have funded, filmed, and distributed marketing video
spots, introducing patients to the Navy's Family Centered Care program.
Optimization
Readiness, must be supported by integration and optimization
forming what I refer to as the ``ROI concept''--Readiness, integration
and optimization. ROI is simply our effort to be good business people.
Our optimization efforts have met with good success and led to more
integration in our military health system. We work with our sister
services very closely, both within the health care system, and
operationally. We are all utterly dependent on one another for our
mutual success. Nothing of any significance is done alone. Further, we
have increased our integration and cooperation in other areas. A prime
example is our continued efforts to build mutually advantageous health
care and business relationships with the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
There is no more important effort in military medicine today than
implementing the MHS Optimization Plan to provide the most
comprehensive health services to our Sailors, Marines and other
beneficiaries. Optimization is based upon the pillar of readiness as
our central mission and primary focus.
For several years now, we have attempted to shift our mindset from
treating illnesses to managing the health of our patients. Fewer man-
hours will be lost due to treatment of injury or illness because we
manage the health of our service men and women, which keeps them fit
and ready for duty. With this in mind, TRICARE Management Activity and
the three services created an aggressive plan to support development of
a high performance comprehensive and integrated health services
delivery system. We took lessons learned from the best practices of
both military and civilian health plans. The outcome was the MHS
Optimization Plan. Full implementation of this plan will result in a
higher quality, more cost effective health service delivery system.
The MHS Optimization Plan is based on three tenets. First, we must
make effective use of readiness-required personnel and equipment to
support the peacetime health care delivery mission. Second, we must
equitably align our resources to provide as much health service
delivery as possible in the most cost-effective manner--within our
MTFs. And third, we must use the best, evidence-based clinical
practices and a population health approach to ensure consistently
superior quality of services.
During the last year, we accomplished a lot, both locally and at an
enterprise level by focusing on concept education, primary care
management techniques, clinic productivity standards, administrative
health plan management and best practice integration. Accomplishments
include:
Clinical Advisory Boards
Clinical Practice Guidelines
Primary Care Manager By Name implementation
Patient Safety Initiative
Population Heath Improvement Plan and Tools
Population Health Navigator
Primary Care Optimization Model
Optimization Report Care
TRICARE On-line
Clinic Business Reengineering
Provider Support Staff and Exam Rooms
Clinic Management Course
Access monitoring
Appointment Standardization
Data Quality Initiatives
Transition to New DEERS
Medical Record Control
Pharmacy Profiling
Fleet Liaison Instruction
Policy Statement to Reward Clinical Excellence
Our Optimization funding has allowed us to pursue investment
opportunities designed to achieve an ``Order of Magnitude Change''
within Navy Medicine Treatment Facilities. Over 140 field proposals
underwent a rigorous review; those demonstrating the most significant
Return on Investment (ROI) are being implemented:
--Musculoskeletal initiatives at 4 sites
--Mental Health initiative at 1 site
--Primary Care initiatives at 4 sites
--Pharmacy initiatives at 4 sites
--E-Health /TRICARE On-Line
--Webification of Navy Medicine
--Population Health Navigator/Primary Care Optimization Model
--Clinic Manager Course
--Radiology Residency--NMC Portsmouth
--Birth Product Line Expansion at 2 sites
--Virtual Colonoscopy
--Carido-thoracic Surgery at NMC Portsmouth
--Sleep Lab Expansion at 3 Sites
--Nurse Triage/Nurse Advise Line at 2 sites
--Chile Health Center--NMC San Diego
--Case Management Project
The Optimization Fund projects are at various points in the
approval, funding and implementation process. Implementation plans and
outcome metrics will be monitored closely.
Although many commands report numerous efforts to optimize or
improve their facility, I am concerned that frequently these efforts
are not tied to specific goals or objectives. This is where performance
measurement comes in. Performance measurement provides focus and
direction, ensures strategic alignment and serves as a progress report.
In the Navy, we are making available comparative performance data
on all facilities--so MTF commanders can see where they stand and learn
from each others' successes. Ultimately, it allows us to raise the bar
for the whole organization.
We have already made adjustments to our measures and have found
that many of the measures have data that only changes once a year. This
may be fine to measure how well we are doing in moving towards some of
our strategic goals, but they are not adequate by themselves to manage
the complexity of the Navy Medical department. This year we've added
more ``levels'' to our metrics. One is a group of Annual Plan measures.
After reviewing our strategic plan in light of the current environment,
understanding the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to
our organization, we identified several priorities for the year. We
then identified measures to track progress on these items--and this
data has to be measurable at least quarterly. Finally, we have added
more measures for our ``Dashboard of Leading Indicators'' that our
leadership will be looking at on a monthly basis. Once we look at the
historical data for these dashboard indicators, we will be setting not
only targets for where we want to be but also action triggers in case
we are going the wrong direction in some area. We will agree on a level
below which, we will no longer just watch and see if it improves, but
we will take action to change the processes. We in the Navy have web
based our Optimization Report Card and the satisfaction survey data is
provided to MTF commanders in a more user friendly display on a
quarterly basis. As we continue to improve our performance
measurements, we will begin to identify targets for our system and for
each MTF. Holding MTF CO's accountable for meeting those targets will
be the next step in this evolution.
NAVY MEDICINE/DVA RESOURCE SHARING
As I mentioned, VA resource sharing is part of our optimization
program. Collaboration between the Veterans Affairs and Navy Medicine
is an important way to enhance service to our beneficiaries and
veterans. Navy Medicine is an active participant in the DOD/VA
Executive Council working to establish a high-level program of DOD/VA
cooperation and coordination in a joint effort to reduce cost and
improve health care for veterans, active duty military personnel,
retirees and family members. The Executive Council is made up of senior
DOD and VA healthcare executives and has established seven workgroups
to focus on specific policy areas. Navy Medicine participates on three
of the workgroups (Benefit Coordination, Financial Management and Joint
Facility Utilization/Resource Sharing). The Presidential Task Force to
Improve Health Care Delivery to our Nation's Veteran's meets monthly
and representatives from BUMED attend every meeting as well as members
from the VA and other Services. To date, BUMED currently manages 193
sharing agreements with the VA and provides resource sharing with the
VA on over 2,800 individual healthcare line items. We have also
established a new BUMED/VA web site, which will provide our commands an
overview of joint sharing ventures and updates on local command
initiatives. It's essential that our Commanding Officers pursue VA
sharing initiatives in their daily business activities. Specific Navy/
VA Joint Ventures and other MTF agreements initiatives include:
--NH Great Lakes and the North Chicago VAMC have reached agreement on
forming a joint North Chicago Ambulatory Healthcare system
which will support the mission at Naval Training Center (NTC),
Great Lakes with modern and efficient healthcare services.
--The NMC Key West, Florida and VA Medical Center, Miami, Florida are
sharing a new joint medical clinic that is staffed by VA and
Navy providers.
--NH Corpus Christi and the VA have also signed an agreement to share
surgical services and various ambulatory care services.
--In Guam, the VA Outpatient Clinic is collocated at USNH GUAM; Navy
is considered the primary inpatient facility for veterans.
--NH Pensacola has several VA/DOD agreements in place and is working
to establish additional agreements: Current agreements include:
Emergency Room Services, Inpatient services, OB services and
Orthopedic services, Lab and Radiology Services, Active Duty
physicals and Mental Health Services. Options are also under
review for new shared ambulatory healthcare settings.
--NMC San Diego and NH Cherry Point are working with the VA to
establish a Joint Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC).
--NH Lemoore is negotiating a new sharing agreement with the VA in
Fresno, California to replace a recently expired agreement.
--Agreements under development include: Corry Station--a combined
DOD/VA Outpatient Clinic. A project workbook has been started
and discussions continue. A site location has not been
determined at this time.
The Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy (CMOP) Pilot Program is
also providing promising results. The purpose of the CMOP pilot is to
evaluate the impact and feasibility of shifting some of the DOD
prescription refill workload from MTF pharmacies to VA CMOPs while
maintaining quality service to DOD beneficiaries. VA and DOD have made
important progress in their efforts to conduct a DOD/VA CMOP pilot for
evaluating the merits of using CMOPs MHS wide. Timelines and metrics
have been established, pilot sites have been selected, and the
interfaces are developed and are being tested. A Navy pilot site is at
the Naval Medical Center San Diego.
E-HEALTH TECHNOLOGY
The Internet has dramatically changed the way we live and do our
business in ways totally unforeseen even as recently as ten years ago.
This is especially true in Medicine where the Internet offers the
opportunity to extend healthcare access, services, and education to
improve the care we provide our patients. Online services and
information offer patients the ability to take control of their
healthcare and partner with their healthcare provider to stay healthy.
In Navy Medicine, we have recognized the enormous potential of the
Internet, both in healthcare services and in accomplishing our mission.
We want to move from reactive interventional healthcare, waiting for
people to get sick before we intervene, to more proactive Force Health
Protection where we identify the most common causes of illness and
injury in our patients and then aggressively act to prevent those
things through good preventive services and education. We realize we
cannot achieve this vision if our patients have to come to the hospital
for those services. As a result, we look to the internet to help us
extend healthcare services, access, and education outside the hospital
in a convenient, easily accessed manner.
We also realize that the internet can help us extend healthcare
services to remote areas where specialty care has historically required
medically evacuating patients. Finally, we also realize that the
internet can be a valuable tool to help us support our operational
commanders while concurrently improving our internal efficiency and
effectiveness.
These four goals, (1) extending healthcare services outside our
hospital to help move us to proactive Force Health Protection, (2)
extend healthcare services to the patient, regardless of location, (3)
improve support to operational commanders, and (4) improve our internal
efficiency and effectiveness comprise the four main goals of Navy
Medicine's e-health initiatives.
There are three initiatives I would like to highlight to
demonstrate our progress in this area:
--TRICARE OnLine.--This is the MHS new healthcare portal. A
revolutionary concept, it allows our patients to go online,
create an account, and access customizeable personalized
healthcare information for their specific needs. They can also
create an online healthcare journal for their healthcare
providers to use and to help them track their health. There are
no comparable services in the civilian sector and it represents
the very hard work of a dedicated staff who took this from
concept to widespread deployment in less than two years. Navy
Medicine is partnering with TRICARE OnLine to share
applications, jointly develop new applications, and ensure
interoperability for new innovations in the future.
--RADWORKS.--Radiology is increasingly important in the rapid
diagnosis and treatment of patients. Rapid access to radiology
expertise is critical to getting the best and quickest care for
our patients. Since we cannot have radiologists everywhere, we
are leveraging digital radiography over the web to provide this
service. We recently completed installation of this technology
onboard USNS COMFORT for use in supporting optimal care and
disposition of any casualties. Our patients will have immediate
access to the best radiologic support quickly regardless of
their location anywhere in the world.
--Smallpox Tracking System.--With the threat of smallpox, it is
critical for us to both immunize the force and provide our
commanders with as near a real time view of their immunization
status as possible. Previous reporting used to be paper-based,
was very labor-intensive, and was almost always out of date
when received. We did smallpox immunization tracking
differently. Within two weeks of program start, a dedicated
Navy Medicine web team developed and implemented a real time
web-based tracking system that allowed us to provide, on a
daily basis, real time immunization reports to line commanders
for their use. This was subsequently upgraded to a more robust
system in use today. Navy Medicine responded quickly and
effectively to the needs of our commanders and the support we
needed to give to keep our Sailors and Marines healthy and
ready to go.
The bottom line is that Navy Medicine is at the vanguard of
leveraging the net and emerging web-based technologies to improve our
healthcare services, better support our operational commanders, and
ensure our Sailors, Marines, family members, and retirees receive the
very best care possible anywhere, at any time.
MEDICAL RESEARCH
Navy Medicine also has a proud history of incredible medical
research successes from our CONUS and OCONUS laboratories. Our research
achievements have been published in professional journals, received
patents and have been sought out by industry as partnering
opportunities.
The quality and dedication of the Navy's biomedical R&D community
was exemplified this year as Navy researchers were selected to receive
prestigious awards for their work. CAPT Daniel Carucci, MC, USN
received the American Medical Association's Award for Excellence in
Medical Research for his work on cutting edge DNA vaccines. His work
could lead to the development of other DNA-based vaccines to battle a
host of infectious diseases such as dengue, tuberculosis, and
biological warfare threats. Considering the treat of Biological
terrorism, DNA vaccine-based technologies have been at the forefront of
``agile'' and non-traditional vaccine development efforts and have been
termed ``revolutionary''. Instead of delivering the foreign material,
DNA vaccines deliver the genetic code for that material directly to
host cells. The host cells then take up the DNA and using host cellular
machinery produce the foreign material. The host immune system then
produces an immune response directed against that foreign material.
In the last year, Navy human clinical trials involving well over
300 volunteers have demonstrated that DNA vaccines are safe, well-
tolerated and are capable of generating humoral and cellular immune
responses. DNA vaccines have been shown to protect rodents, rabbits,
chickens, cattle and monkeys against a variety of pathogens including
viruses, bacteria, parasites and toxins (tetantus toxin). Moreover
recent studies have demonstrated that the potential of DNA vaccines can
be further enhanced by improved vaccine formulations and delivery
strategies such as non-DNA boosts (recombinant viruses, replicons, or,
importantly, exposure to the targeted pathogen itself).
A multi-agency Agile Vaccine Task Force (AVTF) comprised of
government (DOD, FDA, NIH), academic and industry representatives is
being established to expedite research of the Navy Agile Vaccine.
As other examples of scientific achievement, Navy Medicine is
developing new strategies for the treatment of radiation illness. Navy
Adult Stem Cell Research is making great strides in addressing the
medical needs of patients with radiation illness. The terrorist attacks
of 2001 identified the threat of weapons of mass destruction, to
potentially expose large numbers of people to ionizing radiation.
Radiation exposure results in immune system suppression and bone marrow
loss. Currently, a bone marrow transplant is the only life saving
procedure available. Unfortunately, harvesting bone marrow is an
expensive and limited process, requiring an available pool of donors.
In the past year, NMRC researchers have developed and published a
reproducible method to generate bone marrow stem cells in vitro after
exposure to high dose radiation, such that these stem cells could be
transplanted back into the individual, thereby providing life-saving
bone marrow and immune system recovery. This is the type of technology
that will be needed to save the lives of a large number of victims.
In this same line of research, Navy Medicine is developing new
strategies for the treatment of combat injuries. We are developing new
therapies to ``educate'' the immune system to accept a transplanted
organ--even mismatched organs. This field of research has demonstrated
that new immune therapies can be applied to ``programming stem cells''
and growing bone marrow stem cells in the laboratory. The therapies
under development have obvious multiple use potential for combat
casualties and for cancer and genetic disease.
Other achievements during this last year include further
development of hand-held assays to identify biological warfare agents.
During the anthrax attacks, the U.S. Navy analyzed over 15,000 samples
for the presence of biological warfare (BW) agents. These hand-held
detection devices were used in late 2001 to clear Senate, House and
Supreme Court Office Buildings during the anthrax attacks and
contributed significantly to maintaining the functions of our
government. Some of the most important tools that are used to analyze
samples for the presence of BW agents in the field are hand-held
assays. The hand-held assays that are used by the DOD were all
developed at Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC). Currently NMRC
produces hand-held assays for the detection of 20 different BW agents.
These hand-held assays are supplied to the U.S. Secret Service, FBI,
Navy Environmental Preventive Medicine Units, U.S. Marine Corps, as
well as various other clients. Since September 2001, NMRC has produced
over 120,000 assays and has fielded approximately 23,000 assays. In
addition to the in-house production, NMRC has also provided emergency
production capacity of antibodies needed for DOD fielded bio-detection
systems, including the hand-held assays produced by JPO/BD for DOD use.
The hand-held Assays have recently been upgraded with Platinum
detection systems which will be 10 to 100 times more sensitive than the
current systems, depending on what agent is being identified.
The Navy's OCONUS research laboratories are studying diseases at
the very forefront of where our troops could be deployed during future
contingencies. These laboratories are staffed with researchers who are
developing new diagnostic tests, evaluating prevention and treatment
strategies, and monitoring disease threats. One of the many successes
from our three overseas labs is the use of new technology, which
includes a Medical Data Surveillance System (MDSS).
The goal of the MDSS is to provide enhanced medical threat
detection through advanced analysis of routinely collected outpatient
data in deployed situations. Originally designed to enable efficient
reporting of DNBI statistics and rapid response of preventative
medicine personnel, MDSS may also enable supply utilization tracking
and serve as a method of detecting the presence of chemical and
biological agents. MDSS is part of the Joint Medical Operations-
Telemedicine Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (JMOT-ACTD)
program. Interfacing with the shipboard SAMS database system, MDSS
employs signal detection and reconstruction methods to provide early
detection of changes, trends, shifts, outliers, and bursts in syndrome
and disease groups (via ICD-9 parsing) thereby signaling an event and
allowing for early medical/tactical intervention. MDSS also interfaces
with CHCS and is operational at the 121st Evacuation Hospital in South
Korea, and is being deployed at the hospital and clinics at Camp
Pendleton. Currently, MDSS may have an opportunity to collaborate with
other industry and service-related efforts for the purpose of
developing homeland defense-capable systems. Homeland defense
initiatives are currently being coordinated through the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency.
CONCLUSION
Navy Medicine has covered a lot of ground over the last year and we
face the future with great enthusiasm and hope. The business
initiatives, along with new technical advances join to make our Navy
Medical Department a progressive organization. I thank you for your
continued support and in making the military health care benefit the
envy of other medical plans. You have provided our service members,
retirees and family members a health benefit that they can be proud of.
I think we have been extraordinarily successful over the years, and
we have opportunities for continued success, both in the business of
providing healthcare, and the mission to supporting deployed forces and
protecting our citizens throughout the United States.
We are one team, with one fight, and we are now in the middle of
that fight. I am certain that we will prevail.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I apologize for being
late. I had another meeting. John Taylor.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DR. GEORGE PEACH
TAYLOR, JR., AIR FORCE SURGEON GENERAL
General Taylor. Mr. Chairman, Senator, it is a pleasure to
be here today for the first time. It is also my very great
privilege to represent the Air Force Medical Service. They are
dedicated to providing outstanding force protection to our
Armed Services as they have so ably demonstrated over the last
year and a half.
The Air Force Medical Service brings important capabilities
to support any operation or contingency as a key component of
agile combat support to the Nation's Aerospace Expeditionary
Forces (AEFs), our sister services and allied forces both
abroad and at home.
We have been transforming for many years. Since the first
Gulf War, we have achieved improvement in every step of the
deployment process from improving predeployment health to post
deployment screening and counseling. We believe in a lifecycle
approach to health care. It starts with accession and lasts as
long as the member is in uniform, and beyond through the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
As we deploy, we are now seeing a more fit and healthy
fighting force for which we have the best fitness and health
data ever. And we know how to take care of them. Our medical
personnel are more prepared than ever. Training such as our
advanced trauma training and readiness skills verification
program assure that our wartime skills are current.
Expeditionary medicine has enabled us to move our medical
forces forward very rapidly, as in the initial deployments
during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The capabilities we bring to
the fight today provide troops a level of care that was
unimaginable just 10 years ago, capabilities that make us a
lighter, smarter and a much faster medical service.
Our preventive medicine teams go in on the very first
planes into the theatre of operations. This small team of
experts gives us vital food and water safety capabilities. They
begin collecting vital water hazard data and provide basic
primary care. In fact, during Iraqi Freedom, one of our
environmental medicine flight personnel actually parachuted
with the Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade as part of the Air
Force's 86th contingency response group and the initial
contingent deployed in a Northern Iraqi air base. This
independent duty medical tech was later joined by five
remaining members of the flight to provide on-scene
environmental security and force protection at that location.
EXPEDITIONARY MEDICAL SUPPORT UNITS
Our surgical units, lightweight, highly mobile
Expeditionary Medical Support units, or EMEDs, can be on the
ground within 3 to 5 hours. EMEDs are comprised of highly
deployable medical teams that can range from large tented
facilities to five-person teams with backpacks. These five
person mobile field surgical teams or MFSTs, travel far forward
with 70 pound backpacks. In them is enough medical equipment to
perform 10 lifesaving surgeries anywhere, at any time, under
any conditions.
OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM
During a 6-month rotation for Operation Enduring Freedom
one of these mobile surgical teams performed 100 infield
surgeries, 39 of those were for combat surgeries. And when our
sick and injured must be removed from the theater and
transported to definitive care, we have the state of the art
medical air evacuation system.
In fact, another major advance since the Gulf War is our
ability to move large numbers of more critically injured
patients. Our Critical Care Air Transport Teams tend to these
very ill patients throughout the flight providing lifesaving
intensive care in the air. Last year in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom, we transported 1,352 patients through the air
evac system of whom 128 were just such critically ill or
injured patients. And for Iraqi Freedom, we performed over
2,000 patient movements, 640 of those were people with combat
injuries.
And thanks to the Department of Defense (DOD) TRANSCOM
Regulating and Command and Control Evacuation System
(TRAC\2\ES), we were able to track each patient from the point
of pickup to the point of delivery in real time.
It is important to note that each of these new programs
have been woven seamlessly into a joint medical capability.
This joint service interoperability was demonstrated during the
crash of an Apache helicopter last April in Afghanistan. The
two pilots had massive facial and extremity fractures. The
injured pilots were initially treated and moved by an Air Force
pararescue member who had been delivered onsite by an Army
Special Forces helicopter crew. The two were then stabilized by
an Army surgical team, transferred to a C-130 and then air
evacuated out on a C-17.
In flight they were restabilized by one of our Air Force
Critical Care Air Transport Teams and landed safely at a
military base in the European theater to be cared for by a
jointly staffed military regional medical center, and all this
was done within 17 hours of the time they hit the mountain in
Afghanistan. This is just one seemingly unbelievable but in
fact increasingly routine example of our integrated medical
operations.
Together, the three medical services have built an
interlocking system for care for every airman, soldier, sailor,
Marine or Coast Guardsman in harm's way. We have fielded data-
capture mechanisms to extend and enhance our force protection
efforts. Using automated systems, we have documented and
centrally stored almost 37,000 deployed medical patient medical
records since 9-11, capturing almost 71,000 patient encounters.
This is an update to what I told the House Armed Services
Committee last week because it includes Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
We have tools in place to collect relevant environmental
health data and are forwarding them for centralized analysis.
This linkage between individual patient encounters and
environmental data is absolutely critical to ongoing and future
epidemiological studies. We are working hard with health
affairs to ensure we maintain a solid, finely tuned deployment
health surveillance system.
In fact, the Air Force inspection agency assesses the
deployment health surveillance program in each of our bases,
active duty and Air Reserve Component, to ensure the quality of
this vital program. And in the last 2 years, largely through
their efforts and crosstalk, we have reduced significant
discrepancies fourfold.
TRICARE
Another crucial element of protecting our troops is
ensuring peace of mind of their families. We continue to work
hard to optimize the care we provide in our facilities for more
than 1 million TRICARE patients and 1.5 million TRICARE for
Life patients.
We are doing this in many ways by ensuring providers have
support staff, that their processes are efficient, and that
their buildings and equipment are adequate. We look forward to
the next generation TRICARE contracts and are stepping forward
in optimization for these. Both are structured to give more
resources and more flexibility to our local commanders.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
After all, politics and health care ``is local''. The
challenge we continue to face is medical professional
recruiting and retention. I personally believe the solution is
twofold. First, incentives such as loan repayment, accession
bonuses, increased specialty care, and increased specialty pay
are beginning to make a difference. And again, we appreciate
your critical support.
Secondly, I believe that optimization and facility
improvement projects, those that I mentioned above, will create
a first-class environment of care for our outstanding, well-
trained and highly talented staffs.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, as we face the many challenges of our
missions at home and abroad, your Air Force Medical Service
remains committed to offering families quality, compassionate
care and to supporting our troops as they protect and defend
our great country. I thank you for your vital support, the
support that you provide to your Air Force and to our families,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Dr. George Peach Taylor, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss with you some of the challenges and successes of
the Air Force Medical Service, or the AFMS.
As with all other aspects of the military, the AFMS is transforming
itself.
Transformation is a word that is being regularly used around
Washington these days. To the Air Force, transformation is not just new
technology, such as uninhabited combat aerial vehicles or space-based
radars. Transformation is merging new technologies with new concepts of
operations and new organizational structures.
Think about the Air Force combat controllers on the ground in
Afghanistan directing B-52s to drop directed-munitions within 500
meters from their positions. This was accomplished by using global
positioning satellites, laser range-finding devices, and new state-of-
the-art munitions to provide a new kind of effect: enhanced close-air
support, which proved to be pivotal in the fight with the Taliban. This
success serves as an example of one of many progressive steps the Air
Force is taking in its march toward Transformation.
The Air Force Medical Service is no stranger to transformational
changes. In many ways we lead the Air Force and like to say ``that we
were transforming before transformation was cool.'' Our modular,
lightweight medical and preventive medicine teams, same-day
laparoscopic surgery, advanced imaging--among many other components--
have changed the face of military medicine, from home base to
battlefield.
Our five Air Force Medical Service core competencies provide
compelling lenses through which we view the transformational
activities.
I would like to briefly describe each core competency and share
some of the exciting accomplishments we have achieved under each.
Our first Air Force Medical Service's core competency is
population-based health care. As the name indicates, population-based
health care strives to keep our entire beneficiary population healthy
by preventing disease and injury. But, if any do become sick or
injured, our system will provide exceptional care.
Our next core competency is human performance enhancement and
sustainment. These include methods and equipment that protect our
forces from harm and permit our troops to perform their missions
better.
Fixed wing aeromedical evacuation, our third core competency,
addresses the innovative and life-saving ways we use aircraft to
transport patients from the theater of operations to the nearest
capable medical treatment facility.
Our fourth core competency, medical care in contingencies, entails
all the training, equipment, and logistics needed to provide care
during humanitarian or combat operations.
World health interface, our final core competency, recognizes the
importance of interaction with other nations. Air Force medics are
called to serve from Atlanta to Afghanistan, and from San Antonio to
Sierra Leone. Therefore, we have institutionalized training programs
that teach medics the language and customs of those countries in which
they might be called to serve.
These five core competencies are the heart and soul of the Air
Force Medical Service. I would like to describe each in a bit more
detail to better demonstrate to you the innovative ways in which the
Air Force Medical Service is transforming itself.
Population-Based Health Care
The U.S. military health care system cares for 8.3 million people
and costs $26 billion. This huge system is in every state and in
numerous countries. Yet, as immense as this system is, I adhere to the
philosophy that all health care is local.
What matters most in medicine and dentistry is the care our
patients receive from their provider. It is my mission--my passion--to
ensure that every provider has the leadership, training, people,
facility space, and medical equipment he or she requires to give those
patients the care they need, the care they deserve. Our first core
competency, population-based health care, is critical to ensuring this
becomes a reality.
We have transitioned from the old medical paradigm--treating sick
people--to the new paradigm of preventing people from getting sick in
the first place. The old way makes for better TV drama, but the new way
makes for better medicine. This new paradigm is called population-based
health care. The programs I will discuss support population-based
health, especially how it applies to our active duty forces.
Because of the global war on terrorism, there has never been
greater imperative to have a military force that is fully ready to
``fly the mission.'' Our comprehensive Individual Medical Readiness
program, ensures our military members are ``medically ready'' to
perform.
To help illustrate the Individual Medical Readiness program, I ask
you to think of an aircraft--a new F/A-22 fighter, for instance. From
the moment each aircraft enters our arsenal, it undergoes continuous
monitoring, routine inspections, preventive maintenance, and if needed,
repairs. These activities happen before, during, and after this weapon
system is employed.
A far more valuable resource--our airmen, the ``human weapons
system''--receive that same level, if not more, of devoted care.
Through our Individual Medical Readiness program, we constantly monitor
the health of our airmen through inspections and preventative
maintenance--called Preventive Health Assessments--and, if needed,
repairs.
The Individual Medical Readiness program has four main components,
the first of which is the Preventive Health Assessment. At least once a
year, we review the total health care needs and medical readiness
status for every airman. During this appointment we make sure they have
received all recommended and required preventive care, screenings,
immunizations, and assessments. Preventive Health Assessments are the
equivalent of the routine inspections and preventive maintenance
provided to aircraft.
Second, at each visit, whether in garrison or deployed, we take
care of our troop's complaints, look for other preventive
interventions, and ensure their fitness for duty.
Third, we perform medical evaluations before and after troops
deploy so that we can monitor the effect--if any--the deployments have
on their health.
Finally, we have created innovative new information systems
designed to track all individual medical readiness and preventive
health care requirements. It is called the Preventive Health Assessment
Individual Medical Readiness program (PIMR).
At the local level, PIMR can tell the medics which troops need
blood tests, evaluations, or vaccines, who is healthy enough to be sent
to the field, and who should remain behind until they are healthy. At
the global level, PIMR provides leaders near real-time statistics that
tell them what percent of their troops are medically fit to deploy.
PIMR's metrics are also used to provide feedback and shape policies and
programs so we can continually improve the readiness of our force.
Population-Based Health Care is more than just the method to keep
the active duty members healthy. It benefits all beneficiaries--active
duty, their families, retirees and their families, and is our
overarching model for healthcare. Our AFMS must accomplish three
critical processes to ensure full-fledged Population-Base Health Care.
First, care team optimization. An optimized primary care team, for
example, has as its members a provider, nurse, two medical technicians,
and one administrative technician. The team is provided the optimal
number of exam rooms, medical equipment, and support staff needed to
ensure that such things as facility constraints and administrative
responsibilities do not hinder their ability to provide care to our
airmen and their families. In such teams, our medical staff flourish.
Where we have optimized our primary care clinics, we have enjoyed
success. Based upon this success, the AFMS has embarked upon expanding
this strategy. Soon, every clinical and non-clinical product line will
undergo an expeditionary capability analysis, clinical currency
analysis, and business case analysis to determine how best to optimize
the use of our resources.
In short, we have seen that optimization has great potential in the
primary care setting, so now we hope to spread that success by
optimizing specialty care. This year we will launch pilot programs for
the optimization of orthopedics, general surgery, otolaryngology, OB/
GYN, and ophthalmology.
The result of optimization is clear: Our people are receiving
outstanding healthcare delivered by highly trained teams.
A second critical process of Population-Based Health is ``PCM by
name.'' PCM stands for ``primary care manager.'' A PCM is a provider
who takes active oversight in every aspect of a patient's care.
Beneficiaries are assigned a ``PCM by name,'' meaning they will
routinely see that same provider. Previously, beneficiaries would
arrive at the clinic and frequently did not know who their provider
would be that day. Now, through PCM by name, they are assigned to a PCM
who will see the patient for all routine medical care. The PCM becomes
much like a trusted, small-town family doctor who becomes intimately
involved in the care of the patient and his or her family.
We have over 1.2 million customers enrolled to our 74 medical
locations--and 100 percent of those beneficiaries are enrolled to a PCM
by name.
The tandem success of the Optimization and Primary Care Manager by
Name efforts are serving our TRICARE beneficiaries well. The Health
Employee Data Information Set Standards--or HEDIS--are the civilian
national standards by which most Managed Care Organizations are
measured. Here is how HEDIS ranks some of our efforts compared to
civilian commercial health care plans:
--For providing timely cervical cancer screenings, the Air Force is
in the top 10 percent of all health care plans in the United
States.
--For breast cancer screenings the Air Force surpasses 66 percent of
commercial plans.
--Our diabetic care program is in the top 9 percent of all similar
plans nationwide.
And, recently, the Air Force Medical Service was recognized by
civilian experts at the Kilo Foundation as one of two U.S. health care
organizations on the cutting edge of optimizing health care delivery--
the other organization being Kaiser-Permanente.
We optimized our care teams to deliver the best care, now we must
also optimize the buildings in which our patients receive that care.
Facility recapitalization is the third critical process that must be
accomplished to support population-based health.
Whether we are talking about the human body, aircraft, or
buildings, the more each ages, the more they wear out, break down,
creak and leak. They become more expensive to maintain. For that
reason, the Defense Health Program currently supports the goal of
medical facility recapitalization at a 50-year rate rather than the 67-
year rate provided to other, non-health-care facilities.
We use the funds we are provided annually to pay for necessary
renovations, modernization, and replacement needs.
Before I discuss our remaining AFMS core competencies, I will
mention a few population-based health care items I find worthy of
mention, one of which is our success in suicide prevention.
Suicide is the most preventable cause of death, yet is the 11th
leading cause of death in the United States. Among people of military
age, it is the fourth leading cause of death behind accidents, cancer,
and heart attacks.
Fortunately, suicide among our Air Force members and their families
is nearly the lowest it has been in 20 years.
We teach our leadership, airmen, and family members how to
recognize, assist, and intervene when they identify members who might
be contemplating suicide. Our efforts are succeeding. Throughout the
mid 1990s, there were over 14 Air Force suicides for every 100,000
members. That number is now just 8.3 for every 100,000. We are striving
hard--very hard--to lower it yet more. We recognize that we can never
completely eradicate suicide, but every life saved is crucial to the
Air Force. And the quality of life for all those who seek and receive
care is immeasurably enhanced.
Another important quality of life initiative is our focus on
enhancing obstetrical care in our military treatment facilities for our
patients. We are working very hard across the Air Force, and indeed
DOD, to optimize our OB programs. We are increasing routine prenatal
ultrasound capability, improving continuity of care with patients and
OB providers, and enhancing OB facilities to provide more comfortable
labor and delivery rooms.
Preliminary findings from the specialty care optimization pilot at
Nellis AFB, show increases in access to care, in patient-provider
continuity, and an increase in mothers desiring to deliver their babies
at Nellis. In the last year alone nearly 11,000 mothers-to-be visited
our OB clinics for a total of 193,000 visits. Carrying through on these
optimization efforts, we feel confident that when it is time for our OB
patients to choose their provider, they will choose their local
military treatment facility. They will choose us.
Our optimization efforts throughout the Air Force Medical Service
are complemented by partnerships with Department of Veterans Affairs
clinics and hospitals. The DOD has seven joint venture programs with
the VA; the Air Force oversees four of them at Travis, Elmendorf,
Kirtland, and Nellis Air Force Base Hospitals.
One of our most successful joint ventures is our first--Nellis Air
Force Base's VA/DOD hospital. This joint venture replaced the outdated
Nellis hospital and offered VA beneficiaries a local federal inpatient
facility for the first time in the area's history. The facility enjoys
a fully integrated Intensive Care Unit, operating suite, emergency
room, post anesthesia care unit, and shared ancillary services.
Kirtland's joint venture is also impressive. There, the joint
venture has gone beyond the sharing of staff and facilities. At
Kirtland, the Air Force and VA have created Joint Decontamination and
Weapons of Mass Destruction Response Teams. Their teamwork will permit
a homeland defense capability that is superior to either organization
could provide separately.
Our four joint venture opportunities saved $2.5 million and avoided
over $16 million in the just the last two fiscal years. Not all DOD
hospitals are candidates for joint ventures, but we are excited about
finding those that are and investing in the opportunity.
Partnerships with the VA where they make good sense not only save
money; they enhance care to both of our beneficiary populations. The
new contracts promise enhanced pharmacy support and health care to
beneficiaries.
An additional enhancement to the DOD's health care benefit is that
of Tricare For Life--the extension of Tricare benefits to our retirees.
This program has dramatically improved the quality of life for our
Medicare-eligible retirees and their families. In the first year,
Tricare for Life produced 30 million claims. The program also
significantly improved access to pharmaceuticals to our retiree
population. Retirees appreciate both the quality of care and the
knowledge that the country they proudly served is now there to serve
them.
I have described many activities the AFMS performs to ensure that
the airmen we send into the field are healthy. But, once they are
there, we must also work to ensure they stay that way--that they are
protected from injury, disease, and biological and chemical weapons. We
must provide an operations environment that is safe. This leads me to
our second core competency, Human Performance Enhancement and
Sustainment.
Human Performance Enhancement and Sustainment
Airmen are our most valuable assets. Their readiness directly
impacts the combat effectiveness of the United States Air Force.
Therefore, it is not good enough to just have disease-free troops, they
need to be working at their optimal performance level during strenuous
military operations. To that end, the Air Force Medical Service has
developed a Deployment Health Surveillance program that ensures and
protects the health of its members from the day they enter service and
don their first uniform, during deployments, and throughout their
entire career.
Deployment Health Surveillance is more than just the application of
exams immediately before and after a deployment; it is a Life Cycle
approach to health care that lasts as long as the member is in uniform
and beyond. Some of the most recent developments in Deployment Health
Surveillance are the most exciting. These include technologies that
rapidly detect and identify the presence of weapons of mass
destruction, technologies such as genomics, bio-informatics, and
proteomic clinical tools.
Each of these state-of-the-art efforts promises speedy
revolutionary diagnostics, enabling near real-time bio-surveillance.
And, whereas, most bio-chemical detectors take hours or days to detect
and warn us that agents have been released into the environment, the
sensors we are now developing will have near real-time capability to
warn us of an attack.
The AFMS was the first to transition polymerase chain reaction
technologies into a fielded biological diagnostic detection system.
This technology keeps watch over troops in the field and our homeland.
It provides better protection for our entire nation while
simultaneously revolutionizing daily medical practice.
Whether these detection units stand sentinel over military men and
women overseas or guard major population centers here at home, their
presence translates into markedly decreased mortality and morbidity.
Additionally, because it can quickly detect and identify pathogens, it
decreases wasted time and resources in laboratory and therapeutic
interventions.
The AFMS is working to overcome another threat to our troops and
citizenry--a threat more often associated with science fiction than
with current events: directed energy weapons--lasers. Directed energy
devices are now commonplace. Hundreds of thousands of lasers are
employed by many countries around the world . . . mostly for peace,
many for war. Militaries, including our own, use lasers in weapons
guidance systems to help them drop bombs with pinpoint accuracy.
In response to this threat from our enemies, we developed--and
continue to improve upon--protective eyewear and helmet faceplates.
These devices are designed to absorb and deflect harmful laser energy,
thus protecting pilots from the damaging and perhaps permanent eye
injuries these weapons inflict.
We are also investigating commercial off-the-shelf, portable
medical equipment that can quickly scan retinas and automatically
determine if a person's eye has suffered damage from lasers.
The AFMS is teaming with other Air Force organizations to
transition several protecting and surveillance technologies to allow
our forces to enter, operate and safely prevail within the laser-
dominated battle space.
Lasers are not the only threat to our forces. There is also the
familiar threat of biological and chemical weaponry. Congressional
members and their staff, journalists, post office workers, and average
citizens fell victim to anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001. As
sobering as these attacks were, we were fortunate they were committed
with a biological weapon for which we had a ready defense--an
antibiotic--and that the anthrax was delivered in small amounts.
Our nation and its medical community learned much from the
incident; so did our enemies. They will know better how to strike us
next time, and we must be prepared.
To detect and combat such a threat, the AFMS is developing
detection, surveillance, and documentation systems to help us recognize
and respond to future biological and chemical warfare attacks. The
Global Expeditionary Medical System--or GEMS--is one such system.
GEMS was first developed and deployed during Operation DESERT
SHIELD/DESERT STORM as a means to monitor and help protect the health
of deployed forces. During that initial deployment, it captured over
11,000 patient encounters in the field and relayed this valuable
information to what is now the Brooks City Base in Texas for analysis.
GEMS is now a mature, fully functioning asset. It establishes a
record of every medical encounter in the field. It then rapidly
identifies clinical events such as a potential epidemic. Whether the
outbreak is accidental such as food poisoning, or intentional such as
the release of a weapon of mass destruction like Anthrax at an airbase,
GEMS can quickly alert medics about the presence of the weapon and
allows our medics to attack and defeat the biological or chemical agent
before its effect can become catastrophic.
GEMS does not look like much . . . it is a ruggedized laptop
computer with a few small attachments, but its toughness and small size
make it ideal for troops in the field. GEMS will soon be incorporated
into the Epidemic Outlook Surveillance system, or EOS. EOS is an
initiative to network--to link together--all systems that detect and
identify biological and chemical warfare agents. It also incorporates
all data produced from provider-patient encounters. From this, medics
and leadership can monitor the possible presence of weapons of mass
destruction, determine their current and predicted impact on troops,
and respond with precision to defeat their effect. This is all
accomplished to protect not just a base, nor theater of operations;
rather EOS will provide overarching, worldwide oversight of the health
of our troops.
What is fascinating about this system is its speed. The current
standard to detect and identify a biological or chemical agent--and
contain the epidemic it could create--is five to nine days. Aboard
ship, or in a military base, the resources needed to care for the
infected and the high casualty rate would overwhelm the mission. Even
if the agent were detected in the first three days, we expect that up
to 30 percent of our troops would fall ill or worse.
When it comes to identifying chemical and biological weapons
attacks, lost time means lost lives. We are fast now. We strive to be
faster. Our goal is to recognize and combat a potential epidemic within
the first three hours of its introduction into the population. We are
working with the other services to create sensors with this capability.
These technologies are just over the horizon, but we are developing
man-portable sensors capable of detecting chemicals and pathogens
almost instantly. When fully developed, these sensors will have the
capability to read the genetic structure of a biological agent to tell
us exactly what it is and what antibiotics would best defeat the
attack.
Obviously, such programs have both military and civilian
application, so we are working with many other military, federal,
university, and civilian organizations to develop, deploy, and share
this amazing technology.
The enemy is not the only threat our troops face. During extended
operations, our airmen find themselves combating fatigue. Physical and
mental exhaustion lead to judgment errors, errors that in combat can
cost lives. With its ``Global Reach, Power and Vigilance'' mission, the
Air Force continues to strain the physiologic limits of its aircrews.
It must develop methods of protecting its troops from the dangers of
fatigue, for fatigue is a killer in the battlefield.
We have been working hard with the Air Force Research Laboratory,
Air Combat Command and our aircrews to develop advanced techniques to
maximize performance and safety on long-duration missions. These
techniques include planning missions around the body's natural sleep
cycles--the circadian rhythm--diet manipulation, and pharmacological
and environmental assistance.
Such activities greatly aid our force-protection measures in an
ever-changing battle space. But, during operations, the AFMS' ``bread
and butter'' is the level to which we can properly treat and move
wounded battle participants.
This leads me to our third core competency: Fixed Wing Aeromedical
Evacuation.
Fixed Wing Aeromedical Evacuation
We have invested many resources and much time into keeping troops
healthy and enhancing their performance. But in the operational
environment, people do become sick. They do get injured. For such cases
we developed an aeromedical evacuation system that can move patients
from the field to definitive care, often within hours of their
acquiring the illness or injury.
The Aeromedical Evacuation System is a unique and critical part of
our nation's mobility resources. The need to move critically injured,
stabilized patients from forward areas to increasing levels of
definitive care has driven significant changes in the fixed-wing
environment.
In the past, Aeromedical missions were limited to certain airframes
such as the C-141 cargo aircraft or our special C-9 Nightingale AE
aircraft. However, aeromedical evacuation is a mission and not a
particular aircraft platform; and it is a mission recognized as a core
competency within the larger airlift mission. As we retire our aging AE
platforms and transition from dedicated to designated aircraft in the
mainstream of airlift flow, we are developing new tools such as the
Patient Support Pallet, or PSP.
The PSP is a collection of medical equipment compactly assembled so
that it can easily fit into most any cargo or transport aircraft. When
needed, it is brought aboard, unpacked, and within a short time is
transformed into a small patient care area. This means that patients no
longer have to wait hours or even days for an aeromedical evacuation
flight. Just give our medics a PSP and an hour, and they will take the
C-5 that just unloaded troops and tanks, and will convert a small
corner of that plane into an air ambulance.
Our 41 PSPs strategically positioned around the globe permit any
suitable airframe in the airlift flow to be used. This awesome
capability minimizes delay of movement, maximizes available airlift,
and most importantly, saves lives. We plan to buy more.
Insertion of critical care skills early in this process is provided
in the form of specially trained Critical Care Air Transport Teams, or
CCAT teams. These teams--comprised of a physician, nurse and
cardiopulmonary technician--receive special training that enables them
to augment our air evacuation crews and deliver intensive care support
in the airborne environment. Our Active Duty medics have 42 CCAT teams,
but our ARC forces are full partners in this new capability. The Air
Force Reserve contributes 25 CCAT teams, and the Air National Guard 32
teams to our AE mission. Each is ready for rotation into the AEF along
with their Active Duty counterparts.
Another valuable tool is the TRANSCOM Regulating and Command &
Control Evacuation System, otherwise known as TRAC\2\ES. TRAC\2\ES is a
DOD/Joint enterprise that allows us to plan which patients should fly
out on what aircraft, what equipment is needed to support each patient,
and what hospital they should fly to; and it provides us in-transit
visibility of all patients all the time. TRAC\2\ES provides command and
control of global patient movement in peacetime, contingencies and war.
TRAC\2\ES is an overwhelming success. It has accomplished all of
the goals specified in the re-engineering process and has produced
benefits that no one anticipated. To date:
--There have been more than 1,700 patients/soldiers moved as a result
of activities during OEF, and nearly 17,000 such moves
worldwide last year.
--Every patient was directed to the appropriate treatment facility
for the needed care.
--And an amazing 100 percent in-transit visibility has been
maintained on all patients moved through the TRAC\2\ES system.
TRAC\2\ES is also de-linked to specific aircraft. This is critical
to its success, especially during the activation of our Civil Reserve
Air Fleet or CRAF. The CRAF is comprised of up to 78 commercial
aircraft--both cargo and passenger--that are provided to the Department
of Defense by civilian airline companies. We use them to transport
material and people into the theater of operations. We could also use
them to potentially evacuate sick or injured troops out of the theater.
If so, TRAC\2\ES will still function, regardless of the service,
regardless of the aircraft.
Patient movement during current operations has incorporated all
aspects of this continuum: maintenance of health in the field, use of
organic airlift, versatile equipment support packages, early-on
critical care intervention, and information systems that track and
inform leadership of the health and location of their troops.
From battlefield injury to home station, there is seamless patient
movement under the umbrella of qualified, capable aircrew members and
trained critical care professionals.
I must mention here, that 87 percent of the aeromedical evacuation
capability I have described resides within the Air Force Reserve
Command and Air National Guard. These dedicated men and women of these
organizations are truly our Total Force partners.
Medical Care in Contingencies
Medical Care in Contingencies, is our fourth core competency and
one in which we have also seen significant transformation.
The Air Force Medical Service provides the full spectrum of ground-
based medical care during contingencies. Described as a ``Red Wedge''
capability, expeditionary medical care begins with a rapid ramp-up of
medical capability. First into the field is our small Prevention and
Aerospace Medicine--or PAM--Team. PAM teams are 2- to 4-person teams
who are our first-in-and-last-out medics. They are inserted with the
very first troops and are capable of providing health care, on
location, before the first tent stake is in the ground.
Team members include an aerospace medicine physician,
bioenvironmental engineer, public health officer and an independent
duty medical technician. They provide initial health threat assessment
and the surveillance, control, and mitigation of the effects of the
threat. Additionally, the aerospace medicine physician and independent
duty medical technician provide primary and emergency medical care and
limited flight medicine.
As forces start to build in theater, so does the size of the
medical contingency. The PAM team is quickly followed by a small but
exceptionally skilled Mobile Field Surgical Team [MFST].
This highly trained surgical team includes a general surgeon, an
orthopedic surgeon, an emergency medical physician and operating room
staff, including an anesthesia provider and an operating room nurse or
technician. The 5 team members each carry a 70-pound, specially
equipped backpack of medical and surgical equipment. Within these few
backpacks is enough medical equipment to perform 10 emergency, life-or-
limb-saving surgeries without resupply.
By putting backpack providers deep into the theater or operations
we save time and we save lives. No longer do we wait for the wounded to
come to us, we take the surgery to the soldier.
The MFST's capability has been proven in Operation Enduring
Freedom. For example, less than one month after Sept. 11, Air Force
medics assigned to Air Force Special Operations in OEF saved the life
of an Army sergeant who lost nearly two-thirds of his blood volume when
he fell and severely damaged his internal pelvic region. Within
minutes, an Air Force MFST reached him and worked more than four hours
to stabilize him enough for transportation to a U.S. military medical
facility.
A Canadian journalist at Bagram Air Base--not far from Kabul,
Afghanistan--was horribly injured when a grenade ripped open her side.
Our medics were there instantly to provide initial stabilization,
treatment, and her first surgery. Our Aeromedical and CCATT teams
arranged rapid aeromedical evacuation and provided care in the air. The
TRAC\2\ES system tracked her movement from Southwest Asia to Europe. It
provided early warning to the receiving facility of her condition and
extent of her wounds. When she landed she was met by our medics and
taken to a military hospital for definitive care.
Both patients survived. Just a few years ago, before we created
this capability, both would have died.
We can provide full spectrum care--anytime--anywhere.
Expeditionary Medical Support--EMEDS--is the name we give our
deployed inpatient capability. The small PAM and MFST teams I described
are the first two building blocks of an EMEDS. To them, we add 17 more
medical, surgical, and dental personnel. These medics bring with them
enough tents and supplies to support four inpatient beds. We can keep
adding people and equipment in increments as needed until we have
erected a 125-bed field hospital. A unique capability of EMEDS is that
they are equipped with special liners, ventilation and accessories to
protect against biological and chemical warfare attacks.
As an additional measure to defend against these weapons, we field
Biological Augmentation Teams. They provide advanced diagnostic
identification to analyze clinical and environmental samples centered
around RAPIDS, our Rapid Pathogen Identification System. Each team has
two laboratory personnel who can deploy as a stand-alone team or in
conjunction with an EMEDS package.
After our successful deployment of Biological Augmentation Teams to
New York City in response to the October 2001 anthrax attack, we
realized just how invaluable these teams were to local public health
and Centers for Disease Control officials. Since then, we have reached
a total of 30 fully staffed and equipped teams, and additional 14
manpower teams designed to backfill or augment the other teams. They
have been--and continue to be--deployed throughout OPERATION Enduring
Freedom.
A common attribute of each medical team I have described is that
they are small. The Air Force expeditionary medical footprint is
shrinking. These smaller units can be assembled in increments;
therefore, are flexible to the base commander's requirements.
Their small size makes them cheaper, easier, and faster to
transport. A few years ago we used to talk about how many aircraft we
needed to move our huge Air Transportable Hospitals into a theater. Now
we talk about how many pallets we need on an aircraft.
In just a little over a decade, we have become far more capable
with fewer people, less size, less weight, less space--and less time.
This is important. Speed counts. CNN claims it can have a
journalist anywhere in the world reporting within seven minutes of an
incident. We may not beat CNN to the scene, but our light, highly-
mobile expeditionary medical support teams will be on the ground
shortly thereafter--perhaps within as little as three to five hours.
For any humanitarian or combat contingency, our EMEDS concept is a true
force multiplier. It gives the combatant commander state-of-the-art,
worldwide medical care for his deployed forces.
Our transformation has accelerated the speed with which Air Force
medics get to where they are needed. Our training programs ensure that
once they get there, they are fully capable of providing life-saving
care.
Two medical training programs are especially crucial to this
capability; one is our Readiness Skills Verification Program (RSVP).
Each member of a deploying health care team, whether a physician,
logistician, administrator or nurse, will be called upon to perform
numerous tasks in the field, tasks they would never encounter in their
home-base medical facility. The RSVP ensures these troops train on, and
master, each of these must-know tasks.
Our medics practice them routinely. The list is varied: treating
tropical diseases, linking our computer to foreign networks, using
ruggedized surgical equipment in field tents--troops must master these
tasks before their boots touch the ground in a deployed location.
The other medical training program vital to our expeditionary
medicine mission is the Center for the Sustainment of Trauma and
Readiness Skills, or C-STARS.
Because our military physicians care for arguably the healthiest
population in the world, the medical problems they see during the
normal duty day are different from the traumatic and life-threatening
injuries the providers will encounter in the battlefield.
To prepare our medics to care for these injuries, we train them in
one of three C-STARS locations: civilian hospitals in Cincinnati--where
our Reserve personnel train; St. Louis--where Air National Guard medics
train; and Baltimore where active duty personnel train. Our staff work
side-by-side with civilians in these facilities to care for patients
suffering from knife and gunshot wounds, crushing injuries, and other
traumatic wounds; the kind of injuries our medics can expect to
encounter while deployed.
Hundreds of our medics have trained at C-STARS over the last 2
years. At one time, more than 75 percent of the Air Force special
operations medics in Afghanistan received their first ``battle-field
medicine'' experience at C-STARS, as have all of the CCAT care-in-the-
air teams I mentioned earlier.
Interfacing with World Health
Our allies and coalition partners around the world are paying close
attention to these initiatives. They are eager to work with us in
improving their military medicine programs. This leads me to discuss
our final core competency, Interfacing with World Health.
The Department of Defense's Joint Vision 2020 states that today's
U.S. forces must be prepared to operate with multinational forces,
government agencies, and international organizations. The Air Force
International Health Specialist Program fulfills this mission. The
International Health Specialist program identifies medics with
specialized language and/or cultural skills, trains these airmen to
enhance their skills, and provides a database of medics tailor-made for
specific international missions.
Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve
International Health Specialists regularly interact with the U.S.
Unified Command Staff, non-governmental agencies, members of foreign
military units, and interagency personnel. They provide insightful
recommendations on a variety of issues and situations.
Whether assisting with blast resuscitation and victim assistance
missions in Cambodia, conducting on-site capability surveys in Sierra
Leone and Senegal, or by participating in discussions on international
humanitarian law, our International Health Specialists are at the
forefront of global health engagement. Their involvement in host-nation
exercises and civic assistance activities ensures we are ready to
deploy assets wherever and whenever needed, and that the Air Force
Medical Service can effectively engage in multi-national environments.
Through our Professional Exchange Program, foreign military
physicians provide care shoulder-to-shoulder with our staff in Air
Force medical facilities. In addition, our Expanded International
Military Education and Training Program uses Air Force medics to
``train the trainers'' of foreign military and civilian medical
facilities. In the last couple of years we have trained 1,700
healthcare providers in 18 countries. We share our expertise on how to
train and prepare for, and react to, medical contingencies. Often, our
foreign students are receiving such instruction for the very first
time.
Ultimately, if a regional contingency does occur, our medics will
be able to respond to it as one of many partners in a carefully
orchestrated international coalition of medics.
To summarize, those are our five core competencies: Population-
based Health Care, Human Performance Enhancement and Sustainment, Fixed
Wing Aeromedical Evacuation, Medical Care in Contingencies, and
Interfacing with World Health.
Human Resources
Our successes in these core competencies could not be accomplished
were it not for the phenomenal people whom we recruit and maintain
among our ranks. We know our medics are among the best in their fields.
For example, the internal medicine program at Wilford Hall Medical
Center at Lackland AFB, Texas, recently scored third out of 398
programs nationwide during the Medical Resident in Training
examinations, placing them in the top 1 percent in the nation. This is
extremely impressive when one considers we're being compared to medical
programs such as Harvard's. This is but one example of the caliber of
our nearly 45,500 Active Duty and Reserve Component medical personnel.
This number includes more nearly 1,400 dentists, 5,000 physicians, and
7,000 nurses. However, attracting and keeping these troops is
difficult. We seek only the most educated and dedicated nurses,
physicians, and dentists. Obviously, those attributes are also highly
sought by civilian health care organizations.
The Air Force offers these young professionals a career of great
self-fulfillment, awesome responsibility, and excitement. The civilian
market offers these incentives, too, but in many cases--in most cases--
provides a far more attractive financial compensation. Furthermore, the
life and family of a civilian provider is not interrupted by
deployments--something our troops are experiencing at a frequency not
seen since World War II.
These deployments are a burden to our active and reserve forces. I
am keenly aware of the elevated use of our Air Reserve Component over
the last decade, and the difficulties deployments create for their
family and work lives. My staff does their utmost to only use ARC
forces on voluntary status, to activate them for the shortest time
possible, and to call upon their services only when other options are
not available.
However, it is for these reasons--the lure of more attractive
civilian compensation and the frequent deployments--that we find it
difficult to attract the kind of medical professionals we badly need.
For instance, our fiscal year 2002 recruiting goal was to acquire
over 300 fully trained physicians--we recruited 41. We required 150 new
dentists--we recruited 39. Nurses, we needed nearly 400--we recruited
228.
Fortunately, last year's National Defense Authorization Act permits
increased compensation for these skills. It allows for loan repayment,
increased accession bonuses and specialty pay. I thank you for
providing these incentives. They are very useful tools and a good start
toward obtaining the quality and quantity of medical professionals we
so urgently need.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I am incredibly proud of our Air Force medics and
honored to lead them. Each of these five core competencies demonstrates
how far the Air Force Medical Service has transformed since the fall of
the Berlin Wall, especially in the last five years. We will continue to
anticipate the challenges of tomorrow to meet them effectively.
We are very proud to have a leading role in support of our
expeditionary Air Force. As the U.S. Air Force focuses more and more on
improved effects, we are in lockstep with the line in our ability to
provide the right care at the right time with the right capability. We
remain at the right shoulder of war fighters, at home base to provide
for a healthy workplace and home, and in the field to keep war fighters
protected and at the peak of their mental and physical capabilities.
We thank you for the critical support you provide that makes this
possible.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye, you heard most of the
testimony. Would you like to ask questions first?
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before
I proceed with my questions, I'd like to make four
observations. Whenever a military person is wounded on the
field or on a ship or in the air, I believe the first person he
calls for is a medic or corpsman. That was my experience. No
one called for his wife, but they called for a medic.
Secondly, whenever the chairman and I have visited bases
and camps, met with enlisted personnel and officers, the first
question or the bulk of the questions asked refer to health
care for dependents. In fact, very few have ever touched upon
pay raises. It is always on health care for my kids or my wife.
Third, it is obvious that morale depends upon the level of
care that the personnel, their spouses, and their children
receive.
And fourth, this is a personal matter, but I say it in
looking over the citations of medals for high bravery,
especially for medals of honor. This is a common phrase, he
killed 25, captured 18. Medics do not kill or capture. As a
result, medals of courage for medics are very, very rare, and I
think something should be done with that because if you ask any
infantrymen or any Marine who will tell you that the bravest of
them all are the medics or the corpsmen. And somehow, our award
giving system does not cover that.
INCREASED MEDICAL COSTS
And so with my question, I have a general question for all
three of you. Since 9-11 the military has been taxed with
additional missions both here and abroad. You have cited all of
them. Each additional requirement results in increased medical
costs, which are not always accounted for in the budget or
fully covered in the supplemental request. The monitoring of
our personnel before, during and after they are deployed is a
result of the lessons learned after the Gulf War.
Additionally, costs increased to backfill deployed medical
personnel, handle casualties of war, and treat personnel in
theater and at home. With our continued involvement in these
missions in the upcoming fiscal year, I'd like to hear from the
services on how they are executing fiscal year 2003 and what
they anticipate for the next fiscal year 2004.
MEDICAL BUDGET SHORTFALL
And my question will be for the services, will your
services have sufficient funds to execute fiscal year 2003 and
do you anticipate any budget shortfalls in fiscal year 2004?
Are there ways to address the potential shortfall in fiscal
year 2004?
Because I'm certain all of us realize that we will be
involved in the continuous global war on terrorism, not for the
next 6 months, not for the next 6 years but much more than
that. So with that in mind, General Peake?
General Peake. Well, sir, first I would like to thank the
committee for the help with the supplement that is working its
way to us now and the $501 million that was designated for the
Defense health program with the comments that need to get
focused down to the direct care system.
We haven't seen yet the amounts that will come down to us.
It is clearly needed because we have been forward funding the
effort that you have described, sir, from opening places like
Fort McCoy and Fort Dix, where we do not necessarily have a
presence yet, mobilizing soldiers, purchasing their
prescriptions, providing them their glasses, all of those
things to make them ready medically to go with the force.
We have deployed in the Army now about 3,471 professional
fillers out of the day-to-day health care environment into the
hospitals that are in Iraq and into the brigades and battalions
of our Army to provide them with medical support. And those
people we have backfilled partially with reservists. They are
terribly important to us. But others we have had to reach out
and contract.
Those numbers we are trying to do good accounting for and
we look forward to the moneys coming out of the supplement to
help us to defray those costs so that we, because what we had
borrowed from is the day-to-day health care operations that go
on in our large organization, that deliver health care to
families and soldiers and so forth. We also have family members
coming in from the Reserves who now are TRICARE eligible and we
have an obligation to provide them quality care as well.
So from the, from the global war on terrorism, aspects of
it, sir, we are looking to see the money that gets to us from
the supplement and there may or may not be more required to
cover just that particular aspect for fiscal year 2003.
Regarding fiscal year 2003, I am leveraging potential money
in our maintenance accounts to be able to ensure that we are
covering the health care that we are, should be doing at the
quality we should be doing it for our full regular mission. I
would tell you, sir, we are busier than just Iraq. We have
Afghanistan going. We have people in Colombia, the Philippines,
Honduras and Bosnia and a Kosovo mission as well. So it is a
very, very busy military and therefore very busy medical
structure as well.
With all of that activity, it creates a bit of a unsettling
of our business process so we really do have additional
expenses that come up. This is a new expense that will have to
be accounted for that is not yet accounted for.
As we look to 2004, we will be redeploying our forces. As
you say, sir, we will still have people deployed doing the
variety of missions that go along with the post-Iraq business
as well as the other areas that I have spoken about.
We will have to face what potentially happens with the
retention of our soldiers and so forth, which always creates a
bit of a turmoil when folks start to return and readjust their
lives and so forth. Right now, we are, we use the civilian care
and we hire other professionals and nurses, as an example, to
come and work in our hospitals to make up that delta, so we can
continue the missions in our military hospitals. So those
become the kind of bills that we will be facing in fiscal year
2004 as well.
In addition, we are doing the next contracts. There are a
variety of things like appointing and utilization management
that come back to the military treatment facilities instead of
at the contractor level, and we will have to figure out how
much that is going to cost us to get those things restarted
within our own organizations.
In the long run, we think it is absolutely the right thing
to do, but there may be some startup costs that will have to be
identified, and we are looking at that as well for 2004.
Admiral Cowan. Sir, I will try to answer your question with
a little different approach. Both fiscal year 2002 and fiscal
year 2003, Navy medicine has been funded adequately. We are
often asked are you fully funded and we say we are adequately
funded. We have enough money to get properly through the year
to execute our mission and to not require either supplementals
or reprogramming.
At an adequate funding level, we are sustainable for a long
period of time, but we do not get at our backlog of military
construction, repair, investment, capital investment, new
equipment and so on. In fact, we may at this level be getting
slightly behind. The newest building in which health care is
delivered in Guam was built in 1952.
The budget that we submitted for fiscal year 2004 will also
be adequately funding. We are comfortable operating in the
fiscal year 2004 time frame. This part of my answer is for the
known mission of the health care to our beneficiaries.
The second part of your question is the unknown missions,
the ones that we have been involved with, both Iraq and
Afghanistan, as well as the others that General Peake
mentioned, and others that may come in the future.
That is a harder question for us to answer. For example,
right now, I would not be able to tell you the cost of the
medical care caused by the Iraq war because much of that has
been moved into our TRICARE networks and purchased care and we
won't even see those bills for another 120 days.
So, we are working with the TRICARE partners to normalize
and make as much of the health care delivery as routine as we
possibly can, as we go through these iterations of deployments.
But to say that we are, can predict a budget for operational
issues is not something I would be comfortable with right now.
Senator Inouye. General Taylor?
General Taylor. Senator, I wanted to say first of all, I
would be glad to mount up with you on that charge for
recognizing the medics who are in harm's way and are doing a
great job for our Nation. I think all three of us would be more
than happy to get on our steeds and mount that charge with you.
In terms of fiscal year 2003, due to your great efforts
through the supplemental, the Air Force is very comfortable
that we are going to get through this year in good stead.
In terms of next year for what we budgeted and what Health
Affairs submitted for us through the President's budget, we are
pretty comfortable. As Admiral Cowan said we are adequately
funded. There is no provision in there for additional costs for
the global war on terrorism. If we have Reservists and National
Guard who remain activated into the next fiscal year, we have
to account for their costs.
We have done a very good job I think over the last few
months of capturing all of the additional costs that go with a
forward deployed force, and we are pretty comfortable we have
been able to identify those costs to the Department. There is
great uncertainty as the next generation TRICARE contracts come
in, for instance, what kind of immediate resources we will have
to use within the services to help bridge any gaps that occur
as we move from one contract to the other.
And finally, I believe that the optimization funds that are
provided have been a Godsend in terms of giving us venture
capital to allow each of us to increase the amount of care we
deliver in the direct care system, generating dollars for the
pennies invested and giving us that capability.
So in summary, I think the Air Force Medical Service is in
a solid state for the rest of this year and as budgeted for
fiscal year 2004.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Senator Inouye. A bit more specifically, do you have any
problems in recruiting and retention, and if so, what areas of
concerns do you have on specialties?
General Peake. Sir, I think it is a concern for us, and we
had good success with critical skills retention bonuses that
we, each of our services funded for us this last year that we
do not have. It is not a programmed payment. But we have, in
terms of a net loss of physicians last year between 2002 and
2003 was 43 and you say that is not that many, but when you
start looking at them, 17 of them were anesthesiologists, 17
radiologists. That becomes very expensive.
We are looking to get a change in our benefit in terms of
the bonus packages for physicians to be able to recruit better.
We are, and I think that that is going to be an important thing
for us to follow through on over the course of this year.
Nursing is also a shortage for us, and I think we will hear
about that on the next panel more expansively, that they are
absolutely critical for our ability for us to do our business.
We have had the direct hire authority to be able to hire
civilian nurses and that's been really a big plus for us to be
able to go out and quickly hire folks and we would, we need to
have that authority continued.
Admiral Cowan. Sir, we have shortages in each of the corps.
In the medical corps we have traditional shortages, and those
specialties that you would expect to have shortages because of
pay discrepancies between the civilian and military world.
Unfortunately, many of those tend to be wartime
specialties, trauma surgeons, anesthesiologists and the like,
and they frequently run in the 80 percent range. We are right
in the process of undertaking some initiatives to get at that.
We think there are two ways to improve those numbers.
One is through changing the bonus structure for those
particular specialties, and the other is providing other
nonmonetary incentives for people to come in and serve in
various roles, both active duty and Reserves, providing a
variety of incentives that we do not have now, particularly in
Reserves.
We have a particular problem in the dental corps among
young dental officers who accrue large personal debts because
of the equipment that they have to buy to get through dental
school and the pay differences between civilian practices and
the military makes it uncomfortable for them to be financially
stable in the military. And we have similar problems with
health care providers in the medical service corps such as
podiatrists who have large debts and find military service
financially unattractive.
We are understaffed in some areas in the hospital corps,
and again looking to new programs and incentives that will move
corpsmen into those critical specialties.
Senator Inouye. Are those shortfalls occurring right now?
Admiral Cowan. Sir, the shortfalls in the medical field
have been chronic for many years.
Senator Inouye. And the anesthesiologists?
Admiral Cowan. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. You do not have enough?
Admiral Cowan. No, sir. We do have enough, but we do not
have everybody back home. So if we went to two full wars at the
same time, it would be very difficult for us to populate all
those billets that we need.
General Taylor. Very similar in the Air Force. One story is
that last summer we had 39 internal medicine physicians who
were eligible to leave the service and 38 of them did. There
are pay issues in terms of improving pay. We have great
authorities to increase pay. We are working diligently to get
the funds to match that capability and flexibility.
But it is not only specialty pay and loan repayment plans,
it is the environment of work, and all three of us are working
very hard to enhance the capabilities of our direct care system
facilities, equipment, and staffing to enable all specialties
from dental care to nursing corps to podiatrists to
anesthesiologists to be able to practice the full spectrum of
their capability.
The money has been important to the Air Force as we try to
bridge the gap that exists between the staffing we should have
and the staffing that we actually have.
We are going to have some terrible shortages in radiology
coming up in the next 2 or 3 years. We have a terrible problem
with anesthesia, and a 50 or 60 percent staffing range in
internal medicine. Those are difficulties that we can contract
in for if we can get the funds freed up. That's why the
TRICARE-Nex program will lift those funds in the local group,
and that optimization money gives us that venture capital to
cover.
So those are two important parts. It is not just specialty
pay and loan repayment. It is the environment of care that will
help greatly in recruiting and retaining wonderful people.
Senator Inouye. I have a few other questions, Mr. Chairman.
STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I will submit some
questions for the record in view of the time frames. I am
interested, though, in that line of questions Senator Inouye
asked.
In terms of the debts that your professionals have as they
come into the service, do you have the system that we have here
that we can pay a portion of the debts for each year that they
serve, the debts they come to Government with from school,
student loans? Are you paying off student loans for those who
went to school when they joined the services?
Admiral Cowan. Yes, sir. The way the Navy accesses
physicians, we get about 300 a year through either scholarships
or paying back, helping them pay their medical school debts. We
get about another 50 through the Uniformed Service University
and we get a handful through direct accession.
We have similar programs for the dental corps and nurse
corps, and in the nurse corps we have a very good incentive
program that sends them along pending successful careers into
master's and even Ph.D. programs as a part of their
professional development.
Our abilities, for example, to pay for the dentist's debt
is, however, limited and because of changes in the way dental
education has occurred, we now find ourselves at a competitive
disadvantage.
Senator Stevens. We will be glad to hear some of the
problems you have encountered and see if funding is any part of
the problem.
Admiral Cowan. Sir, that would be very kind of you.
Senator Stevens. Particularly where we have a situation
where people who are called up, for instance, we ought to find
some way to take on that, those debt repayments while they are
on the service. I'm talking reservists. They have substantial
burdens that we have discovered in this last call-up period.
I'm sure Senator Inouye and I would like to pursue that,
but we would be pleased to have you help us with some
suggestions that you might have about how we can have a call up
bonus, termination, a bonus on return to civilian life, but
somehow reflect the costs that they have incurred by coming
back in. The Reserve is a very important part of our medical
services now.
MEDICAL COMBAT TECHNOLOGIES
Secondly, I would like to ask, we spend a lot of time
trying to help finance development of new systems of care for
those who are critically wounded, right at the point nearest to
the point of injury, so that during the period of
transportation to a permanent care facility, they could receive
the best care possible. Were any of those new technologies
utilized in this recent Iraqi conflict?
General Peake. Yes, sir. There were three different types
of hemostatic dressings that were quickly pulled off the shelf,
some out of the research base to be applied. Admiral Cowan
talked about Quick Clot. Chitosan dressing was also purchased
and investigational new drug fibrin dressing was provided to
the special operations units as well.
Senator Stevens. We had a description once of a possibility
of developing a chair with diagnostic capability within 90
seconds of determining the extent of critical harm to that
person, in order that they might be instantly treated. Were any
of those facilities, were any of those type of facilities
utilized in this recent conflict?
General Peake. Sir, this was some life support trauma and
transport system forward with a mini intensive care unit with a
stretcher with the built-ins, which I think you are referring
to. There were folks treated on it. We are getting ready to
send a team in for clinical after action lessons learned
findings, and those are the kinds of things that are going to
be looked at.
We had the UH60 Lima helicopters were deployed for the
first time in the theater with the forward looking infrared
radar with the patient care capacity in the back that really
allows you to work on a patient, and that's the first time we
have had that asset. We are really looking forward to hearing
the after action reviews on how well all of that worked, and
the glass cockpit for aviation.
Senator Stevens. Well, I do hope if you will convene sort
of a symposium of medics who were there and try to get from
them, what didn't you have? What could you have used? What type
of procedures or particularly support concepts did you feel you
needed, but did not have?
We have to really investigate support right now for
military and Defense appropriations. If history repeats itself,
it is going to go away fairly soon, and we will be back to
battling to get just the moneys that are necessary to continue
basic support of the military.
This is the time to fund the innovations that we proffered
from the lessons we learned in Iraq, so I hope that you will
move quickly, move very quickly to determine that. I have heard
my good friend's comments about his four points, and he is
absolutely right about the medics. That the difference is right
now, with embedded journalism and cell phones, I think the
world and families and everyone were contacted quicker, and
this was more real exposure to what was going on in Iraq than
any war in history. And that will only continue to expand.
So I think that the comments that we have heard, at least
that I have heard, at least from those people who were embedded
journalists, was nothing but praise for your people and for the
medics of this period. I certainly will join Senator Inouye,
and I thank you all in trying to see to it that there is more
recognition and valor for those people who were right there
with the combat forces.
I think we have to do something more than that, in terms of
recognition for the future, and again, I think we would like to
sit down with you all and talk about that. In terms of not only
recognition for exceptional service and valor, but recognition
for commitment. I think it takes a special person to be a
combat medic. We both had experience on that. In our days,
things were a lot simpler than they are now, and I think the
stress on these medics must be extreme. Very much extreme.
I would like us to consider spatial periods of readjustment
for those medics and have some concept of rest and relaxation
(R&R) that are built in to give people incentive to want to be
medics in combat periods. But I commend you for what you are
doing and hope you will follow through. I do not want to get
too--our period up here is not going to be that much longer.
I'm not sure how many wars we are going to sit through. We
have sat through, in the last past 35 years, all of them. But
we had eight wars so far. That ought to be a record for people
on this committee. We want to make sure that we, on our watch,
do everything we possibly can to make certain that the next one
is handled even better than this one. This one has been handled
exceptionally well.
I agree with you about the comment you made about the young
soldier who lost his foot. The difference between this
generation and ours is a majority of ours was drafted. This was
a volunteer.
Admiral Cowan. Sir, one of the most inspiring things I have
seen ever is listening to the Marines and corpsmen at the
hospital. The corpsmen will only talk about the Marines that
they feel responsible for and the Marines will only talk about
the corpsmen who they think saved their lives.
Senator Stevens. Any other questions, sir?
MENTAL HEALTH
Senator Inouye. Just one question. A few days ago, I was
watching the networks as most Americans do. And this network
spent about half an hour covering an activity with the Marines,
and I suppose he said that it covers all services. All of the
men who were scheduled for deployment back to the United States
were undergoing some psychiatric exercise. Is that the usual
practice?
General Peake. Sir, I think maybe it was referring to the
combat stress debriefing business which we, I think, we all
have sort of embraced the notion that you want to get folks
able to talk about in a structured environment, the kind of
trauma that they may have experienced or seen or been involved
with.
As we do the post deployment screening, we expanded the
format, as some questions that apply to mental health to try to
get at somebody who is having a particular problem.
We will be doing an extensive post deployment screening
process as every one of our soldiers, sailors, airmen come
back. We will then score that centrally, be able to compare it
against their predeployment screening, so what we want to do is
identify those that might need additional help or need
additional follow up, and so I think we are all planning on
being a part of that kind of thing, but there is really two
different pieces to it.
Admiral Cowan. Sir, exactly the same way we have found over
the years that people subjected to psychological trauma who sit
with the others who they went through that with and talk
through their feelings have good health outcomes, and the
number of people who end up with post traumatic stress syndrome
and these sorts of things goes way down, so all three services
do that extensively.
General Taylor. That's exactly right. The lessons we have
learned over the last 100 years in mental health is to treat as
far forward as you can with your peers. That's exactly what
each of the services does. We feel, as the other services do,
that these stress teams are a necessity in all major locations
and must interact with troops on a daily basis. This is an
ongoing process for all of us.
General Peake. If I could add a follow-on, sir, in terms of
this notion being an ongoing process. That's something
important and something we in the Army are wrestling with now.
The Coast Guard has had an employee assistance program
independent of the medical that offers counseling and family
counseling and those kinds of things without a ``medical
statement'' or ``medical record.'' I think that's something we
do not have in our budget that is something we really need to
take on and be able to expand and get support for.
As part of the larger holistic approach was, as you point
out, sir, this global war on terrorism doesn't stop with Iraq.
This is going to be an ongoing level of activity for us, and a
level of stress for our families and our service members, and
that kind of support will be important for us in the future,
sir.
Senator Inouye. I'm glad you are doing that because in war,
mental illness or mental health is considered a stigma and
Section 8, so no one talked about it. We just assumed that
everything was fine. But reality tells us that there are
psychiatric problems, and I'm glad you are doing that. Mr.
Chairman, I have many other questions I would like to submit
for the record.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. We will submit some questions
for each of you, if you will, and what Senator Inouye said,
again, I really think if we look back over the years, the
people who were not really compelled to talk about the problems
right from the start were the ones that had the greatest
problems.
I urge you to think about that, along with we ought to have
a psychological advisor right there. It will work much better
in the long run. Thank you all very much. We appreciate what
you are doing. I hope you'll on behalf of all of us here
congratulate all of the people for the wonderful job they have
done under our flag. Thank you very much.
We are now going to hear from the chiefs of the service
nursing corps. This committee's views on this is critical to
our future. We will here from the Army, General William T.
Bester, Chief of the Army Nurse Corps. We thank you very much
for the service to the Army and our country. We welcome Admiral
Nancy Lescavage, Director of the Navy Nurse Corps, and it is
really a great pleasure to have you with us again, Admiral. We
will proceed with General Bester, since this is his last
appearance on our watch.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM T. BESTER,
CHIEF, ARMY NURSE CORPS
General Bester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator. Thank you
for this opportunity to provide you an update on this state of
the Army Nurse Corps. During the past year the Army Nurse Corps
has again demonstrated our flexibility and determination to
remain ready to serve this great Nation during a very
challenging time in our history.
Senator Stevens. Let me first, if I may, rearrange your
testimony. Welcome, General Barbara Brannon, Assistant Surgeon
General for Air Force Nursing Services. We welcome you back and
apologize to you for not turning the page. General.
General Bester. Mr. Chairman, what we ask of and receive
from our nurses in today's uncertain world is nothing short of
amazing. I'd like to begin by telling you what Army nurses are
doing at this very minute in places and under conditions as
austere as soldiers in this country have ever experienced.
In Iraq and Kuwait, Army nurses have been moving forward
with the operational flow, saving lives and treating the
wounded as they do so. Army nurses are integral to the success
of each and every forward surgical team, Mobile Army Surgical
Hospital (MASH) and combat support hospital in the theater.
And as we sit here today, nearly 2,500 active and Reserve
component Army nurses have or are currently deployed, with time
away from home exceeding last year's level by sixfold. These
are selfless dedicated Army nurses who are proud to serve this
country of ours and to care for our most precious resource, the
American soldier.
I'd like to highlight some of the units currently on the
ground supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, the fine soldiers of
the 86th Combat Support Hospital from Fort Campbell, Kentucky
are providing far forward medical care. We have watched them
perform their expert skills on the television, and we have read
about them in the newspapers. Hundreds of patients have
benefited from their presence, although the full impact of
their support will not be fully appreciated until the conflict
ends.
The 212th MASH from Miesau, Germany initially deployed to
Kuwait is now providing the highly mobile surgical care needed
for Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is the last MASH unit left in
the Army inventory and is again demonstrating the needs for
flexible, rapid and mobile medical surgical assets.
Our Reserve component colleagues have stepped to the plate
to support current operations. The 396th Combat Support
Hospital out of Vancouver and Spokane, Washington activated on
January 25 and moved to Fort Lewis, Washington in a matter of 3
days. Scheduled to be part of the contingent that was to go
into Turkey, this unit has remained stateside and is now
integral to the manning requirements of Madigan Army Medical
Center.
The personnel of the 396th that performed over 400 surgical
cases and are providing expert care in in-patient and
outpatient critical care units, thereby allowing Madigan to
maintain a high level of operation, in spite of significant
personnel losses to deployment. The men and women of the 396th
are just another example of extreme importance of active and
Reserve integration.
Army Nurse Corps officers are providing care for our combat
casualties throughout the entire continuum of care. As I
pointed out earlier, nurses are far forward in order to quickly
receive an ill or injured soldier. Our nurses at the higher
level care facilities in Europe and in the United States are
ready and waiting to provide the care needed once a combat
casualty is stabilized for movement.
At Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany, nurses are
providing critical care for soldiers such as PFC Jessica Lynch.
Nurse case managers have been manning the Deployed Warrior
Management Control Center since Afghanistan and are now in full
operation during Operation Iraqi Freedom. This center was
established to enhance case management of any casualty from
their initial injury in theater through his or her return to
the United States and has facilitated the coordination of care
amongst all three services.
Army nurses are also proud to be an integral part of the
transformation of the new 91 Whiskey health care specialist,
our combat medic.
We are embedded in the training unit as leaders and
educators and positively impact on sustainment training of this
critical military occupational specialty at every medical
treatment facility. I'd also like to commend one of our
outstanding young Army nurses, Captain Timothy Hudson, the
recipient of the 2002 White House Military Office Outstanding
Member of the Year award for a company of great officers.
Clearly, Senators, Army nurses are at the forefront of
caring and are responding with excellence to the needs of those
all the way from the President of the United States to our
great soldiers and their families and our very deserving
retirees around the world.
On the recruiting front, we continue to struggle with our
recruitment of nurses to support today's health care needs and
the needs of the Army in the years to come. The affect of the
national nursing shortage continues to affect our ability to
attract and maintain quality nurses.
We are still below our budgeted end strength of 3,381, but
are actively pursuing incentives to counteract this shortfall
and promote the force in our years to come. As a direct result
of the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, we are actively
pursuing an increase in the accession bonus beginning in fiscal
year 2005.
This spring we plan to implement the health professional's
loan repayment program for both newly recruited nurses as well
as our cornerstone company grade officers who are serving in
their first 8 years of commissioned service.
Understanding the great potential of our enlisted soldiers
to serve as commissioned officers, we continue to sponsor
dozens each year to complete their nursing education to become
Registered Nurses (RN) and subsequently Army Nurse Corps
officers via the Army Enlisted Commissioning Program.
We are very proud of these successes, yet we will continue
to pursue all recruiting and retention avenues in order to
secure more long-term stability in our manning posture.
Sir, the general referred earlier this afternoon to our
civilian nurses and they now comprise about 60 percent of our
total nurse work force and are clearly key to our nursing care
delivery in the medical treatment facilities. I'm pleased to
tell you, Senator, in fiscal year 2002, we achieved an 89
percent fill rate of documented civilian Licensed Practical
Nurse (LPN) positions. This is an increase of 7 percent and 13
percent, respectively, from last year.
In the direct hire authority that the Surgeon General
talked about earlier, granted to us by Congress, has
dramatically reduced the length of time it takes from
recruitment to first day of work from 111 days to a remarkable
23 days for Registered Nurses. This has resulted in a 50
percent reduction of unfilled RN positions in our facilities.
Clearly, we need to continue this approach to civilian RN
recruitment and we will continue to seek expansion of this
authority to include LPNs and legislative approval that makes
direct hire authority permanent.
Although many of our nurses are deployed or dedicating the
majority of their time to the support of the global war on
terrorism, nurses are still actively engaged in other nursing
activities such as research and education.
I want to offer my thanks and appreciation to this
committee for the continued steadfast support of the TriService
Nursing Research Program (TSNRP). Since 1992, TSNRP has funded
230 research proposals that have resulted in continued advances
in nursing practice for the benefit of our soldiers and for
their family members and for our great retirees.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences for their
continued flexibility and support of the Advanced Practice
nurses. Adeptly responding to the needs of Federal nursing,
they have established perioperative nursing as well as a
doctoral program in nursing, with the first candidates for
study in each of these programs to begin this summer.
Our continued partnership is key to maintaining sufficient
numbers of professional practitioners necessary to support our
mission. Finally, Senators, the Army Nurse Corps once again
reaffirms its commitment to recognizing the Bachelor of Science
degree in nursing as the minimum educational requirement and
basic entry level for professional nursing practice.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In closing, I assure you that the Army Nurse Corps is
comprised of professional leaders who are totally committed to
providing expert nursing care. It has been my honor and it has
truly been my privilege to lead such a tremendous organization.
Thank you for this opportunity to present the extraordinary
contribution made by today's Army nurses.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brigadier General William T. Bester
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am
Brigadier General William T. Bester, Commanding General, United States
Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine and Chief,
Army Nurse Corps. Thank you for this opportunity to update you on the
state of the Army Nurse Corps. In the past year, the Army Nurse Corps
has again demonstrated our flexibility and determination to remain
ready to serve our great Nation during challenging and difficult times.
The effects of the National nursing shortage continue to impact the
ability of the Army Nurse Corps to attract and retain nurses. The
decline in nursing school enrollments over the past several years,
coupled with the increasing average age of a registered nurse, clearly
dictate the need to focus recruitment and retention efforts towards
enhancing the image of nursing as a worthwhile and rewarding long-term
career choice. We are encouraged by the fact that for the first time in
over six years, enrollment in baccalaureate nursing programs in 2001
increased. However, since education resources are limited, there is
still a need for such initiatives as the Nurse Reinvestment Act and we
applaud the support that you have provided towards this effort. It will
be critical that we continue to develop programs of this magnitude.
We are well aware of the impact that the decreased nursing
personnel pool has had on our civilian nurse recruitment and retention.
Civilian nurses now comprise over 60 percent of our total nurse
workforce and we have worked diligently to streamline hiring practices,
improve compensation packages and enhance professional growth and
development in order to attract the types of nurses who will commit to
the military healthcare system. I am pleased to report to you that we
have experienced some success in our civilian recruitment actions over
the past year. In fiscal year 2002, we achieved an 89 percent fill rate
of documented civilian Registered Nurse positions and an 83 percent
fill rate of documented civilian Licensed Practical Nurse positions.
This is an increase of 7 percent and 13 percent, respectively, from the
previous year. The Direct Hire Authority granted to us has dramatically
reduced the length of time it takes from recruitment to first day of
work from 111 days to a remarkable 23 days for Registered Nurses. This
initiative has resulted in a 50 percent reduction of unfilled RN
positions in our Medical Treatment Facilities. Clearly, we need to
continue this type of long-term approach to civilian RN recruitment.
The Army Nurse Corps is actively engaged in a DOD effort to
simplify and streamline civilian personnel requirements. The intent is
to recruit, compensate, and promote civilian nursing personnel with the
flexibility necessary to respond to the rapidly changing civilian
market. We have clearly identified our needs related to the payment of
these greatly needed premium, on-call, overtime and Baylor Plan pay
strategies and are very ready to implement these strategies when the
Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) support is available. In
addition, we are progressing with the clinical education template
currently required in the legislation in order to ensure consistency of
hiring practices. We strongly value continuing professional development
of our civilian nurse workforce and are reenergizing our already
established Civilian Nurse Tuition Assistance Program to enhance
retention and symbolize our trust in the civilian nurse workforce
abilities and commitment to taking care of soldiers. We firmly believe
that enhancing job opportunities for our military family members is
consistent with the Army's overall goal to support the well being of
our soldiers and families.
We are also well aware of the impact of the decreased nursing pool
on our military nurse recruiting efforts. The Army Nurse Corps is still
below our budgeted end-strength of 3,381. We ended fiscal year 2002 at
a strength of 3,152, a deficit of 229. We have taken aggressive
measures to strengthen our position in both the Army Reserve Officer
Training Corps (AROTC) and U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC)
recruiting markets. We have re-established targets in the AROTC program
and expanded school participation in our AROTC scholarship program by
four-fold. As a direct result of the 2003 National Defense
Authorization Act, we are actively pursuing an increase in the
accession bonus beginning in fiscal year 2005. This year, we were
successful in offering a Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) to 54
percent of our Nurse Anesthetists and 76 percent of our Operating Room
nurses. This spring, we are implementing the Health Professions Loan
Repayment Program (HPLRP) for newly recruited nurses as well as to our
cornerstone company grade Army Nurse Corps officers who are serving in
their first eight years of commissioned service. The HPLRP and
accession programs, in conjunction with our already established and
robust professional and clinical education programs, will allow us to
consistently reinforce the value of our Army Nurses through the
critical early career timeframe. Finally, we have been extremely
successful in providing a solid progression program for our enlisted
personnel to obtain their baccalaureate nursing degree through the Army
Enlisted Commissioning Program. This year alone, we will sponsor 85
enlisted soldiers to complete their nursing education to become
Registered Nurses and subsequently, Army Nurse Corps officers. Since
last year, we have increased the number of available slots for soldiers
qualified for this program by 30, a 55 percent increase. I want to
emphasize that this program provides us with nurses who already possess
the strong soldiering and leadership skills that we foster and desire
in Army Nurses.
Retention of our junior nurses is extremely important to us. We
continue to closely monitor the primary reasons that our company grade
officers leave the Service and have determined that the reasons are
primarily related to quality of life, work schedules and compensation.
We have taken this feedback and used it as the basis to address the
focus of our senior leadership efforts at the local level. Compensation
strategies such as the Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) and the
Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP) have been paramount
in our effort to recognize individuals for their tremendous efforts and
sacrifices. The Army Nurse Corps continues to sponsor significant
numbers of nurses each year to pursue advanced nursing education in a
variety of specialty courses as well as in masters and doctoral
programs. We are all working to improve the practice environment,
foster mentoring relationships, and ensure equitable distribution of
the workload among our nurses. We intend to aggressively capitalize on
all financial, educational and benefit packages available to recruit
and retain dedicated officers.
The Army Nurse Corps continues to answer the call to support the
Nation's War on Terrorism as well as other contingency missions. In
fiscal year 2002, 1,001 Army Nurses deployed to over 20 countries
totaling 25,133 man-days. Since October 2002, the deployment pace is
swifter than ever, with 1,162 Army Nurses deployed totaling 80,083 man-
days. Our nurses continue to provide expert nursing care on Forward
Surgical Teams (FSTs), which provide far forward immediate surgery
capability that enables patients to withstand further evacuation to
more definitive care. Currently, nurses are deployed in multiple FSTs
in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and
other missions worldwide. The 250th FST was the first to deploy to
Kandahar, Afghanistan in direct support of the Combined Special
Operations Task Force South-Forward and executed medical operations
under the most austere combat conditions. The 274th FST provided
surgical coverage of northern Afghanistan and provided care to more
than 500 patients to include over 200 combat casualties. In March 2002,
the 274th FST received and treated all combat casualties sustained
during Operation Anaconda and provided extensive orthopedic and
surgical care for the detainees held at the Bagram Airbase. Each of
these outstanding forward surgical elements contains a substantial
nurse element that is critical to the team's success.
The 86th Combat Support Hospital (CSH) is now supporting Operation
Iraqi Freedom and is providing far forward medical care in the most
austere conditions for both coalition forces and local nationals. The
full impact of their support on the numbers of casualties cared for by
these fine soldiers is not known at this time. Always ready, this same
Combat Support Hospital was also the most forwardly deployed Level III
Combat Support Hospital in Central Asia to support Operation Enduring
Freedom. At that time, the personnel in the 86th included Army Nurses
from Fort Campbell, Kentucky with augmentation by Army Nurses from Fort
Bragg, North Carolina, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Fort Rucker, Alabama and
West Point, New York. This hospital, consisting of a 2-bed operating
room, 7-bed emergency medical treatment section, and 24-bed inpatient
area, provided care for 63 combat related casualties as well as the
care for the acute health care needs of the deployed forces.
In the past year, we provided expert nursing care with the 28th
Combat Support Hospital from Fort Bragg, North Carolina in support of
Task Force Med Eagle (TFME) in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the same theater,
the 249th General Hospital conducted Medical Civil Action Programs
(MEDCAPs) to improve relations by providing basic medical screenings
and care to 130 local national personnel within the Multinational
Division-North Area of Operations in Bosnia. In addition, nursing
personnel provide support to an ongoing multidisciplinary health
promotion program for soldiers and civilian employees in the Task
Force. Flexible and ready, some of these same units are now providing
the needed support to the soldiers currently in Southwest Asia.
The Army Nurse Corps continues to strengthen our commitment to
integrating our Active and Reserve Components. Last year, the 212th
Mobile Army Surgical Hospital from Miesau, Germany teamed with the
5501st United States Army Hospital from San Antonio, Texas to conduct
maneuvers at the Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC) in Hohenfels,
Germany. This was the first time that level III health care support was
incorporated directly into a CMTC rotation. This is just one example of
many where Active and Reserve Army Nurses join forces to provide expert
patient care and superb clinical leadership.
In light of current world events, we have imbedded training on the
personal and medical response to the chemical, biological, radiation,
nuclear and high explosive threat into all our professional nursing and
military education courses and deployment preparations. I can assure
you that all Army Nurse Corps Officers will continue to be ready to
meet any deployment challenge in any environment that they may
encounter.
It is a pleasure to be able to highlight good news stories about
nurses at the many medical treatment facilities around the world. As a
result of a productive collaboration among the Department of Defense,
the Army Medical Department's Outcomes Management Section, and the
Veteran's Health Affairs Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement
Office, we implemented an additional nine Clinical Practice Guidelines
(CPGs) in 2002. The practice guidelines relate to the care of Low Back
Pain, Asthma, Diabetes, Tobacco Use Cessation, Post Deployment Health,
Post-operative Pain, Major Depressive Disorder, Substance Abuse
Disorder & Uncomplicated Pregnancy. These compliment the seven other
Practice Guidelines already in place and demonstrate the unprecedented
collaboration between clinicians and researchers working at Army, Air
Force, Navy and Veteran's Affairs facilities. Clinical nurse
specialists, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, nurse educators,
community health nurses, and staff nurses are intimately involved in
both the development and the implementation of the guidelines. These
guidelines may be applied to patient care in both the peacetime and
combat hospital settings and aim to decrease variation in the
management of specific conditions, thereby improving quality of care. A
notable success associated with the implementation of the CPGs includes
the fact that none of the 28 Army Medical Treatment Facilities surveyed
by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
(JCAHO) have had any findings related to the new JCAHO CPG
implementation mandates.
Nurses have embraced new technology in support of patient care. The
Great Plains Regional Medical Command and Brooke Army Medical Center
nurse practitioners are currently testing a new composite computer
software program called MEDBASE that will allow Commanders at all
levels to have visibility of the data necessary to ensure soldier
medical readiness. This database will also facilitate electronic
medical record documentation, soldier profiling and tracking, worldwide
immunization tracking, electronic health and wellness documentation,
procedure and diagnostic coding, and numerous practical medical
readiness reports for all levels of the military system. This tool,
designed to interface with current and programmed DOD information
technology systems, has incredible potential to conserve personnel and
fiscal resources and will directly impact our performance improvement
initiatives.
MAJ Laura Favand and MAJ Lisa Lehning, Army Nurse Corps Officers
from William Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso, Texas and Brooke
Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, respectively, assisted in
the development of another valuable data management tool. The Combat
Trauma Registry was employed at Landstuhl, Germany and contains data
entered on soldiers injured in Afghanistan in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom. The purpose of the Combat Trauma Registry is to
examine the feasibility of identifying, collecting, and reporting
combat trauma care information from the point of injury to return to
duty, discharge from active duty, or death from combat casualties. The
data collected in this registry will be used as input into the planning
factors used to develop combat health support models such as casualty
estimates, personnel at risk, and injury types for future military
operations. This is the first attempt to collect this type of data
since the Vietnam conflict.
Army Nurses at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are supporting
disaster and bioterrorism preparedness with the implementation of Phase
I of the DOD plan for smallpox vaccinations. Phase I includes the
vaccination of the military's smallpox response teams and hospital and
clinic teams located in military hospitals. Walter Reed personnel
prepared and conducted a two-day conference for their staff and
personnel, providing smallpox education and training for people who are
to be vaccinated and for those administering the vaccine. As Federal
agencies reorganize and lines of authority are adjusted in the newly
formed Department of Homeland Security, it is clear that nurses across
all specialties will play a significant role in the overall medical
disaster response strategy.
Army Nurses are proud to be an integral part of the transformation
of the new 91W Healthcare Specialist Military Occupational Specialty.
We are imbedded in the training units as leaders and educators. In
fact, there are thirteen Army Nurse Corps officers directly assigned to
the training battalion at Fort Sam Houston, TX in which each new 91W
soldier is initially trained. In addition, Army Nurse Corps officers
were directly responsible for developing and implementing the hospital
based clinical training experience that is part of the sixteen-week 91W
initial entry training. Army Nurse Corps officers also serve as
preceptors and mentors for these soldiers throughout their initial
entry training as well as the sustainment training programs in place
across the Army. I want to share with you my impression of these
soldiers. Simply put, they are the best-trained combat medics in our
history and we are proud to serve side by side with these exceptional
soldiers. We will continue to steadfastly support all aspects of this
transformation until it is completed.
Army nurses continue to be at the forefront of nursing research. We
aggressively pursue evidence-based research focusing on critical
military healthcare problems that nurses can positively impact. Last
year, I shared with you our five primary research focus areas: the
identification of specialized clinical skill competency training and
sustainment requirements; issues related to pre-, intra-, and post-
deployment; issues related to the nursing care of our beneficiaries in
garrison; nurse staffing requirements and their relationship to patient
outcomes; and finally, issues related to civilian and military nurse
retention. Today I will share with you our progress and accomplishments
in these five priority areas.
To insure that our combat medics are trained in critical life-
saving skills and ever ready for battle, they are required to become
nationally certified as Emergency Medical Technicians. The nurse
researchers at Madigan Army Medical Center are assessing the impact of
a computer-based three-dimensional virtual Emergency Medical Technician
training simulator on overall educational outcomes of students and the
resulting national certification pass rates. To date, one hundred
thirteen 91W students are enrolled in this study. This adjunct to our
educational design could result in improved pass rates and related cost
savings as soldiers will be better prepared to pass the national
certification examination the first time taken.
The recent increase in our deployment tempo has kept all our
medical personnel busy. Nurse researchers at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center are engaged in a study to identify the physiologic,
psychosocial, work and lifestyle factors of Army Medical Department
soldiers who have experienced musculoskeletal injuries. They will
examine how these factors may be associated with the occurrence of
these injuries. The results of this study will help us devise
strategies targeted at reducing the frequency of these injuries in
these soldiers. In addition, students in our Nursing Anesthesia
graduate program have studied the safety and efficacy regarding the use
of an oxygen concentrator in the field environment. Use of this device
will allow for the delivery of required oxygen to patients in the field
and eliminate the need to transport heavy oxygen bottles. Army Nurse
researchers are also conducting a large-scale study to identify the
ethical issues nurses encounter in caring for patients in deployed and
garrison-based military hospitals. Early results from this study
indicate that our military and civilian nurses most often encounter the
challenges of staffing patterns that limit quality of nursing care,
protecting patient rights to quality nursing care and staffing patterns
that limit patient access to nursing care. The intent of this study is
to develop pre-emptive educational programs that will prepare nurses in
a variety of military settings to best manage the ethical challenges
presented to them. All of the studies mentioned are truly targeted at
improving nursing care for soldiers in all our practice environments.
Nursing research consistently examines the potential of new
technology on practice. Nurse researchers at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center are examining the use of telenursing for our remote, home-based
patients who are in need of cardiac rehabilitation following coronary
artery bypass graft surgery. This program will allow nurses to
``virtually'' visit patients up to three times per week to follow both
the physiological progress of the patient such as vital signs, surgical
incision assessment, and electrocardiograph analysis as well as provide
educational interventions that the home-bound patient might otherwise
not receive. The nurse researchers at Brooke Army Medical Center have
designed a study to decrease ventilator-associated pneumonia in
patients at Brooke Army Medical Center and at Wilford Hall Air Force
Medical Center. This study has dramatic potential in both human
outcomes as well as cost outcomes by determining care criteria that
could decrease the number of days that a person is on a ventilator.
Nurse researchers at Madigan and Walter Reed Army Medical Centers
completed the Army Nursing Outcomes Database study initiated in 2001
and have extended the concept to include medical treatment facilities
from both the Air Force and Navy. This Tri-Service project is dedicated
to the collection of standardized and high quality data related to the
effects of nurse staffing and patient outcomes. The expanded Military
Nursing Outcomes Database will assess data integrity, examine new
indicators of quality nursing care and will add a dimension of the
rapidity of patient movement into and out of the hospital. The Army
Nurse Corps also continues to collect data from nurses who have chosen
to leave the military in order to identify those issues that we can
positively impact upon with the goal of retaining as many quality Nurse
Corps officers as possible. This ongoing assessment indicates that
nurses leave the military in order to pursue life goals such as having
a family and stabilizing their location. We have taken this feedback
seriously and are striving to address the retention needs of our nurses
through the initiatives and incentives outlined earlier in this
testimony.
In conclusion, Army nurse researchers continue to seek the
solutions to the important challenges facing military healthcare. The
Army Nurse Corps continues to identify areas for collaboration with
researchers in the Navy and the Air Force. Since 1992, the TriService
Nursing Research Program has funded 230 research proposals and during
fiscal year 2002, seventeen military nurse researchers received funding
in areas that include nursing practice during operations other than
war, air evacuation, fitness among National Guard personnel, sexually
transmitted disease and pregnancy prevention during deployment, and
educational strategies for chemical warfare. The Tri-Service Nursing
Research Program continues to offer a breadth of supportive activities
such as workshops and symposiums to promote, encourage and develop both
our novice and seasoned researchers. It is clearly evident by the types
of proposals submitted that nursing research is, and will continue to
be, focused on relevant and timely research problems that necessitate
solid outcome data. Your continued support of the TriService Nursing
Research Program is truly appreciated and has resulted in continued
advances in nursing practice for the benefit of our soldiers, their
family members, and our deserving retiree population.
I would like to extend my appreciation to the leadership and
faculty of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
(USUHS) for their continued support in the training of our Certified
Registered Nurse Anesthetists and Family Nurse Practitioners. USUHS
continues to provide us with professional nursing graduates who have a
near perfect pass rate for national certification, easily exceeding the
national standard. Adeptly responding to the needs of Federal nursing,
USUHS established this past year the Clinical Nurse Specialist Program
in Perioperative Nursing as well as the foundation for the Doctoral
Program in Nursing, with the first candidates for study in each program
to begin this summer. USUHS continues to refine and evolve strong
curricula that have three focused research and practice areas including
Operational Readiness in Changing Environments, Population Health and
Outcomes, and Clinical Decision-Making in the Federal Health Care
System. In addition, they have placed cross cutting emphasis on patient
safety, ethics, force protection, and international health and
leadership. The curricula are interwoven with the necessary military
applications essential for the response to any global challenge, such
as scenarios involving deployment of weapons of mass destruction,
disaster or humanitarian assistance, and contingencies other than war.
USUHS continues to be flexible and responsive to our Federal Nursing
needs and our continued partnership is key to maintaining sufficient
numbers of professional practitioners necessary to support our mission.
Finally Senators, the Army Nurse Corps once again reaffirms its
commitment to recognizing the Bachelor of Science degree in Nursing
(BSN) as the minimum educational requirement and basic entry level for
professional nursing practice. We appreciate your continued support of
this endeavor and your commitment to the educational advancement of all
military nurses. We continue to be resolute in meeting the challenges
we face today and are ready and determined to meet the uncertain
challenges of tomorrow. We will continue with a sustained focus on
readiness, expert clinical practice, professionalism, leadership and
the unfailing commitment to our Nation that has been the hallmark of
our organization for over 102 years. Thank you for the opportunity to
present the extraordinary contributions made by Army Nurses.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, General. Admiral Lescavage.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL NANCY J. LESCAVAGE, NURSE
CORPS, UNITED STATES NAVY, DIRECTOR, NAVY
NURSE CORPS
Admiral Lescavage. Good afternoon, Chairman Stevens,
Senator Inouye. I am Rear Admiral Nancy Lescavage, the 20th
Director of the Navy Nurse Corps and Commander of the recently
established Naval Medical Education and Training Command. It is
indeed an honor and a privilege to represent a total of 5,000
active duty and Reserve Nurse Corps officers. I welcome this
opportunity to testify regarding the status of the Navy Nurse
Corps.
The Navy Nurse Corps is ``living'' the mission of Navy
medicine today providing preeminent health care in worldwide
missions. When called to duty recently, our Navy nurses readily
packed their seabags and moved forward. Meanwhile, our
remaining military and civilian nurses back home continued to
be the backbone in promoting, protecting and restoring the
health of all entrusted to our care, including those heroes who
have gone before us in harm's way.
Not a beat was missed in our mission. This year, to chart
the course, we have revised our strategic plan which now
parallels Navy medicine's goals of being ready, caring about
our people, delivering that health care benefit to all, and
promoting best practices.
Through our collective leadership, I'm happy to tell you we
are also united with our Federal nursing partners to advance
professional nursing practice. What a thrill that is to be one
team with my fellow colleagues.
I will now speak to each of our goals and address the
status of professional nursing in Navy medicine relative to the
national nursing shortage. First of all, to stand ready. Our
mission is exemplified in our continuous commitment to
readiness in peacetime, wartime, humanitarian and other
contingency missions.
Augmenting our 70 Navy nurses who are routinely assigned to
operational billets, we have deployed a total of approximately
600 Navy nurses in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on a
variety of platforms. They have been and remain assigned to
forward resuscitative surgical support teams, fleet surgical
teams, Marine Corps medical battalions, Marine Corps force
service support groups, our fleet hospitals, our casualty
receiving and treatment ships, and our hospital ships such as
the U.S.N.S. Comfort currently deployed. Part of that crew will
be returning today.
And they also serve aboard our aircraft carriers. Eighty-
nine out of 140 nurse anesthetists have been deployed and are
serving us well. We have also recalled approximately 400
Reserve Navy nurses to support our operational missions and the
continuum of care in our military treatment facilities. You
see, we really do truly work as a team, both active duty and
Reserve.
During this past year, there have been an additional 43
Navy nurses involved in other missions, such as at Camp X-Ray
in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Operation Provide Hope and Operation
Enduring Freedom. Almost 400 Nurse Corps officers have also
been involved in various training exercises in the past year,
such as in our fleet hospital training, fleet hospital
operational readiness evaluation, and Exercise Battle Griffin.
Strengthening our emergency preparedness posture, Navy
nurses now serve in vital leadership roles in Navy medicine's
Office of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense smallpox
response team, the Marine Corps chem/bio incident response
team, and in command emergency preparedness offices. In meeting
our readiness mission in all operational environments, training
opportunities occur across Federal, as well as civilian
agencies. As an example, this past fall, the Navy medicine's
trauma training program rotated its first class through the Los
Angeles County University of Southern California Medical
Center, one of the Nation's top level one trauma centers. We
successfully trained many Nurse Corps officers by enhancing
their combat trauma skills and medical readiness, and they do
that along with their respective platform teams, so they truly
are ready for trauma cases.
In addition, five of our Navy medical treatment facilities
have established agreements with local trauma centers, training
numerous emergency and critical care nurses, as well as our
operating room nurses. Collaborating with the Army and the Air
Force, we have also shared instructors and training
opportunities to enhance these critical skills.
Secondly, in caring about our people, we continually strive
to be recognized as an employer of choice in recruiting,
training and retaining the right professional nurses. We
closely monitor the national nursing shortage projections and
civilian compensation packages and determine the best course
for us to take in the competitive market.
The Navy Nurse Corps amazingly continues to meet active
duty military and civilian recruiting goals and professional
nursing requirements. We do that through diversified accession
sources. Those are our pipeline programs, for example, in our
Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC).
We also do that through pay incentives, graduate education
and other retention initiatives that address quality of life
issues, to meet our special needs, such as critical care. And I
really believe we need more Navy nurses in the mental health
arena, in midwifery and neonatal nursing. We too are exploring
the health professional's loan repayment program in those
areas.
For our Civil Service nurses who make up a huge part of our
backbone, recruitment, retention and relocation bonuses are
used, along with special salary rates and that wonderful
special hire authority which we can thank you so much for.
We also had our certified registered nurse anesthetists and
operating room nurses this year participate in the critical
skills retention bonus. Ninety percent of our operating room
nurses who were eligible took that, as well as 70 percent of
our nurse anesthetists.
I'd like to highlight our Navy Reserve component. We have
processed 63 percent of our accession goal of 261 nurses to
enter the Reserves, maintaining the same pace as we did last
year. Beneficial incentives in procuring our Reservists in
critical wartime specialties include an accession bonus for the
Reserves, as well as loan repayment and stipend programs for
graduate education. I have noticed through the years that the
one thing nurses most want is to be greater educated. We are
now proposing to expand bonus eligibility to new nursing
graduates. In addition, we are in the initial stages of
exploring the feasibility of instituting a pipeline scholarship
program for our Reserve enlisted component, those corpsmen who
desire to go on to become Navy nurses. And that's similar to
the pipeline program for our active duty colleagues.
Through several surveys, graduate education opportunities
have been cited as one of our most important retention
initiatives. We now are able to focus all of our scholarship
training, as Admiral Cowan stated, on master's degrees and
doctorate degrees based on our operational specialty
requirements, specific health population needs and staffing
projections.
We are sending several of our nurses to the recently
established perioperative clinical nurse specialist program at
the Uniform Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS). We
greatly look forward to the new doctoral program at USUHS, and
are additionally considering nurse fellowship opportunities in
such arenas as gerontology, business management and mental
health.
This year, we also instituted nursing internship programs
at our three major medical centers and other naval hospitals
for all new nursing graduates. The news is good on this as
well. There have been several hundred military and civilian
nurses who have completed these programs. These new nurses
attest to increased self-confidence with clinical practice and
are eager to assume greater responsibilities.
Thirdly, delivering that health care benefit. Population
health management is at the forefront and our Navy nurses are
actively engaged in various clinical settings through health
promotion, disease management and case management programs.
These innovations do four things for us. They expedite a much
quicker return to full duty for our sailors and Marines. They
decrease lost work hours, increase productivity, and enhance
our customer satisfaction. You see the benefits are endless and
the line really appreciates the return to duty.
Embracing force health protection, numerous programs have
been developed to ensure a healthy and fit force such as a
command preventive health assessment program, nurse managed
hyperlipidemia clinic at our naval hospital in Rota, Spain, the
in-garrison rehab platoon program at Camp Pendleton and
clinical care services, which we call drive-by health care.
They pull up to the pier in a van and are able to render basic
primary care to our sailors who have just returned.
Just as the health and fitness of our military members is
critical to force readiness, so is the health of our extended
military family and other eligible beneficiaries. In at least
four medical treatment facilities, our nurses are leading the
way in the assessment and management of our patients. Diabetes
case management has significantly enhanced patient compliance
with their recommended plan of care. In support of the unique
needs of seriously ill and terminally ill patients, our first
Navy palliative care clinic was established at our medical
center in Portsmouth. Our mother baby clinic provides follow-up
for high-risk mothers and babies for early detection and
prevention of complications. Pediatric nurses at our naval
hospital in Naples liaisoned with the Department of Defense
school nurses and teachers to collaborate on taking care of
asthmatic children to prevent asthmatic attacks. This sampling
of programs demonstrates that Navy nurses indeed are innovative
and have specialized knowledge that can be applied in any form
in a military setting.
Lastly, promoting best health care business practices.
Nurse Corps officers continue to be strategically placed in
pivotal roles where they can influence legislation, health care
policy and delivery systems. We have active duty and Reserve
Nurse Corps officers in executive roles, including our current
Navy's Deputy Surgeon General and many others such as
commanding officers, executive officers and officers in charge.
Personally, I am honored to have been chosen to lead the charge
in revolutionizing Navy medicine's education and training.
Always striving for nursing excellence, many commands have
aligned their performance metrics with the American Nurse's
Association magnet recognition program and Malcolm Baldrige
criteria for excellence. These standards provide the framework
for sustained quality patient care. Our goal is to complete our
first application which is at our medical center in Portsmouth,
Virginia, and have that completed by next year.
Nursing research has become our cornerstone for excellence
in all settings, from military treatment facilities to the
operational environment. Our revised Navy Nurse Corps research
plan provides the foundation and scope of military nursing
research ranging from the utilization of doctorally prepared
Nurse Corps officers in key leadership positions to their
responsibilities in leading evidence-based practice studies.
With authority and influence, our Navy nurse researchers
now create health policies and delivery systems and are right
at the tip of the spear in leading the way in our major medical
treatment facilities. We were honored to have one of our nurse
anesthetists named researcher of the year by the American
Association of Nurse Anesthetists.
We do as well appreciate your support of the TriService
nursing research program funding. I would like to highlight
just a little bit of our research programs out there. A program
involving the studies examined Navy recruits at risk for
depression, after undergoing the bootstrap intervention
program. This is at Great Lakes. Preliminary results indicate a
potential for decreased attrition, improved recruit
performance, and an identified cost-effective method of recruit
retention.
On the cutting edge of molecular research, a team led by a
Navy nurse is investigating the potential use of a readily
accessible medication to be used in the field to treat
respiratory problems. We also have a multidisciplinary team
with nurses in it working on diabetic care and that has
enhanced the patient's ability to achieve the mastery of self-
care and live independently with potential savings of $7,000 to
$42,000 per patient a year.
In closing, I appreciate your tremendous support of
legislative initiatives and the opportunity to share our
accomplishments. In our 95th year of the Corps, our Navy nurses
are very proud of our heritage and professional practice as
innovators, change agents and leaders.
In my other role as Commander, Navy Medical Education and
Training Command, I fully support the philosophy that
continuous learning and guidance for all health care
professionals is integral to what we do in meeting our
peacetime and wartime missions.
Regarding lessons learned, Chairman Stevens, my command
with education and training has a command under it called the
Naval Operational Medical Institute. Several years ago, we did
come up with the lessons learned program and we are very
excited about that. That has already been launched, which
really has value in learning from what has just occurred.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I look forward to continuing to work with you and my
colleagues during my tenure as the Director of the Navy Nurse
Corps. Thank you for this great honor and privilege. In my
view, there is no better job.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Nancy J. Lescavage
Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and distinguished
members of the Committee. I am Rear Admiral Nancy Lescavage, Director
of the Navy Nurse Corps and Commander of the recently established Naval
Medical Education and Training Command. It is an honor and a privilege
to represent a total of 5,000 Active Duty and Reserve Navy Nurse Corps
officers. I welcome this opportunity to testify regarding our
achievements and issues.
The Navy Nurse Corps is ``living'' the mission of Navy Medicine
today and fulfilling the vision of the Navy Nurse Corps of preeminent
health care in executing worldwide missions. When called to duty, Navy
Nurses readily ``packed their seabags'' and moved forward, with dynamic
leadership, clinical expertise, teamwork, perseverance and patience.
Meanwhile, military and civilian nurses who remained at the homefront
continue to be the backbone and structure in promoting, protecting and
restoring the health of all entrusted to our care.
This year, to ``chart the course,'' we have revised our Strategic
Plan, which parallels Navy Medicine's goals of Readiness, People, the
Health Benefit, and Best Health Care Business Practices. Through
collective leadership, we have also united with our federal nursing
partners to advance professional nursing practice.
I will now speak to each of our goals in the Navy Nurse Corps
Strategic Plan and address the status of professional nursing in Navy
Medicine relative to the national nursing shortage.
READINESS
Our mission to promote, protect and restore the health of all
entrusted to our care is fully actualized through our continuous
commitment to readiness in peacetime, wartime, humanitarian and other
contingency missions. Both active duty and reserve components have
exemplified unselfish devotion to duty, working side-by-side in the
continental United States and abroad in a multitude of care delivery
environments.
Readiness and Contingency Operations
Augmenting our seventy Navy Nurses in operational billets, we have
deployed a total of approximately six hundred nurses in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom on a variety of platforms, such as Marine Corps
Force Service Support Groups, Fleet Hospitals, Casual Receiving
Treatment Ships, Hospital Ships and with Command Headquarters staff to
plan and operationalize our health care delivery system. Eighty-nine
out of a total of one hundred and forty Certified Registered Nurse
Anesthetists (CRNA) alone have been deployed. We have also recalled
approximately four hundred reserve nurses to support our operational
missions and the continuum of care in our military treatment
facilities. During this past year, there have been an additional forty-
three nurses involved in other missions, including Camp X-Ray at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Operation Provide Hope and Operation Enduring
Freedom. Almost four hundred Nurse Corps officers have also been
involved in various exercises in the past year such as Fleet Hospital
Field Training, Fleet Hospital Operational Readiness Evaluation, and
Exercise Battle Griffin.
Homeland Security
Strengthening our emergency preparedness posture, Navy Nurses serve
in vital leadership roles in Navy Medicine's Office of Homeland
Security, the Department of Defense Smallpox Epidemiological Emergency
Response Team, the Marine Corps Chemical-Biological Incident Response
Force and in command Emergency Preparedness Offices. Involvement in key
initiatives to execute our Force Health Protection mission under any
circumstance include: multiple training programs; military-civilian
partnerships with U.S. hospitals; innovative site visits to identify
vulnerabilities and exercise command emergency preparedness plans; and
development of disaster response curriculum with other federal
agencies.
Readiness Training
In meeting our readiness mission in all operational environments,
training opportunities are collectively optimized across federal and
civilian agencies. Last summer, Navy Medicine's Trauma Training Program
rotated its first class through the Los Angeles County/University of
Southern California Medical Center, one of the nation's finest Level I
Trauma Centers. We successfully trained many Nurse Corps officers by
enhancing their combat trauma skills and medical readiness with their
respective platform teams, the Forward Resuscitative Surgical Support
or Fleet Surgical Teams. In light of recent events and the national
focus on homeland security and terrorism, the curriculum has added
treatment of casualties under these stressors, as well as conventional
battle injuries.
Seeking to expand training opportunities for nurses assigned to
other operational platforms, five military treatment facilities have
established agreements with local trauma centers, training over fifty
emergency and critical care nurses through didactic and clinical
experiences. Collaborating with the Army and Air Force, we have shared
instructors and training opportunities in support of critical skills
enhancement at the Army Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany; Wilford
Hall Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas; the Critical Care Air
Transport Team Course at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio to name a
few facilities. In addition, Navy Nurses at the Naval Hospital in Rota,
Spain are involved in training Embassy, Department of State and foreign
military physicians and nurses.
PEOPLE
We continually strive to be recognized as an employer of choice in
recruiting, training, and retaining the right professionals. To attain
our prestigious standing, we closely monitor national nursing shortage
projections and civilian compensation packages and determine the best
course for us to take in the competitive market.
National Nursing Shortage
A 2002 study conducted by the Health Resources and Service
Administration predicted that the national nursing shortage will
experience a deficit of over 275,000 nurses by 2010, based on the
dwindling supply of registered nurses and the increasing demand for
their clinical expertise. A report by the American Association of
Critical Care Nurses, cited factors impacting the nursing work force
supply including the declining number of nursing school graduates, job
dissatisfaction, and inadequate compensation. We continuously monitor
each of these factors because the strength of our nursing work force
can best be maintained through a blend of counter initiatives to these
dissatisfiers.
Recruitment and Retention Initiatives
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACCESSION SOURCES: ACTIVE DUTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Procurement...................................... 77
Reserve Recall.......................................... 15
Nurse Candidate Program................................. 62
Naval Reserve Officer Training Program.................. 52
Medical Enlisted Commissioning Program.................. 42
Other................................................... 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy Nurse Corps amazingly continues to meet military and
civilian recruiting goals and professional nursing requirements through
diversified accession sources, pay incentives, graduate education and
training programs, and other retention initiatives that address quality
of life and practice satisfaction. The increase of the maximum
allowable compensation amount for the Certified Registered Nurse
Anesthetist Incentive Special Pay (CRNA ISP) and the Nurse Accession
Bonus (NAB) in the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act
will further enhance our competitive edge in the nursing market. To
meet specialty needs, such as critical care, mental health, midwifery
and neonatal nursing, we are exploring the Health Professions Loan
Repayment Program. Successful recruitment and retention tools have been
the NAB, CRNA ISP, Board Certification Pay and the recent Critical
Skills Retention Bonus for our uniformed members. For our civil service
nurses, recruitment, retention and relocation bonuses; special salary
rates; and Special Hire Authority have significantly decreased our
vacancy rates in several of our facilities. All of these pay
initiatives will become even more critical in the future years to meet
our wartime and peacetime missions and maintain authorized endstrength.
Now, I'd like to highlight our Navy Nurse Corps, Reserve Component.
We have processed sixty-eight percent of our fiscal year 2003 accession
goal of two hundred and sixty-one nurses, maintaining the same pace as
last year. Beneficial incentives in procuring our reservists in
critical wartime specialties include: the accession bonus, loan
repayment and stipend programs for graduate education. To meet our
contributory support mission, we are proposing to expand bonus
eligibility to new nursing graduates. In addition, we are in the
initial stages of exploring the feasibility of instituting a pipeline
scholarship program for the reserve enlisted component similar to those
given to our active duty colleagues.
Education and Training Initiatives
Since graduate education opportunities have been cited as one of
our most important retention initiatives, we constantly evaluate our
patient care requirements to annually update our Duty Under Instruction
Scholarship Plan. We now focus our training on Master's Degrees,
Doctoral Programs, and fellowships based on operational and specialty
requirements, specific health population needs and staffing
projections. This year, we are sending several of our nurses to the
recently established Perioperative Clinical Nurse Specialist Program at
the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS). We look
forward to the new Doctoral Program at USUHS and are currently
exploring nursing post-graduate fellowship opportunities.
Nursing internship programs have been initiated at the National
Naval Medical Centers in Bethesda, Maryland; Portsmouth, Virginia; San
Diego and the Naval Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida for all new
nursing graduates. There have been a total of one hundred and forty
military and civilian nurses who have completed their respective
programs. Outcome measures for these new nurses attest to increased
self-confidence with clinical practice and the ability to assume
greater responsibilities which facilitates their integration into the
Navy Nurse Corps.
Navy Nursing supports national initiatives to increase the nursing
work force numbers in several ways. Our robust scholarship pipeline
programs help to support nursing school enrollment. Through agreements
with schools of nursing, military treatment facilities provide varied
clinical experiences and clinical experts, who may also serve as
adjunct faculty. We also enhance the image of nursing in the community
through numerous presentations and approved advertisement campaigns.
HEALTH BENEFIT
Through an innovative framework of nursing practice, we deliver
high quality, cost-effective and easily accessible primary and
preventive health care services. Population health management has been
at the forefront in various clinical settings through health promotion,
disease management and case management programs. These innovations
expedite a much quicker return to full-duty; decrease lost work hours;
increase productivity and enhance customer satisfaction.
Healthy and Fit Force
Embracing Force Health Protection, many programs have been
developed to ensure a healthy and fit force. For instance, command
Preventive Health Assessment Programs identify at-risk active duty
members and promote therapeutic lifestyle changes, such as in the
Nurse-Managed Hyperlipidemia Clinic at our Naval Hospital in Rota,
Spain. The In-Garrison Rehabilitation Platoon Program at our Naval
Hospital in Camp Pendleton, California has expedited the Marines'
return to training through improved continuity and coordination of all
aspects of patient care, saving 2,100 convalescent leave days over a
two-month period. Health Promotion efforts instituted the Choices
Program at our Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Sicily. This program
focuses on pregnancy prevention through education, including the use of
baby simulators to mimic seventy hours of parenthood. Based on a
comparison study, female Sailors who successfully completed the course
were three times less likely to get pregnant. Additionally, Family
Nurse Practitioners continue to provide support to the Fleet through
pierside clinical services, health promotion programs, and disaster
training.
Family Centered Care
Just as the health and fitness of our military members is critical
to force readiness, the health of our extended military family and
other eligible beneficiaries is equally important. Case Management
targets prevention, early diagnosis, cost effective intervention and
quality outcomes. In at least four medical treatment facilities,
Diabetes Case Management has significantly enhanced patient compliance
with their recommended plan of care. In support of the unique needs of
seriously-ill and terminally-ill patients, the Palliative Care Project
at our Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth is the first of its kind in
Navy Medicine. This program embraces the philosophy of caring during
the final phase of life. Our Mother Baby Clinics provide follow-up
visits for high risk mothers and babies for early detection and
prevention of complications. Pediatric nurses at Naval Hospital Naples
liaison with Department of Defense school nurses and teachers to
collaborate on the development of students' Asthma Action Plans based
on the National Asthma Education & Prevention Guidelines. This
initiative alone has decreased emergency room visits by seventy-five
percent and inpatient admissions by eleven percent. Our Nurse-Run
Primary Care Clinics use approved protocols to increase access and
incorporate population health concepts. This sampling of the
aforementioned programs demonstrates that Navy Nurses are innovative
and have specialized knowledge that can be applied to many forums
unique to military settings.
BEST HEALTH CARE BUSINESS PRACTICES
Nurse Corps officers continue to be strategically placed in pivotal
roles where they can influence legislation, health care policy and
delivery systems. There are active duty and reserve Nurse Corps
officers in executive roles, including the Deputy Surgeon General,
Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, Officers in Charge, policy
makers and many others.
Strategic Planning and E-technology
Always striving for nursing excellence, many commands have aligned
their performance metrics with the American Nurses Association Magnet
Recognition Program and the Malcolm Baldridge Criteria for Excellence.
These standards provide the framework for sustained quality patient
care outcomes, visionary leadership, strategic planning, and
exceptional staff performance.
To enhance communication and conduct business, we have strategized
and marketed clinical outcomes, research findings and business
practices through video teleconferences, newsletters, conferences, and
professional journals. Online clinical training sources, Navy e-
learning modules and nursing practice resources are tested for
effectiveness and linked through our website or Navy Medicine's
Telelibrary.
Research
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navy Nurse Corps Research Plan: Focus on
Deployment Health
Developing and Sustaining Competencies
Recruitment and Retention of the Work Force
Education and Training Outcomes
Clinical Resource Management
Military Clinical Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Our revised Navy Nurse Corps Research Plan provides the foundation
and scope of military nursing research ranging from the utilization of
doctoral prepared Nurse Corps officers to their responsibilities in
leading evidenced-based practice studies. Placed in positions of
authority and influence, our nurse researchers create health policies
and delivery systems, advance and disseminate scientific knowledge,
foster nursing excellence, and improve clinical outcomes. In addition,
our senior nurse executives have promoted a culture of scientific-based
practice in all settings from military treatment facilities to the
operational environment. Ongoing nursing research and evidence-based
practice ultimately effects quality outcome, captures cost
effectiveness and enhances patient satisfaction. Nursing Research has
become our cornerstone for excellence. In fact, we have the honor of
having one of our Navy Nurses named ``Researcher of the Year'' by the
American Association of Nurse Anesthetists.
Through your support of TriService Nursing Research Program
funding, research has been conducted at our three major medical
centers, our two Recruit Training Centers, several Naval Hospitals, on
more than six aircraft carriers and collaboratively with our uniformed
colleagues and more than thirteen universities across the country. Navy
nursing TSNRP-funded research has been published in numerous
professional journals.
I would like to highlight some of the research that has been
supported by TSNRP funds. A program of research involving three studies
examined Navy recruits at-risk for depression. After undergoing the
BOOT STRAP Intervention Program, preliminary results indicated
potential for decreased attrition, improved recruit performance and an
identified cost-effective method of recruit retention. On the ``cutting
edge'' of molecular research, a team led by a Navy nurse is
investigating the potential use of a readily accessible drug to be used
in the field to treat military personnel with respiratory problems.
Through a multidisciplinary team approach to diabetic care, a third
study focuses on enabling the patient's ability to achieve mastery of
self-care and live independently, with potential cost savings of
$7,000-$42,000/patient/year. Participants report more independence and
greater satisfaction with the disease management intervention.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I appreciate your tremendous support of legislative
initiatives and the opportunity to share our accomplishments and issues
that face the Navy Nurse Corps. Our nurses are very proud of our
heritage and professional practice as innovators, change agents and
leaders at all levels from policymaking to program implementation,
across federal agencies and in all clinical settings. In my other role
as Commander, Navy Medicine Education and Training Command, I fully
support the philosophy that continuous learning and guidance for health
care professionals is integral to enabling uniformed services personnel
to meet our peacetime and wartime missions. This foundation transcends
across all levels of practice and the ``Five Rights'' of nursing, which
involves placing the right person in the right assignment at the right
time with the right education and the right specialized training.
Herein lies the basis of our superior performance in promoting,
protecting and restoring the health of all entrusted to our care.
I look forward to continuing to work with you during my tenure as
the Director of the Navy Nurse Corps. Thank you for this great honor
and privilege.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Admiral. General Brannon.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL BARBARA BRANNON,
ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL, AIR FORCE
NURSING SERVICES AND COMMANDER OF MALCOLM
GROW MEDICAL CENTER
General Brannon. Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye. It is
once again an honor and my great pleasure to present the great
accomplishments of Air Force nursing. As we vigorously execute
our mission at home and abroad, Air Force nurses and enlisted
nursing personnel are meeting the increasing challenges with
great professionalism and distinction.
Aeromedical evacuation is the critical link between
casualties on the battlefield and definitive medical care. Our
superb medical crews and the advances in medical technology
make care in the air more sophisticated than ever before.
CRITICAL CARE AIR TRANSPORT TEAMS
Our critical care air transport teams or CCATTs were
instrumental in the lifesaving airlift of four Afghan children
who were caught in the crossfire of war. They received
emergency care from an Army forward surgical team and then were
treated by our CCATT team during the 2-hour flight to a combat
Army surgical hospital. The team worked in total darkness using
night vision goggles until the aircraft was out of danger.
Medical teams from all three services have worked together
very smoothly in the operational environment and the patient
handoffs were virtually seamless. The teamwork has been
phenomenal. Embedded journalists and continuous network
coverage have enabled the world to watch this war unfold.
What the world hasn't seen is our Air Force independent
duty medical technicians working with pararescue units at the
battle's forward edge, their critical skills and training and
special operations have made a lifesaving difference during
evacuation of the wounded.
They have employed leading edge technology, and the
experiences of these brave airmen have set new standards for
wartime emergency care. While much of our energy has been
directed toward wartime support, there were also exciting
initiatives continuing at the home station.
POPULATION HEALTH PROGRAMS
Last year, I talked about our great progress in deploying
population health programs. We are now engaged in comprehensive
health care optimization to improve effectiveness and
efficiency of services in every clinical area. Nurses and
medical technicians are the backbone of successful
optimization. Their expanded support to providers enable not
only treatment of disease, but also stronger focus on
preventive services and population health management.
A great example comes from Charleston Air Force Base, South
Carolina, where primary care teams launched an aggressive
preventive screening campaign. Capitalizing on technology, they
use an automated program to generate a letter to patients in
their birth month inviting them to come for the recommended
screening. This is very successful and the percent who complete
screening exceeds national benchmarks by 6 percent.
NURSE CORPS GRADE STRUCTURE
The key to success in nursing is a strong nursing force, a
force with the right numbers and with the right experience and
skills. Today, almost 79 percent of our authorizations are in
the company grade ranks of lieutenant and captain, with only 21
percent in field grade rank. Having a relatively junior Nurse
Corps is a growing concern due to the higher acuity of our in-
patients, complexity of outpatient care and the robust role
that we play in wartime support.
To validate a rebalance in our Nurse Corps grade structure
we initiated a top down grade review last year, that will
identify by position the skill and experience required. Early
data shows a significant need to increase our field grade
authorizations. A by-product of this increase would be a
greater promotion opportunity, bringing it more in line with
other Air Force officer specialties. We expect to recommend
that to our leadership in the very near future.
RECRUITING
Recruiting continues to be a significant challenge. We
ended last year with 104 nurses below our authorized end
strength of 3,974. This was significantly better due to an
unusually low rate of separations. We continue to implement new
recruiting strategies both at headquarters and local levels. We
are currently working with our sister services to fund an
increased accession bonus for a 4-year commitment and exploring
the feasibility of accession bonus for nurses who choose a 3-
year obligation.
Our recruiting at the Air Force Academy has been extremely
successful. Six academy seniors have selected nursing for their
military profession, the largest group since it became an
option in 1997. They will attend Vanderbilt University School
of Nursing to earn a 2 year graduate degree.
We are making great strides in enhancing the strength of
our nursing care team by capitalizing on the talents of our
enlisted personnel. We are partnering with the Army Nurse Corps
to enable our medical technicians to attend a superb licensing
program at Fort Sam Houston. We hope to increase the capacity
of the current program to include 60 Air Force medics per year.
We also recognize the needs to increase our enlisted in
baccalaureate nursing programs and are exploring stipend
initiatives similar to those used by the Navy Nurse Corps to
make it easier for enlisted Nurse Corps to earn a BS, and be
commissioned in our Nurse Corps. This year 300 nurses
participated in a research program. Collective work expanded
evidence-based nursing practices in several clinical and
operational areas.
AIR MEDICAL EVACUATION
A key study was on air medical evacuation. As we have
increased the use of cargo aircraft for patient movement, the
inability to control the temperature in patient areas has
adversely affected the seriously ill and injured. Researchers
have now identified patient location priorities and tested the
effectiveness of improved monitoring and warming devices. Other
researchers are using the lessons learned from our deployed
nurses and technicians to validate war readiness training
programs.
One of the roles I enjoy most is being an advisor to the
Uniformed Services University Graduate School of Nursing. They
have made incredible progress in their first decade. Under
energetic and visionary leadership, the school continues to
grow in scope and build programs to meet the emerging needs of
military nursing.
Barely 2 years ago we began discussion on the feasibility
of a master's program in perioperative nursing, and this fall
the first class begins. The nursing Ph.D. program also went
from concept to reality in just 1 year and the new curriculum
will prepare nursing leaders in research and for key roles in
health care strategy and policy.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, thank you for allowing me to
share just a few of the many activities of Air Force nursing
with you today. On behalf of the men and women of the nursing
services, I want to thank you for your tremendous advocacy, not
only on behalf of military nursing, but also for the
advancement of nursing across our Nation.
PREPARED STATEMENT
You can trust that Air Force nursing will continue to serve
in peace and war with the same professionalism, pride and
patriotism that we have demonstrated for almost 54 years. There
has never been a better time to be a member of the Air Force
nursing team. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brigadier General Barbara Brannon
Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am
Brigadier General Barbara Brannon, Assistant Surgeon General, Air Force
Nursing Services and Commander of Malcolm Grow Medical Center at
Andrews Air Force Base. This is my fourth testimony before this
esteemed committee and, once again, I am very proud to represent Air
Force Nursing and delighted to share our accomplishments and challenges
with you.
First and foremost, as the Air Force aggressively executes its
mission in support of our great nation, Air Force medics are keeping
our people fit and providing outstanding healthcare wherever it is
needed. Air Force nurses and enlisted nursing personnel are meeting
increasing commitments and challenges with great professionalism and
distinction. Today I'd like to review the following: deployments,
training, force management, optimization and research, as examples of
these commitments and challenges.
Over the past year, hundreds of Nursing Service personnel have been
deployed to every corner of the globe to support the ongoing war on
terrorism and to provide humanitarian relief. There are more than 400
nurses and technicians currently deployed in Expeditionary Medical
Systems (EMEDS) facilities, and hundreds more prepared and awaiting
orders to deploy. The Air Force continues to rely on an ambitious Air
Expeditionary Force (AEF) rotation cycle to accomplish deployment
missions and maintain home station health care services.
In addition to supporting ongoing commitments to Operation ENDURING
FREEDOM, IRAQI FREEDOM and other deployments, Air Force medical
personnel have been called frequently to support humanitarian
operations throughout the world. Four months ago, twelve nurses and
technicians from Yokota AB Japan deployed to Guam to assist in federal
medical support in the aftermath of the devastating Super Typhoon
Pongsona. Arriving in the middle of the night, they established initial
medical capability to triage and treat casualties within 24 hours.
Nurses and technicians also provide humanitarian support through
their active engagement in the International Health Specialist program.
They are successfully forging and fostering positive relationships
around the world. A great example is Major Doreen Smith, recognized as
the Air Force International Health Specialist of the Year in Europe
2002 for her outstanding work in Africa. She was instrumental in
establishing the first Republic of Sierre Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF)
HIV/AIDS Prevention Committee that developed treatment protocols used
by field medical technicians to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS. She
later implemented training programs in both Ghana and Nigeria.
Aeromedical evacuation remains a unique Air Force competency and
our ability to respond to urgent transport requirements is second to
none. Nurses and technicians were integral members of teams providing
care during the evacuation of over 2,548 patients from forward areas in
Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM. Aeromedical evacuation is
the critical link between casualties on the front lines and progressive
levels of restorative healthcare abroad and in the continental United
States.
Captain Michael McCarthy was on a Critical Care Air Transport Team
mission over hostile territory to rescue two CIA operatives critically
injured during the prison uprising in Kandahar, Afghanistan. This was
not a typical mission for our critical care team--the mission was flown
in blackout conditions due to Special Operations requirements. Captain
McCarthy's expert critical care saved the life of a casualty whose
condition deteriorated in-flight. He received the prestigious Dolly
Vinsant Flight Nurse Award from the Commemorative Air Force for his
heroic actions on this mission.
The tremendous accomplishments of our Air Force Flight Nurses have
also been heralded by civilian flight nurse organizations. The Air and
Surface Transport Nurses Association (ASTNA) presented the 2002 Matz-
Mason Award to Captain Greg Rupert, Critical Care Air Transport Team
Program Coordinator, Lackland AFB, Texas, for exceptional leadership
and positive impact on flight nursing on a global scale.
Three years ago the Air Force identified that many medical
personnel's peacetime healthcare responsibilities did not adequately
sustain their proficiency in critical wartime skills. Medical career
field managers and specialty consultants developed the specific
readiness skills required for each specialty and established training
intervals to ensure our people were prepared to meet deployment
requirements. This year, we refined the program based on lessons
learned in the deployed environment.
As I briefed last year, the Air Force has entered into partnerships
with civilian academic medical centers to provide intense training for
nurses and technicians prior to deployment. The first ``Center for
Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills'' (CSTARS) was initiated in
January 2002 at the Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore. This program
provides our health care personnel with valuable hands-on clinical
experience that covers the full spectrum of acute trauma management,
from first response to the scene, during transport, to trauma unit
care, to operating room intervention and finally to management in the
intensive care unit. The three-week session also incorporates the
Advanced Trauma Care Course for nurses and the Pre-Hospital Trauma Life
Support Course for our medical technicians. To date, over 200 personnel
have been trained in Baltimore.
Building on the success of this first site, the Air Force has
developed and opened two new CSTARS programs, one at St. Louis
University primarily for the Air National Guard (ANG) team training,
and the other at the University Hospital of Cincinnati for Reserve
teams. The St. Louis program started in January 2003, and we expect to
train over 270 personnel during their two-week annual tour. Early
feedback is impressive as reflected by an end-of-course survey comment,
``this is far and away the greatest training program I have been able
to attend in the Air Force/ANG''.
The CSTARS partnership between the University of Maryland Medical
Center (UMMC) and the Air Force was key to the great success of the
exercise ``Free State Response 2002'' conducted in Baltimore, Maryland
in July of last year. The purpose of the exercise was to train as many
people as possible in community disaster response and to foster
effective coordination and collaboration between agencies involved in
disaster management. The exercise received wide media coverage in the
national capital area and was judged a huge success.
Expeditionary Medical Systems (EMEDS) is a five-day course that
provides hands-on field training for personnel assigned to EMEDS
deployment packages to prepare them to work in the operational
environment. There are currently three sites for EMEDS training: Brooks
City Base, Texas primarily for active duty, Sheppard AFB, Texas for
Reserves, and at Alpena, Michigan for ANG personnel. So far, 3,608
personnel have been trained in this critical operational requirement.
Overall trends in healthcare delivery and the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2001, allowing care for beneficiaries over age 65,
have resulted in an increase in the acuity and complexity of the
patients we serve. This has increased the need for experienced nurse
clinicians. Facility chief nurses have expressed growing concerns over
the challenge of providing the most effective care with a relatively
junior staff. In our military system, rank reflects the relative
experience of the individual. When we look at our current Nurse Corps
force structure, we note that more than 72 percent of our
authorizations are for second lieutenants, first lieutenants and
captains. These nurses range from ``novice to proficient'' in their
nursing skills. Nurses at the major and lieutenant colonel level are
``expert to master'' in their practice. The ratio of company grade to
field grade nurses is significantly higher than for other medical
career fields or the line of the Air Force.
To correct the imbalance in our mix of novice and expert nurses,
authorizations for field grade nurses would need to be increased. The
Air Force Nurse Corps has initiated a Top Down Grade Review (TDGR) to
identify, justify, and recommended needed adjustments. We are nearing
the end of our data collection and research phase of the study and
anticipate draft recommendations for our surgeon general in the next
couple of months. If approved, and if additional field grade billets
are indicated, the process to adjust authorizations among career fields
can be initiated with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's approval.
In a separate but related issue, the Nurse Corps has the poorest
promotion opportunity among Air Force officers. With only 28 percent of
our authorizations in field grade ranks compared to 46 percent in the
line of the Air Force, it is easy to understand why so many excellent
officers are not getting selected for promotion. This lack of promotion
opportunity is a major source of dissatisfaction in our Nurse Corps.
The inequity in promotion opportunity has caught the eye of many line
and medical commanders and garnered some support for our TDGR
initiative. It is anticipated that a TDGR would validate increases in
field grade Nurse Corps requirements. An increase in field
authorizations would improve Nurse Corps promotion opportunity and
bring it closer to that of other Air Force Officers.
Although the programs instituted on a national level to address the
nursing crisis are encouraging, recruiting enough nurses to fill
positions is still a huge challenge across the United States and in
many other nations. Last year was the fourth consecutive year the Air
Force Nurse Corps has failed to meet our recruiting goal. We have
recruited approximately 30 percent less than the goal each year since
fiscal year 1999. At the end of fiscal year 2002, we had 104 fewer
nurses than our authorized end strength of 3974. Early personnel
projections forecasted we would end the year 400 nurses under end
strength. Our final end strength reflects an abnormally low number of
separations last year, 136 compared to our historical average of 330.
Our fiscal year 2003 recruiting goal is 363 nurses, and, as of February
2003, 100 have been selected for direct commission. This year
recruiting service is able to offer an accession loan repayment of up
to $26,000 as an incentive. With $6.2 million available to fund this
initiative, we are hopeful that it will be as successful as last years
retention loan repayment program and boost our accession numbers closer
to the goal.
Last year we revived an earlier policy that allowed Associate
Degree (ADN) nurses who had a Baccalaureate degree in a health-related
field to join the Nurse Corps. This was in response to Recruiting
Service's belief that this would give access to a robust pool of
recruits. But, in reality, only 13 ADN nurses were commissioned under
this carefully monitored program. I rescinded the policy in October
2002 since it did not produce the desired effect.
We continue to recruit nurses up to the age of 47 because it proved
very successful in fiscal year 2002. Thirty-four nurses over age 40
were commissioned into the Air Force last year. Many of them have the
critical care skills and leadership we need to meet our readiness
mission and most have the years of experience to make them valuable
mentors for our novice nurses.
``We are all recruiters'' is our battle cry as we tackle the
daunting task of recruiting the nurses we need, and I continue to
partner closely with recruiting groups to energize our recruiting
strategies. Among other activities, I have written personal letters to
nurses inviting them to consider Air Force Nursing careers and have
manned recruiting booths at professional conferences. I look for
opportunities to highlight and advertise the exciting opportunities Air
Force Nurses enjoy, and have had nurses featured in print media
coverage. I encourage each nurse wearing ``Air Force'' blue to visit
their alma mater and nursing schools near their base of assignment to
make presentations to prospective recruits. I have also assigned four
nurses to work directly in recruiting groups to focus exclusively on
nurse recruiting. Recruiters are using innovative marketing materials
that my staff helped develop to champion Air Force Nursing at
conferences, in their website, and in other publicity campaigns.
Retention is another key factor in our end strength. In an effort
to identify factors impacting separations, I directed the Chief Nurse
of every facility to interview nurses who voluntarily separate. Exit
interviews were standardized to facilitate identification of the
factors that most influenced nurses to separate. Nurses indicated they
might have elected to remain on active duty if staffing improved, if
moves were less frequent, if they had an option to work part time, or
if they could better balance work and family responsibilities. Most of
these are requirements of military life that cannot be changed by the
Nurse Corps. With regards to staffing, our nurse-patient ratios are
fairly generous compared to civilian staffing models. The Air Force
Medical Service has launched an aggressive initiative to develop
standardized staffing models for functions across all medical
facilities to optimize staffing effectiveness.
We are developing a new survey for all nurses to identify
workplace/environmental impediments so we can target opportunities to
increase satisfaction. We continue to recommend Reserve, National
Guard, and Public Health Service transfers for those who desire a more
stable home environment but enjoy military service and can meet
deployment requirements.
We appreciate the continued support for the critical skills
retention bonus authorized in the fiscal year 2001 NDAA. The Health
Professional Loan Repayment Program, implemented in fiscal year 2002,
was embraced by 241 active duty nurses saddled with educational debt.
These nurses had between six months and eight years of total service
and were willing to accept an additional 2-year active duty obligation
in exchange for loan repayment of up to $25,000. This program improved
our immediate retention of nurses and has great potential to boost
long-term retention in critical year groups.
The TriService Health Professions Special Pay Working Group
identified Certified Registered Nurse Anesthesiologists (CRNAs) and
Perioperative Nurses as critically manned and therefore eligible for a
retention bonus. This program was enthusiastically welcomed with 66
percent of eligible CRNAs and 98 percent of Perioperative Nurses
applying for a critical skills retention bonus in exchange for a one-
year service commitment.
We are looking at the benefits of increasing the number of civilian
nurses in our workforce. We are grateful for the support of Congress in
implementing U.S. Code Title 10 Direct Hire Authority to streamline the
civilian nurse hiring process. During the period from August to
December 2002, the Air Force was able to use direct hire to bring 14
new civilian registered nurses on duty. With use of Direct Hire
Authority, positions that had been vacant for as long as 18 months were
filled within weeks. Our ability to hire civilian nurses would be
greatly enhanced if we could hire at a competitive salary. We greatly
appreciate your support and interest in Title 38-like pay authority for
health professions.
We are delighted to report that this year six Air Force Academy
graduates selected the profession of nursing for their career field.
This is the largest group to choose nursing since the option was
instituted in 1997. Cadets selected for direct entry into the Nurse
Corps attend Vanderbilt University School of Nursing via the Health
Professions Scholarship Program. This accelerated degree program allows
non-nurses with a bachelor's degree to obtain a master's degree in
nursing after two years of study. To date, eight academy graduates have
completed this program. Graduates of the Vanderbilt program have the
leadership skills gained at the Academy coupled with a nursing degree
from a prestigious university. They are prepared as advanced practice
nurses and have the leadership base and potential to become top leaders
in military healthcare.
Air Force Nursing has been actively engaged in optimizing the
contributions of our enlisted medical technicians by expanding their
responsibilities and, in some cases, merging skill sets. In November
2002, the Air Force consolidated three career fields, the aeromedical
technician, medical service technician and public health technician. We
now have two key career fields, the aerospace medical service
technician and public health technician. This consolidation provides
more robustly trained enlisted medics and increases manpower to support
force health protection and emergency response. In this transition,
every health care facility stood up a Force Health Management element
responsible for ensuring designated personnel are medically cleared,
prepared and ready to deploy at a moment's notice.
Air Force Independent Duty Medical Technicians (IDMTs) have been
tasked to support an expanding variety of missions and have become high
demand, low-density assets. In Operation Enduring Freedom, they have
been added to Special Forces teams for a variety of missions. IDMTs
have provided medical care during prisoner transports, on an expedition
into Tibet for recovery of remains, on drug interdiction operations, in
austere, remote locations and on the front lines. This year, we are
substituting IDMTs for the medical technicians assigned to our Squadron
Medical Elements, teams deployed with flying squadrons to provide
medical care in the operational environment. To support these
additional taskings, we have increased our IDMT training program from
108 to 168 per year.
We continue our efforts to expand the scope of enlisted nursing
practice through licensed practical nurse (LPN) training programs. This
past year, we continued to send personnel to St. Phillip's College in
San Antonio, Texas for a six-month program that prepares graduates to
take the state board LPN licensure exam. To date, 48 medical
technicians have completed the LPN program at St. Phillips College.
This year, we are partnering with the Army Licensed Vocational Nurse
Program to provide a more structured and comprehensive training program
and increase our numbers of graduates to 60 students per year. As of 1
November 2002, a special experience identifier was implemented to
provide visibility in the personnel system for licensed practice nurses
and enable appropriate assignment actions.
We are successfully maintaining our medical enlisted end strength.
The overall manning for technicians in the aerospace medical service
career field remains above 90 percent, which can be construed as a
positive reflection of satisfaction and the impact of quality of life
initiatives. The neurology technician career field has been critically
manned for some time, and I am pleased to report that the
implementation of a selective reenlistment bonus has been very
successful. The neurology career field manning has improved from 69.2
percent in May 2001 to 88.5 percent in November 2002 and is projected
to grow to over 90 percent with the graduation of the next training
course.
Nursing services is actively engaged in optimizing health care.
This maintains a healthy, fit and ready force, improves the health
status of our enrolled population and to provides health care more
efficiently and effectively. The Air Force has seen continuing growth
in the success of Primary Care Optimization (PCO) and we are now
beginning the optimization of specialty services throughout our system,
moving towards Health Care Optimization (HCO). Nurses and medical
technicians continue to be the backbone of successful optimization, and
we are refining the roles of the ambulatory care nurse, medical service
technician, and Health Care Integrator (HCI) to ensure the patient
receives the right care, at the right time, by the right provider.
The PCO team is the epicenter for preventive services, management
of population health and treatment of disease. We use civilian
benchmarking to assess our healthcare outcomes and progress. The Health
Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures the health of
our population and compares our outcomes to those of comparable
civilian health plans. Using ideas generated from ``Best Practices'',
we have seen impressive increases in the indicators of good diabetic
management. In fact, 91 percent of Air Force facilities exceed the
quality indicators for diabetic control measured through blood
screening.
Air Force facilities have been highlighted for other outstanding
achievements in healthcare. Nurses and technicians at VA/DOD Joint
Venture, 3rd Medical Group (MDG), Elmendorf AFB, AK were part of a
project to increase the involvement of family and friends in patient
care. This initiative's tremendous success led to the facility's
selection by the Picker Institute as the #1 Benchmark Hospital in the
United States for patient-centered surgical dimensions of care.
In the 3rd MDG's ICU and multi-service unit (MSU), Air Force and
Veteran Affairs (VA) nursing personnel are working side-by-side to
deliver the highest quality care to DOD and VA beneficiaries. Air Force
nurses train VA nurses in the MSU and VA nurses train Air Force nurses
in the ICU. The robust and successful professional collaboration is the
bedrock of this joint venture.
Another great success in ambulatory care is the implementation of a
population-based approach to case management. This program proactively
targets at-risk populations and individuals along the health care
continuum. One of our leading case managers, Lt. Col. Beth Register at
Eglin AFB, FL has built an integrated approach that allows her six team
members to each manage 50 cases, 200 percent above civilian industry
caseload standards. Lt. Col. Register is preparing a TriService Nursing
Research grant proposal to look at ``Efficacy of Case Management at an
Air Force Facility'' and to test and validate the success of this case
management program.
Air Force nurse researchers continue to provide the answers to
clinical questions that improve the science and the practice of
nursing. Twenty-three Air Force nurses are actively engaged in
TriService Nursing Research Program (TNSRP) funded research.
The TNSRP-funded Nurse Triage Demonstration Project is in its
second and final year of looking at the effective and efficient
delivery of TeleHealth Nursing Practice. There have been some
demonstrated positive outcomes. Clinical practice has been standardized
through the use of medically approved telephone practice protocols;
documentation has been improved through computer-based technologies and
training programs have been developed and implemented.
Another study conducted on in-flight invasive hemodynamic
monitoring identified inaccuracies due to procedural variance. The
recommendations resulted in significant process changes--and for the
first time change was driven by scientific research. These process
changes will be incorporated into the training programs for Critical
Care Air Transport Teams (CCATT) and Aeromedical Evacuation (AE)
nurses.
The nurse researchers at Wilford Hall Medical Center in Texas are
studying the care of critical patients in unique military environments.
One of these studies looked at physiological responses to in-flight
thermal stress in cargo aircraft used for aeromedical evacuation. The
study identified areas in the aircraft where thermal stress was at a
level that could be detrimental to critically ill patients. They also
identified previously unrecognized limitations in accurate measurement
of patient oxygenation during flight. These findings led to a study of
warming devices to protect trauma victims from the deleterious effects
of thermal stress following exposure in cold field environments or on
cargo aircraft.
It has been an exciting year for the Graduate School of Nursing at
the Uniformed Services University and it is wonderful to be part of the
planning for the development of a PhD nursing program. This program is
crucial for Air Force Nursing to help us build leaders who are
strategically prepared to lead in our unique military nursing
environment.
CLOSING REMARKS
Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I have
had the opportunity to lead the men and women of Air Force Nursing
Services for three years and each has been full of new challenges,
great opportunities and many rewards. Our nurses and aerospace medical
technicians remain ready to support our Air Force by delivering best-
quality healthcare in peace, in humanitarian endeavors and in war. The
escalation of world tensions in the last year has afforded a showcase
for their enormous talent, stalwart patriotism and devotion to duty. On
behalf of Air Force Nursing, I thank this committee for your tremendous
support of military men and women, and in particular, for the special
recognition and regard you have shown for our nurses. We are forever
grateful for your advocacy and leadership. Thank you and may GOD BLESS
AMERICA!
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, all of you and
General, thank you very much for your appearances before our
committee and wish you well in your further endeavors. I'm
going to have to excuse myself now. I had an appointment at
noon. This is one of the strangest days. Senator Inouye will
complete the hearing. Thank you very much.
NURSE SHORTAGE
Senator Inouye [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I
believe all of you are aware, the American Hospital Association
just announced that there is a shortage at this moment in
excess of 126,000 nurses in our Nation's hospitals, and the
American Medical Association announced that by the year 2020,
this shortage will exceed 400,000.
Add to this the fact that all three services have had to
send and deploy nurses to Operation Iraqi Freedom. My question
to all of you is that during this period, were we able to
provide appropriate, adequate, and effective nursing care to
the patients at home here?
General Bester. Senator, I can answer that question with an
unequivocal yes. I think each one of our facilities has
carefully looked at our nursing staffing situations with our
Reserve backfill. Of course, as you had mentioned earlier not
at the level that we would like to see it, but certainly with
the Reserve backfill that we have got with hiring some
additional contract nurses, and then with the support the
continued support of our civilian nursing staff, we have looked
at the staffing situation by hospital.
In some cases, it means that we have had to divert some
patients downtown and in some cases, on rare cases we have had
to close or at least decrease the number of operational beds
that we have, but I think we have always kept our focus on the
quality of care to be sure that we are providing the same
quality of care that we did prior to the war.
Admiral Lescavage. Senator, I believe the answer all boils
down to great attitude and team spirit. We watched very
carefully as we deployed several hundred nurses and saw our
wonderful Reservists step in who are used to working in our
facility anyway during their Reserve time, as well as our
civilian nurses, our backbone.
We also are in line with the Institute on Health Care
Improvement, with their big safety initiatives. We have safety
programs that occur in our hospitals constantly looking for any
discrepancies in care. We have seen zero, and I'm truly
confident that our patients continue to receive the best and
safest care that they possibly can, both in the war scenario,
as well as back at our MTFs.
HOSPITAL SERVICES REDUCTION
Senator Inouye. I have been told that in some facilities
they had to curtail certain services like obstetrical surgery
and such. Did we experience anything like that?
Admiral Lescavage. Senator, we have curtailed slightly. We
worked with the network to take care of those patients, but
between what we expected compared to what truly did happen,
there wasn't that big of a difference.
Senator Inouye. So Bethesda is still a full-service
hospital?
Admiral Lescavage. Yes, sir.
General Brannon. Yes. I would echo the comments from my
colleagues with careful attention to staffing ratios and the
acuity of the patients in our facilities. We have been able to
ensure that the care we are rendering is just as safe as when
we had those other nurses who were deployed.
We did get some backfill after many of our nurses deployed,
and that enabled us to keep full services at most
installations. Occasionally we needed to close beds and divert
patients downtown. At most facilities it was temporary until
the acuity of the patients was lower, the same procedure we use
in peacetime.
SPECIALIZED TRAINING
Senator Inouye. Very few of our nurses have combat care
experience. What sort of specialized training did you provide
to prepare them for this? General?
General Bester. Senator, our nurses are actively engaged in
a number of programs. First of all, as was mentioned by General
Peake of the Army Trauma Training Center down at Ryder Trauma
Training Center in Miami is a place where we train all of our
forward surgical teams. We have five full time Army Nurse Corps
officers assigned to that facility and in just this last year,
we have trained 290 Army Nurse Corps officers, both active and
Reserve through that facility.
We send our nurses to the combat casualty care course, a 9-
day course in San Antonio, that they experience taking care of
patients under combatlike conditions. General Peake initiated a
couple years back a superb type of program that is now
mandatory to take before any of our courses, short courses that
we take. And so many of our Nurse Corps officers are actively
engaged in that training.
We feel in addition to that, we have a lot of professional
training that goes on. We have some facilities that actually
have medical sites, and they do real wartime training in those
facilities. We feel we have kept well ahead of that rolling
ball as far as training our nurses on a continual basis, so we
feel they were very well prepared when it came time for them to
deploy.
Admiral Lescavage. Senator, we saw this coming and in order
to increase our comfort level, a while ago, we instituted
training not only for our nurses but for the teams, the
corpsmen, the physicians, as well as the nurses who would be
dealing with combat casualties.
As I stated in my testimony, we instituted trauma training
courses with LA County. That's working very well. We also have
joined our sister services in some of their training as General
Bester just alluded to, such as the combat casualty care
course. Across all of our joint service nurses, many of them go
to that, as well as to our education and training command. We
offer many courses and again I'm fully confident that they are
trained very well.
General Brannon. Well, I think training is one of the real
strengths in our Air Force and in our air expeditionary
platforms. We ensure that people go for the training they need
prior to deployment.
What we have done in the medical service is identify, by
task, all of the skills needed by people who are in specific
deployment modules and we make sure that they have current
training in each of those tasks. We have set up a modular
deploying medical force sized from very small units all the way
up to our EMEDS unit, which provide more sustaining patient
care.
For those smaller, more acute critical teams, we use the
Baltimore shock trauma system at the University of Maryland for
training through a collaborative partnership. That program has
been in existence for more than 1 year. We have trained more
than a couple of hundred medics including 70-some nurses. We
also have EMEDS training in San Antonio at Brooks City Base.
All of our EMEDS people go through that training prior to
deployment.
Finally, for many years we have had the Top Start programs
at different medical centers where medics, both enlisted and
officers, get training for a variety of tasks and procedures.
It is a great performance-based training.
PERCENTAGE OF MALE NURSES
Senator Inouye. One last question, and I will submit the
rest and Senator Stevens has requested that his questions be
submitted also. What percentage of your nurses in the Army are
male?
General Bester. Senator, at the current time, 36 percent.
Senator Inouye. Navy?
Admiral Lescavage. One-third of our nurses or 3,200.
General Brannon. A little over 30 percent, sir. Similar
percentage.
Senator Inouye. I'm glad to see it coming up. For too long,
nursing has been looked upon as a secondary position filled
with women only. And apparently, this is a man's world yet, and
so the more men you get, the bigger pay you'll get. That's not
a nice thing to say, but----
General Brannon. It is very true.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Inouye. Those are the facts of life around here.
Without objection, all of the statements of the witnesses will
be made part of the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Vice Admiral Michael L. Cowan
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
deployment of medical personnel
Question. The staff's discussions with the Surgeons General
indicate that the Services have backfilled for deployed medical
personnel at the Medical Treatment Facilities at varying levels.
Some of the Services are relying more heavily on private sector
care rather than backfilling for deployed medical personnel.
To what extent has the recent deployment of military medical
personnel affected access to care at military treatment facilities?
What are you doing to ensure adequate access to care during this time?
Answer. We have been able to maintain services required to address
the needs of both patients coming in from the battlefields and those
seeking regular care through significant deliberate planning. We
implemented core doctrine and conducted intense scrutiny of Military
Treatment Facilities (MTFs) services availability. We identified the
appropriate reservists to support the Military Treatment Facilities
(MTFs) in maintaining services, in some cases adding contract
personnel. Each week we tracked the availability of services at each
MTF. Our MTF personnel, along with activated reservists worked at
unsustainable levels during the deployment and were able to ensure that
access to care was maintained at all MTFs. A survey of activated
reservists is now underway to fully assess the productivity and
effectiveness of all of our personnel, including our reserve support in
ensuring that access to care was maintained for all beneficiaries
during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
mobilized reservists in medical specialties
Question. What percentage of mobilized Reservists in medical
specialties are being used to backfill positions in the United States?
Answer. Backfilling of Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) using
Reservists in medical specialties is determined on a ``case-by-case''
basis, and approved by USD (P&R). During Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF),
the Navy was approved to backfill Navy MTFs (in a phased plan) at a
rate of 53 percent of deployed active duty medical personnel. Due to
the short course of OIF, Navy MTFs were actually backfilled at 43
percent.
Question. Are there shortages of personnel in some specialties? If
so, which specialties are undermanned and by how much?
Answer.
Dental Corps
Due to a significant downward trend in retention of LT/LCDR General
Dentists coupled with significant under execution of CNRC DC accessions
the Dental Corps is undermanned; specifically Oral Surgeons,
Endodontists, and General Dentists.
Dental Corps overall manning has been trending downward for the
last three years, ending fiscal year 2002 at 94.4 percent manning
(1,294 INV/1,370 BA or -76). The EFY 2003 projection is estimated at
<90 percent.
In addition to General Dentists, the Oral Surgeon and Endodontist
communities are significantly short due to reduced numbers of officers
entering the training pipeline as direct impact from the shortfall in
the General Dentist community, and an increase in the loss rates in
these communities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal
Corps Specialty (PSUB) INV BA PCT +/- Year Year
2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC--Dentist (1,700)....................................... 486 594 82 -108 80 78
DC--Oral Surg(1,750J/K)................................... 66 82 80 -16 78 72
DC--Endodontist (1,710J/K)................................ 44 52 85 -8 83 80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining Dental Corps specialties are stable at this time with
sufficient gains to compensate for losses, but is anticipated to become
a problem in the future if General Dentist retention and accessions is
not significantly improved, as this is the applicant pool for specialty
training.
Medical Corps
The Medical Corps continues to have difficulty in retaining certain
specialties. The Medical Corps has less than 80 percent manning in
Anesthesia, Radiology, General Surgery, Pathology, and Radiation
Oncology. Internal Medicine and subspecialties (84 percent) and
Dermatology (83 percent) are near the critical point of under manning.
Inability to access or retain specialties noted above can be
attributed to significant military-civilian pay gaps and declining
number of quality of work attributes that once made practicing in Navy
Medicine enticing over the private sector (e.g., increased operational
tempo). Additionally, the changing face of medicine in the civilian
sector (e.g., fewer applicants for medical school and even fewer
medical school graduates going into the above specialties) is affecting
Navy Medicine as well.
The primary pipeline for Navy physicians is the Health Professions
Scholarship Program (HPSP), which brings in 300 of the 350 individuals
entering as medical students. The HPSP recruiting goal for fiscal year
2003 is 300. The Navy is behind in recruiting in that by May, there are
usually about 150 recruited. Presently there are only 51. It should be
noted that not only is the number of HPSP recruits diminishing, but the
quality has also decreased when utilizing MCAT scores as an indicator
of quality. In he past, HPSP recipients had MCAT scores of 26-30.
Applicants with scores as low as 22 are being considered in order to
fill quotas.
Medical Service Corps
Retention in the Medical Service Corps is good overall. End of
fiscal year 2002 manning was at 98.5 percent with projections for the
next two years at or near 98 percent manning. However, difficulties
remain in retaining highly skilled officers in a variety of clinical
and scientific professions.
The Medical Service Corps is comprised of 32 different health care
specialties in administrative, clinical, and scientific fields. The
education requirements are unique for each field; most require graduate
level degrees, many at the doctoral level.
Biochemistry, Entomology, and Podiatry are undermanned by more than
10 percent. Average yearly loss rates are high in Biochemistry,
Physiology, Environmental Health, Dietetics, Optometry, Pharmacy, and
Psychology. Loss rates this year are very high for Microbiologists &
Social Workers.
The Medical Service Corps does not have available to them retention
tools or special pays for scientists and very limited ones for
clinicians such as Optometrists, Pharmacists, and Podiatrists.
Nurse Corps
The Nurse Corps continues to be healthy considering the national
nursing shortage. The affect of a decreasing number of students who
choose nursing as a career and the ever-increasing demand for
professional nursing services will need to be closely monitored to
ensure Navy Nurse Corps is able to meet the requisite number and
specialty skill mix.
Ability to meet Navy Nurse Corps requirements are due to concerted
efforts in diversifying accession sources and increased retention rates
and as a direct result of pay incentives and graduate education
opportunities.
Hospital Corps
The Hospital Corps continues to have difficulty in retaining
certain specialties. Currently there is less than 80 percent manning in
11 Hospital Corps and one Dental Technician NEC. Inability to access or
retain some of these specialties can be attributed to significant
military-civilian pay gaps.
Question. Are there other ways of structuring the staffing of
military medical units that might help address shortages in a few
specialties, such as making increased use of civilian contractors or
DOD civilian personnel in MTFs stateside?
Answer. MTF Commanders have been tasked with creating business
plans for the optimal operation of medical treatment facilities within
each market area. An integral part of the business planning process is
the assessment of the supply of critical staffing as compared with the
expected demand in a given market. MTF Commanders use this analysis in
determining shortfalls of critical medical staff. Meeting these
critical requirements can be accomplished using a variety of methods.
MTF Commanders may shift existing DOD civilian personnel where
feasible, hire additional contract personnel or request changes in the
billet structure via Manpower at the Bureau of Medicine.
Question. Is DOD considering any changes to the mix of active duty
and reserve personnel in medical specialties?
Answer. At this time, no changes are anticipated regarding the mix
of active and reserve personnel within medical specialties from Navy
Medicine's perspective. Various studies have been initiated but the
current view of casualty causes for OEF and OIF do not suggest that any
major changes in force structure mix or specialty will be necessary.
MONITORING THE HEALTH OF GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL
Question. An April 2003 GAO report documents deficiencies by the
Army in monitoring the health of the early-deploying reservists. Annual
health screening is required to insure that reserve personnel are
medically fit for deployment when call upon.
Review found that 49 percent of early-deploying reservists lacked a
current dental exam, and 68 percent of those over age 40 lacked a
current biennial physical exam.
What improvements have been made to the medical information systems
to track the health care of reservists? Are they electronic, do they
differ among services?
Answer. The Naval Reserve is utilizing the Reserve Automated
Medical Interim System (RAMIS), a web-based Oracle product, deployed in
March 2002 to serve as an interim system until the Naval Reserve's full
participation in the Theater Medical Information Program (TMIP). The
system tracks medical and dental readiness requirements and provides
roll up reporting capabilities to produce a ``readiness snapshot'' for
unit commanders, activity commanding officers and headquarters. Plans
are currently being drafted to begin development work in 2004 for an
all Navy (Active/Reserve) web-based system using technology from RAMIS
and a Navy active duty product, SAMS Population Health. This product
will be part of TMIP and will provide interoperability between all DOD
components and services.
NUMBER OF RESERVISTS WITH MEDICAL PROBLEMS
Question. During the mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom, how
many reservists could not be deployed for medical reasons?
Answer. 436 Naval Reservists were unable to be deployed due to
disqualifying medical or dental reasons.
NUMBER OF RESERVISTS NOT IN DENTAL CLASS 1 OR 2
Question. How many deployments were delayed due to dental reasons,
and how many reservists are not in Dental class 1 or 2?
Answer. The Naval Reserve averages 90 percent of our personnel in
dental categories 1 and 2. We estimate that less than 1,600 personnel
out of more than 20,000 Naval Reservists mobilized (approximately 8
percent) were delayed for any amount of time for dental reasons.
Question. What is the current enrollment rate in the TRICARE Dental
Program for reservists and what action has DOD taken to encourage
reservists to enroll in TDP?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 end strength numbers for eligible Navy
and Marine Corps Selected Reserve sponsors is estimated to be 127,358
(Navy Reserve 87,800 and Marine Corps Reserve 39,558). TDP enrollments
as of January 2003 for this eligible population were 8,599 (Navy
Reserve 6,566 and Marine Corps Reserve 2,033). These figures represent
a 6.8 percent enrollment rate. Marketing of the TRICARE Dental Program
(TDP) to all eligible populations is conducted by the TDP contractor.
The initial marketing effort by the contractor entailed sending TDP
information to each reserve and guard unit. Quantities of information
sent were based on unit end strengths. Health Affairs policy 98-021
directed the services to ensure all members of the Selected Reserve
undergo an annual dental examination. The documenting tool provided by
HA is DD Form 2813; DOD Reserve Forces Dental Examination. A provision
in the TDP contract requires network providers to complete the DD Form
2813 for TDP enrolled reservists. It is the responsibility of the
reservist to present the form to the dentist. The Defense Manpower Data
Center (DMDC) provides the TDP contractor quarterly file listing newly
eligible sponsors. This file is used for the ongoing marketing efforts
under the TDP. The TDP contractor has also established a website for
the TDP. The contractor has a staff of Dental Benefits Advisors (DBA)
that travel to military installations to include reserve and guard
facilities. TMA's Communications & Customer Service marketing office
has worked with Reserve Affairs to developed and post TDP fact sheets
on the TMA website that are linked to other reserve and guard websites
and the TDP contractor.
REMAINING MEDICAL AND DENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Question. What needs to be done and what will it cost to ensure
that reservists are medically and dentally fit for duty?
Answer. The Reserve Components have little or no identified funding
support for medical and dental readiness and, under Title 10 authority,
are not eligible for Defense Health Program (DHP) funds. OSD(RA) is
presently drafting a White Paper in support of a Reserve Health Program
that will require a separate appropriation to support Medical/Dental
Readiness for the seven Reserve/Guard Components. Cost estimates will
be available when the White Paper is complete.
REPERCUSSIONS FOR UNFIT UNIT MEMBERS
Question. Are there any repercussions for commanders who do not
ensure that their troops are fit for duty?
Answer. Unit commanders are responsible for ensuring personnel are
trained and ready in all aspects, including medical and dental fitness,
for mobilization. Unit commanders are evaluated and ranked, in part, in
Fitness Reports based upon total unit readiness.
COMBAT TREATMENT IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
Question. All of the Services have undertaken transformation
initiatives to improve how medical care is provided to our front line
troops.
The initiatives have resulted in more modular, deployable medical
units which are scalable in size to meet the mission.
How well have your forward deployed medical support units and the
small modular units performed in Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom?
Answer. Most of the information provided is anecdotal. We will not
have significant formal input until the ``lessons learned'' are
provided by the deployed platforms and the receiving component
commanders. The formal collection of feedback is still ongoing as units
return from Iraq. Initial reports indicate that the 116 bed
Expeditionary Medical Facilities forward-deployed into Iraq functioned
as they were designed. The 250-bed Fleet Hospital staged in Rota, Spain
also functioned well. The USNS Comfort was on station, on time to
receive casualties. The casualties received were handled well. Use of
the Comfort by the theater commands raised issues related to inter-
theater movement of patients. These issues are being reviewed as part
of the overall assessment of CASEVAC/MEDEVAC. The Casualty Receiving
and Treatment Ships were stationed and staffed as required. Due to the
nature of the conflict, they saw limited action. The Forward
Resuscitative Surgical Systems were deployed in pairings with the
surgical companies. These locations were less far forward than
initially planned and the optimal placement is under review. Reports
from Level II and Level III facilities strongly support that
interventions by the FRSS were critical in saving lives that might have
been lost in previous conflicts. Three PM-MMART teams were deployed to
Iraq and were highly successful in providing disease vector assessment/
control, epidemiology and epidemiological humanitarian support,
industrial and environmental site assessment, sanitation assessment and
public health education.
Question. What are some of the lessons learned from our experience
in Iraq?
Answer. Smaller, lighter, more mobile works and works well. Task
orienting enhances the likelihood of success. Communications in the
field between Level I care and higher levels are not optimal. This is
also true for inter-service communication. Component UIC's work and
work well. Management of the component UIC's needs to remain centrally
located. Arbitrary peripheral changes to platforms by individuals and
units disrupted the ability to fully staff platforms with qualified
personnel and hampered the ability to identify replacements and
augments for future needs. Using Fort Benning to inprocess individual
augmentees and equip them prior to deployment was highly successful and
emphasized joint inter-operability. Personnel policies regarding stop-
loss or stop-move should be determined before deployments commence. The
policies need to be tailored to the circumstances and not applied
across the board unless this is indicated. Provision needs to be made
for providing transportation for the PM-MMART units, either as part of
COCOM support or as part of the intrinsic equipment package.
Question. What tools/equipment is still required to improve the
care provided to combat casualties?
Answer. Dedicated, durable, mobile, state-of-the-art, easily up-
gradable communications, both between levels of care and between
services is needed. Better CASEVAC capability is required under all
circumstances. As we gather ``lessons learned'' through the formal
process, more needs may be identified and further recommendations will
be forthcoming.
T-NEX--NEXT GENERATION OF TRICARE CONTRACTS
Question. The award date for these contacts has slipped from the
scheduled date in July of 2003. Since the timeline for awarding the
contracts has slipped, what is the expected start date for the delivery
of T-Nex?
Answer. The overall schedule for the suite of T-Nex solicitations
has not been changed although some award dates may be delayed if
proposals require more extensive review. The TRICARE Mail Order
Pharmacy Contract was awarded, and performance began on March 1, 2003.
The TRICARE Retiree Dental Contract was also awarded and performance on
this contract began on May 1, 2003. Proposals have been received for
both the TRICARE Healthcare and Administration Managed Care Support and
the TRICARE Dual-Eligible Fiscal Intermediary contracts, and the
evaluation process for both of these is ongoing. Requests for Proposal
have been issued for the TRICARE Retail Pharmacy and National Quality
Monitoring contracts, and those proposals are due June 11 and June 3,
respectively. Procurement sensitivity rules prohibit disclosure of any
specific information or details about the ongoing evaluation of
proposals. However, I can tell you that the evaluations are ongoing. No
decision has been made to alter the implementation schedule for any of
the contracts.
Question. What planning is taking place to help ensure that when
the contracts are entered into there will be a seamless transition for
beneficiaries?
Answer. No transition of this magnitude is easy. A customer focused
perspective in execution is central to making this as seamless as
possible. We have already transitioned the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy
contract with success. The TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan contract was
also awarded without protest and now is in its first month of operation
without issues. With regard to our managed care contracts, going from
seven contracts to three will simplify administration, but more
importantly better serve our beneficiaries with incentivized
performance standards, greater uniformity of service, alleviation of
portability issues, and simplified business processes.
I have instituted a solid oversight structure (see attachment), and
appointed a senior executive to spearhead this transition and supervise
all aspects of the procurement including the implementation of the new
regional governance structure. This operational approach and structure
requires my direct involvement through the Transition Leadership
Council made up of the Surgeons General, the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Health Affairs Deputy
Assistant Secretaries of Defense. This body is supported by a TRICARE
Transition Executive Management Team which is chaired by TMA's Chief
Operating Officer.
An area of detailed focus right now is access to care and all
business processes that will impact access including: networks,
provider satisfaction, appointing and scheduling, Military Treatment
Facility (MTF) optimization, and local support for MTF commanders. We
are optimistic that robust networks can be maintained. On all customer
service fronts, my staff and other participants are poised to execute a
smooth transition immediately following contract award. Regular
meetings are underway to measure our progress and formulate sound
decisions on any problematic issues. A contract transition orientation
conference is planned for June 2003 to fully engage government
participants in all aspects of the transition process.
Question. Are beneficiaries experiencing any change in quality of
care due to DOD's inability to enter into new long-term managed care
agreements?
Answer. The evaluation of contractor proposals is now underway and
will culminate in the awarding of three new Health care and
Administration regional contracts. A planned 10-month minimum
transition period will precede start of health care delivery.
Surveillance for the delivery of services of outgoing contractors
during the transition period will remain focused to avoid any
deterioration in customer service standards. Current contracts have
been extended beyond original termination dates to ensure there is no
adverse impact on the beneficiary or quality of care.
Any signs of negative shifts in quality during this transition
period will be quickly recognized and dealt with on a priority basis.
Our proactive posture is expected to result in a near-seamless
transition to next generation contracts. Additionally, in T-Nex
contracts, industry best business practices are fully expected to
emerge through the competitive process. Customer service protocols will
be favorably impacted by outcome-based requirements and accompanying
performance standards. Additionally, web-based service applications
will also improve business processes and the way customers can access
information. This is all very exciting and bodes well for our customers
in the new contracts.
Question. Under T-Nex, what services currently provided by the
TRICARE contractors will shift to the direct care system and what are
the costs associated with this shift in services?
Answer. Appointing, Resource Sharing, Health Care Information Line,
Health Evaluation & Assessment of Risk (HEAR), Utilization Management,
and Transcription services will transition from the Managed Care
Support Contracts to MTFs under T-Nex. The Services have been tasked to
provide requirements in each of these areas, cost estimates, and
transition timelines. We have worked with the Services to develop a
joint approach to determine local support contract methodology.
Transition of Local Support Contract services must be completed not
later than the start of health care under T-Nex in each region. Based
on known contract and staffing lag times, funding is required six
months prior to the start of health care delivery to ensure smooth and
timely stand up of new services. At this stage, cost estimates are
varied and of limited value until the requirement is validated and
fully known. Initial rough estimates are in the hundreds of millions of
dollars. The funding source for Local Support will come from funds
committed to the current Military Health System (MHS) Managed Care
Support contracts. Those funds were programmed based on existing
purchased care contracts that included these services. Because it is
understood that these funds may not cover the entire spectrum of Local
Support contracts, the Medical Services have prioritized these services
across the MHS into three tiers based on impact and need. Initial costs
may ultimately include some investment in telephone and appointing
infrastructure, thus driving a significant increase in front end costs.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Question. Personnel shortfalls still exist in a number of critical
medical specialties throughout the Services. The Navy reports
shortfalls in Anesthesiology, General Surgery, Radiology, and
Pathology, and has stated the civilian-military pay gap is their
greatest obstacle in filling these high demand specialties. Recruiting
and retaining dentist appears to be a challenge for all the Services.
To what extent have Critical Skills Retention Bonuses or other
incentives been successful in helping to retain medical personnel?
Answer.
Dental Corps
When the CSRB was combined with the renegotiation of Dental Officer
Multi-year Bonus (DOMRB) contracts, the effect was increased obligation
for those that took DOMRB contracts. This in effect tied the one-year
CSRB to a multi-year obligation, having some positive effect.
Medical Corps
The CSRB helped retain some individuals in Anesthesia, Radiology,
Orthopedics, and General Surgery who would have otherwise gotten out of
the Navy. Because the CSRB was limited to a one year contract, the long
term benefit is minimal.
Medical Service Corps
The Critical Skills Retention Bonus was not offered to any of the
Medical Service Corps specialties.
Nurse Corps
The Critical Skills Retention Bonus was offered to qualified nurses
resulting in acceptance rates of 87 percent for Certified Registered
Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) and 98 percent for Perioperative Nurses. For
the CRNAs, it has been a positive influence for staying beyond their
obligated service period. We are presently at end-strength in both
communities based on a combination of factors such as special pays,
scope of practice satisfaction and a focus on quality of life issues.
Hospital Corps
When incentive and special pays have been put in place for
undermanned specialties, accessions have increased.
Psychiatry Technician and Respiratory Therapy Technician
communities manning increased, 36 percent and 28 percent respectively,
after implementation of the Selective Training and Reenlistment (STAR)
Program and increased Selective Reenlistment Bonus.
Question. What else needs to be done to maximize retention of
medical personnel?
Answer.
Dental Corps
The NDAA fiscal year 2003 raised the caps on the Dental Officer
Multi-year Retention Bonus (DOMRB). It is hoped that the anticipated
increase in pay while falling significantly short of comparable
civilian pay, will demonstrate a commitment by Navy to increase
compensation for dentists in the interim while a more comprehensive
plan is developed.
There was a slight enhancement in overall retention as a result of
increases in dental ASP in 1997 and the initial offering of DOMRB in
1998 compared to previous years, but that effect has since worn off.
Despite the introduction of the DOMRB and increase in ASP rates, the
overall loss rate continues to climb to the highest it has been at 12.2
percent in fiscal year 2002, higher than the 11-year average of 10.8
percent. The majority of losses are junior officers (LT-03) releasing
from active duty at the completion of their first term of obligated
service. These year groups are not eligible for the DOMRB at this point
in their careers and the current ASP rates are too low to impact their
decision to stay on active duty. Furthermore, under current
legislation, if the junior officer were to enter residency training
they would have to give up the ASP for up to 4 years depending on the
program length. Again, reducing the incentive to remain on active duty
and pursue training.
There is no incentive special pay (ISP) for dental officers,
although it may be helpful to target pay increases for dental
specialties with the largest military-civilian pay gap. A comparison of
representative civilian and military average pays is as follows
(source--the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg Mil LCDR Pay Military Pay Civilian Pay Differential
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specialist...................................................... $94,654 $202,360 $107,706
Oral Surgeon.................................................... 94,654 297,360 202,706
General Dentist................................................. 68,871 154,741 85,870
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Corps
In addition to closing the civilian to military pay gap, physicians
look for similar qualities of life as their line counterparts. The
ability to increase their level responsibility, take on clinical,
operational and administrative challenges, practice their profession
the way they feel they should, hone their skills, select for the next
higher rank, maintain geographic stability for their families, and have
time to spend with family and friends are all important in retaining
physicians. Having support staff in adequate numbers, well maintained
and current technical specialty equipment, and a professional
environment which respects the physician is tantamount to maintaining
our physician workforce.
Medical Service Corps
Retention in the Medical Service Corps is good overall. However,
difficulties remain in retaining highly skilled officers in a variety
of clinical and scientific professions. Retention of these highly
skilled officers is predominately affected by:
--Civilian to military pay gap.--Economic influences as well as
civilian workforce shortages can have a profound effect on the
size of the pay gap. With the evolving Home Land Security
requirements, the demand for our scientific officers with
chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training and
experience in the private sector is becoming a significant
factor in retention. Need to explore the implementation of U.S.
Code: 37, Section 315, Engineering and Scientific Career
Continuation Pay to improve the retention of our highly skilled
scientific officers.
--Significant student debt load.--Many of our clinical and scientific
professions require a doctorate level degree to enter the Navy.
Frequently, there are a limited number of training programs
available in the United States and often only available at
private institutions. For example, there are approximately
seven institutions that train Podiatrists. All of the schools
are private institutions. Podiatry school is a four-year
academic program after completing their undergraduate pre-
professional requirements,. The average student debt load for
our entering Podiatrists is $150,000. The use of HPLRP, AFHPSP
and HSCP alleviates much of the student debt load for a few of
these officers.
--Personal issues.--Dual family careers, child care and frequent PCS
moves can impact retention. However, what may be considered a
strong reason to leave military service by one member may be
considered a strong reason to stay on active duty for another.
Nurse Corps
Nurse Corps officers seek scope of practice satisfaction that
includes continuing formal education opportunities, collegial
relationships with physicians and other allied health personnel and
current technical capability. Nurse Corps officers also vocalize the
need to attend to quality of life issues such as affordable housing and
childcare and geographic stability for their families.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
JESSE SPIRI MILITARY MEDICAL COVERAGE ACT
Question. In 2001, a young Marine Corps 2nd Lieutenant from New
Mexico lost his courageous battle with cancer. Jesse Spiri had just
graduated from Western New Mexico University and was awaiting basic
officer training when he learned of his illness.
However, because his commission had triggered his military status
to that of ``inactive reservist,'' Jesse was not fully covered by
TRICARE. As a result, he was left unable to afford the kind special
treatment he needed.
I believe that it is time to close this dangerous loophole. That is
why I intend to offer a bill entitled the ``Jesse Spiri Military
Medical Coverage Act.''
This bill will ensure that those military officers who have
received a commission and are awaiting ``active duty'' status will have
access to proper medical insurance.
Would you agree that this type of loophole is extremely dangerous
for those who, like Jesse, suffer with a dreaded disease?
Answer. When an individual accepts an offer of a commission in the
USN or USMC, there is a period of time prior to the beginning of Active
Duty when they are in a ``inactive reservist'' status. During this
time, the individual is not covered as a health care beneficiary in the
TRICARE program. The individual remains responsible for obtaining their
own health care insurance because they are not yet in ``active duty''
status.
Question. And do you agree that our military health care system
should close this loophole, and can do so very cost effectively (given
the relatively low number of officers it would affect)?
Answer. We would like the opportunity to more carefully study this
situation. There are other categories of individuals who have agreed to
serve in the Armed Forces and who need to maintain their own health
insurance until they begin active duty or active training. These would
include all officer candidates on some type of delayed entry program
such as medical students in the Health Scholarship Program, ROTC
students, as well as personnel who agree to join the military following
college. In addition, there are many enlisted personnel who join the
military on a delayed entry program and are required to maintain their
health insurance until they begin active training. These individuals
are also awaiting entry on ``inactive reservist'' status. Without
studying each of these categories of individuals, estimating their
numbers and their likelihood of developing illnesses, it is premature
to estimate the financial burden to the Navy in implementing the
proposed changes.
MILITARY FAMILY ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE ACT
Question. I think everyone here is familiar with the adage that we
recruit the soldier, but we retain the family. That means taking care
of our military families and giving them a good standard of living.
I have introduced a bill that would provide a benefit to military
families seeking dental care, but who must travel great distances to
receive it.
Specifically, my bill, the ``Military Family Access to Dental Care
Act'' (S. 336) would provide a travel reimbursement to military
families in need of certain specialized dental care but who are
required to travel over 100 miles to see a specialist.
Often, families at rural bases like Cannon Air Force Base in
Clovis, NM meet with financial hardship if more than one extended trip
is required. This bill reimburses them for that travel and is a small
way of helping our military families.
Given that current law provides a travel reimbursement for military
families who must travel more than 100 miles for specialty medical
care, do you believe it is important to incorporate specialty dental
care within this benefit?
Answer. Concur. The Bureau of Medicine and Surgery recommends that
Sec. 1074i of title 10 United States Code be amended incorporate
specialty dental care within this benefit. By providing a travel
reimbursement to military families in need of specialized dental care
who must travel over 100 miles to seek that care, we demonstrate our
utmost support and recognition of their roles as critical members of
the Navy healthcare team.
Currently family members who are enrolled in TDP (TRICARE Dental
Program) (Sec. 1076a.--TRICARE dental program) are not eligible for
care in military DTFs except for emergencies or when OCONUS. All other
(nonenrolled) Family Members are only eligible for ``Space A'' Care in
CONUS. The USAF (with input from USN/USA) is currently sponsoring a
proposal to change Title 10 to permit limited treatment of AD family
members to meet training, proficiency and specialty board
certification.
Question. Do you think this benefit would improve the standard of
living of our military families?
Answer. Yes. Dental care is a quality of life enhancement. Reducing
out of pocket costs for specialty dental care available only at
distances away the homebases of Military Family Members would increase
the likelihood that needed dental services would be accessed and result
in increased dental health.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
RESEARCH ON COMPOSITE TISSUE TRANSPLANTATION
Question. Admiral Cowan, it is my understanding that the Navy
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery has been engaged in important research
into composite tissue transplantation. Clearly, such research has great
potential to radically advance our ability to perform reconstructive
surgeries on limbs and patients with considerable burn injuries. I have
followed similar research into hand-transplantation that is being done
in my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, and have been impressed with
the great potential for such surgical and tissue regeneration
techniques.
Could you please provide information regarding the extent of
injuries sustained by members of our Armed Services who could benefit
from reconstructive or transplantation surgeries due to combat or
service related injuries?
Answer. During the period of March through May 2003, NNMC received
a total of 251 medevac casualties transferred from the Iraqi theater of
operations, primarily via Army Medical Center--Landstuhl, Germany and
Naval Fleet Hospital--Rota, Spain. Of these, 135 patients required
admission to NNMC (112 Marines, 22 Sailors, and 1 Soldier) and 116 were
evaluated as transient ``RONs'' in the NNMC Ambulatory Procedures Unit
(104 Marines and 12 Sailors) during their transit through the Aero-
Medical Staging Facility at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland.
Of the 135 patients admitted to NNMC, 63 percent were combat
casualties. Of the combat casualties, the majority of patients
sustained either blast injuries to upper or lower extremities, crush
injuries, or gun shot wounds. These injuries resulted in many extremity
fractures, both open and closed. Many of these patients underwent
emergency surgery at forward treatment sites which included emergency
fasciotomies. As a result, many of the patients required subsequent
plastic surgical repair as part of their tertiary care at NNMC. This
might be one area of combat injury that would be enhanced by
reconstructive or tissue transplantation surgeries.
In addition to the large number of fractures, 6 patients sustained
significant traumatic amputations of extremities (3 lower leg, one
foot, one forearm, and two patients with finger amputations). These
would also be patients who might benefit from tissue transplantation
advances.
Question. Could you describe the Navy's composite tissue
transplantation program? What is the current level of annual funding
for this program? And could you describe work being done under related
extramural grants funded by this program.
Answer. The Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery has had, for many
years, a research effort in the induction of ``tolerance'' in
transplanted tissues with the hope of developing non-immune suppressing
therapies to allow active duty victims of trauma to return to active
duty. To this end, a kidney transplant model has been studied, since
the mechanisms of rejection are similar to other tissues, though the
kidney is a less immune-provoking organ than composite tissues. Thus,
the kidney transplant serves as a simpler model for studying rejection
and developing therapies against it. The transplant effort is now
contained within the Combat Injury and Tissue Repair Program of the
Combat Casualty Care Directorate at the Naval Medical Research Center
(NMRC), under the leadership of Barry Meisenberg, M.D. The funding for
``transplantation'' research has been reduced over the past 5 years,
leading to a significant scale-back and unfortunate turnover in
personnel. The current funding is through the direct Congressional
appropriation via the Office of Naval Research. The lead physician
investigator on this effort is Dr. Stephen Bartlett, Director of Organ
Transplantation at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in
Baltimore. The Navy laboratory supports Dr. Bartlett's efforts with
laboratory investigations into the science of transplantation and
mechanisms of rejection. The sum of $964,690 was received from fiscal
year 2002 Congressional funding for these efforts. In addition to this,
the NMRC supplied $250,000 from internal ``core competency'' dollars
for a specific project, initiated in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year
2003, no core competency funds were available to continue this
research. It is anticipated that approximately another $1 million will
be received from direct Congressional appropriation for fiscal year
2003.
Question. Has the Navy conducted research on efforts to reduce the
extent to which current procedures rely on immuno-suppressive drugs to
combat rejection of tissue in transplant patients?
Answer. A brief description of the work that is being performed at
NMRC is provided:
Project 1: Cytokine mediators of rejection in kidney transplant
patients. This study performs real-time PCR to measure low levels of
inflammatory molecules, such as cytokines that may predict rejection
among actual patients receiving clinical kidney transplants who undergo
periodic surveillance kidney biopsies. Specimens are obtained in a
clinical program at the University of Maryland Transplant Program and
transported to laboratories at the NMRC in Bethesda.
Project 2: Cytokine mediation of rejection in primate composite
tissue transplant. Pre-clinical research at the University of Maryland
School of Medicine involves transplantation of complex tissues (bone,
muscle and skin) in primates. The Navy research laboratories perform
assays on biopsied tissue, looking at mediators of information and
rejection. Tailored immunosuppressive therapies are being developed and
studied featuring an anti-CD154 ligand to block the pathways of immune
rejection.
Project 3: Studies into the mechanism of action of anti-CD154
ligand--Studies into the mechanisms of thrombotic complications with
the use of anti-CD154 ligand. Currently, available supplies of anti-
CD154 ligand do inhibit immune recognition, but may also cause
activation of platelets leading to clinical thrombosis. These
investigations look at the mechanisms involved in both lymphocyte
blockade, as well as the mechanisms of thrombosis.
Project 4: Cell-signaling mechanisms after CD154 binding. This
study is funded by core capability money from fiscal year 2002 and
looks at the cell-signaling mechanism after CD154 binds the lymphocyte
to look for potential targets for blockade of lymphocyte activation. A
skin transplant model in mice is being developed and potential
therapies will be tested in the mice model and available for use in the
primate model currently at the University of Maryland. In addition to
the above projects, funding has been requested from ONR for studies
into the problem of ischemia/re-perfusion injury, which injures tissues
both in the hemorrhagic-shock battle field situation, as well as
transplantation of harvested tissues.
Additional techniques for immune suppression, including the use of
immature dendritic cells, bone marrow cells, expanded bone marrow
cells, other ligands with inhibitory properties against lymphocyte
activation, are in the preparatory stages pending funding availability.
Question. Does the Navy plan to extend this program to the stage of
human clinical trials?
Answer. The Navy would like to see advances in the pre-clinical
biology of ``tolerance'' inducing molecules so that clinical trials can
be conducted. More pre-clinical science, however, needs to be
performed, including animal models. There are many potentially
interesting avenues of investigation, which require collaboration with
university laboratories and biotechnology companies.
Question. Are you aware of the clinical research and experience in
human hand-transplantation at the University of Louisville and Jewish
Hospital in Louisville, Kentucky?
Answer. The Combat Injury and Tissue Repair Program of the NMRC has
had informal contacts with the University of Louisville Jewish Hospital
in Louisville, Kentucky. There is interest on both sides in conducting
collaborative efforts into the pre-clinical biology of tolerance.
Currently, there is no funding for such collaboration, although both
sides see scientific merit. Other collaborations exist with other
universities that also show promise and need further development.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
PATIENT PRIVACY (TRICARE)
Question. I would like to get your comments about several concerns
and questions I have related to the December 14, 2002 break-in of the
offices of TriWest, a TRICARE contractor. I am told that TriWest did
not notify the Department of Defense of the break-in and theft of
personal information of over 500,000 TRICARE beneficiaries for almost a
week after the event. Apparently, TriWest didn't have even basic
security equipment--guards, locks, cameras--and, as a result, this
incident amounts to the biggest identity theft in U.S. history.
Is this information true?
Has the Department of Defense finished its investigation of this
case and have sanctions been levied against TriWest or punitive actions
taken against TRICARE officials?
Answer. The criminal investigation is being conducted by the
Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), in coordination with other Federal and local law
enforcement agencies. The Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health
Affairs [ASD(HA)] directed the Services and TRICARE Managed Care
Support Contractors to conduct an assessment of their information
security safeguards using a matrix composed of Defense Information
Systems Agency physical security requirements and industry best
practices. TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) conducted on-site
validation of these assessments. The ASD(HA) asked the DOD Inspector
General to conduct facility security evaluations and a draft report is
expected by July 2003.
Sensitive information pertaining to TRICARE beneficiaries is
maintained by TRICARE contractors subject to the Privacy Act of 1974,
as implemented by the DOD Privacy Program (DOD 5400.11-R). The Act
provides criminal penalties for any contractor or contractor employee
who willfully discloses such protected information, in any manner, to
any person or agency not entitled to receive the information. The Act
also provides for civil penalties against DOD if it is determined that
the Department (or contractor) intentionally or willfully failed to
comply with the Privacy Act. To date, no sanctions have been levied
upon or punitive actions taken against TriWest or TRICARE officials.
The investigation is still ongoing, and its findings are pending.
Question. Would you please share what you can about the lessons
learned as a result of this incident and the steps the Department and
the TRICARE organization and its contractors are taking to guarantee
beneficiary privacy?
Answer. Maintaining information security controls and awareness has
always been a critical priority for the senior leadership of the
Military Health System (MHS), in the interest of both national security
and beneficiary privacy.
Some of the lessons learned as a result of the TriWest incident
include:
--Scrutinized security practices across the entire MHS;
--Emphasized the necessity of staying alert to new information
security threats; and
--TriWest widely publicized a new process whereby individual
beneficiaries may, through TriWest, seek to place fraud alerts
on their records at national credit bureaus.
Some of the steps taken by the Department and its TRICARE
contractors to enhance beneficiary privacy include:
--Led and coordinated a health care information security assessment
at MTFs and contractor locations;
--Reviewed existing procedures at all locations;
--Ensured physical security of facilities that house beneficiary
information;
--Conducted on-site validations of its contractors' assessments;
--Initiated DOD Inspector General facility physical security
evaluations;
--Verified that DOD health information systems are compliant with
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Protected
Health Information requirements;
--Established plan of action for TRICARE contractors to correct
deficiencies of the facility security assessment;
--Strengthened the overall security posture of the Military Health
System (TRICARE Management Activity, its contractors, and
Military Treatment Facilities); and
--Broadened the scope of information assurance and security programs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
Question. Healthcare, pay, and housing are the greatest Quality of
Life issues for our troops and their families. With the numbers of
health care staff deployed from your Military Treatment Facilities,
what strategies did you use to effectively plan and care for
beneficiaries back home?
Answer. Navy Medicine implemented core doctrine and conducted
intense scrutiny of Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) services
availability. We identified the appropriate reservists to support the
Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) in maintaining services, in some
cases adding contract personnel. Navy Medicine made every effort to
take care of our patients in the MTFs, and assisted in both referral
and care management for those patients that required care in the local
healthcare network. Each week we tracked the availability of services
at each MTF. Personnel (both active duty and reservists) exerted
extraordinary efforts (which were possible in the short term but would
not be sustainable indefinitely) to ensure access to care was
maintained at all MTFs. The health care team felt the same devotion to
their special duties during the conflict as did the deployed forces.
They recognized that providing care for both returning casualties and
local beneficiaries was their part in the war effort. For these
reasons, individual productivity was particularly high and resulted in
minimal reductions in health care access. A comprehensive survey of
activated reservists and MTF operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom
is now underway to fully assess the productivity and effectiveness of
our MTFs in ensuring that access to care was maintained for all
beneficiaries.
Question. How are you able to address the needs of patients coming
in from the battlefields and is this affecting the care of
beneficiaries seeking regular care?
Answer. We have been able to maintain services required to address
the needs of both patients coming in from the battlefields and those
seeking regular care through significant deliberate planning. We
implemented core doctrine and deployed active duty forces that were
well trained in providing advanced medical care in the field. As a
result, intense scrutiny of Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs)
services availability and their ability to sustain the Graduate Medical
Education (GME) programs were conducted, and we identified the
appropriate reservists to support the Military Treatment Facilities
(MTFs) in maintaining services and future readiness via sustainment of
GME programs.
Question. What authority were you given to back-fill your vacancies
and are the funds sufficient to attain that goal?
Answer. Navy Medicine issued $18 million that was originally
targeted for our Maintenance of Real Property, Facility Projects in
order to provide MTFs with the funding needed to obtain contract
physician and medical personnel needed as backfill in addition to the
50 percent Reserve Recall. The commands were able to obligate $11
million of that $18 million and obtained critical physician specialists
on short timeframe contracts and other medical support personnel.
Question. What measurements were used in determining what the
services were able to back-fill and how does that compare to current
requirements?
Answer. The measurement tool used to assess services requiring
augmentation was based on weekly reports that monitored facility
services by beneficiary category i.e. AD/ADFM/RET/RETFM. This tool
provided the level of detail needed to reflect which MTFs were in need
of support based on the services identified, taking into account
geographic issues related to Network availability and GME program
sustainability. The report is being utilized to follow the flow of
returning forces ensuring efficient demobilization of reserve personnel
while maintaining MTF service availability.
RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT
Question. With increasing deployments in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom and the Global War on Terrorism, can you describe your overall
recruitment and retention status of the Medical Department in each of
your services? What specific corps or specialties are of most concern?
Answer. There is no way to predict the influence the current
increased operational tempo will have on recruiting and retention.
Because active duty personnel must request release from active duty 9-
12 months in advance in order to arrange for their billet to be
backfilled, the effect upon release from active duty rates won't be
known until approximately spring/summer 2004.
Dental Corps: The Dental Corps is currently undermanned at 93 percent
The loss rate for dentists in fiscal year 2002 was 12.2 percent,
which was above the 11-year average of 10.8 percent. Projections are
for increasing shortfalls with manning at 90 percent or below at the
end of fiscal year 2003.
Accession goals have not been reached over last 3 years; accessed
only 85 percent of goal. Most significant shortfall is in the Direct
(non-scholarship) accession category.
Recruiting goals are not being met with only 10 percent of the goal
for Direct accessions (3/39), Reserve Recalls (2/7) and 1925i Dental
Student program (0/5) met midway through the third quarter fiscal year
2003. The primary accession pipelines for Navy dentists are the
scholarship programs. The Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP)
and the Health Services Collegiate Program (HSCP) have both been
successful in meeting 100 percent of goal for fiscal year 2003 and we
expect to access 67 HPSP and 22 HSCP students upon graduation from
dental school. HSCP has in the past been a significant but not the
largest source of accessions for the Dental Corps. Currently only 25
percent of the combined fiscal year 2004/05 recruiting goal has been
attained for HSCP accessions in fiscal year 2004 (12/25) and fiscal
year 2005 (0/25). Interest in this program has significantly declined
due to the increasing cost of dental school education, which continues
to diminish the benefits offered through this program.
Retention rate at first decision point for junior officers steadily
declined over past 6 years; low point was 38 percent in fiscal year
2001 from high of 64 percent in fiscal year 1995. Disparity between
military and civilian pay and education debt are major factors in low
retention rates.
Medical Corps
The Medical Corps continues to have difficulty in retaining certain
specialties. The Medical Corps has less than 80 percent manning in
Anesthesia, Radiology, General Surgery, Pathology, and Radiation
Oncology. Internal Medicine and subspecialties (84 percent) and
Dermatology (83 percent) are near the critical point of under manning.
Inability to access or retain specialties noted above can be
attributed to significant military-civilian pay gaps and declining
number of quality of work attributes that once made practicing in Navy
Medicine enticing over the private sector (e.g., increased operational
tempo). Additionally, the changing face of medicine in the civilian
sector (e.g., fewer applicants for medical school and even fewer
medical school graduates going into the above specialties) is affecting
Navy Medicine as well.
The primary pipeline for Navy physicians is the Health Professions
Scholarship Program (HPSP), which brings in 300 of the 350 individuals
entering as medical students. The HPSP recruiting goal for fiscal year
2003 is 300. The Navy is behind in recruiting, in that by May, there
are usually about 150 recruited. Presently there are only 51. It should
be noted that not only is the number of HPSP recruits diminishing, but
the quality has also decreased when utilizing MCAT scores as an
indicator of quality. In he past, HPSP recipients had MCAT scores of
26-30. Applicants with scores as low as 22 are being considered in
order to fill quotas.
Medical Service Corps
Retention in the Medical Service Corps is good overall. End of
fiscal year 2002 manning was at 98.5 percent with projections for the
next two years at or near 98 percent manning. However, difficulties
remain in retaining highly skilled officers in a variety of clinical
and scientific professions.
The Medical Service Corps is comprised of 32 different health care
specialties in administrative, clinical, and scientific fields. The
education requirements are unique for each field; most require graduate
level degrees, many at the doctoral level.
Biochemistry, Entomology, and Podiatry are undermanned by more than
10 percent. Average yearly loss rates are high in Biochemistry,
Physiology, Environmental Health, Dietetics, Optometry, Pharmacy, and
Psychology. Loss rates this year are very high for Microbiologists &
Social Workers.
The Medical Service Corps does not have available to them retention
tools or special pays for scientists and very limited ones for
clinicians such as Optometrists, Pharmacists, and Podiatrists.
Nurse Corps
The Nurse Corps continues to be healthy considering the national
nursing shortage. The affect of a decreasing number of students who
choose nursing as a career and the ever-increasing demand for
professional nursing services will need to be closely monitored to
ensure that the Navy Nurse Corps is able to meet the requisite number
and specialty skill mix.
The successful ability of the Nurse Corps to meet requirements is
due to concerted efforts in diversifying accession sources and
increased retention as a direct result of pay incentives and graduate
education opportunities.
Hospital Corps
HM and DT Retention has never been higher and we have met/fulfilled
recruiting goals for the last two years. In the past two years our
overall manning has significantly increased from 87 percent to 97
percent.
8404 HM E1-6 are on STOP LOSS per NAVOP 005/03 over 2,616 Sailors
are affected by this program.
Per the OPHOLD MSG NAVADMIN 083/03 all hospital corpsmen assigned
to deployed USMC units, possessing NEC's 8403, 8404, 8425 and 8427 may
be OPHELD.
The HM Rating ended fiscal year 2002 at 95.8 percent manning
(23,218 INV/24,320 BA or -1,102). The HM Rating has been undermanned
since 1997 (low point was 89.1 percent manning as of end fiscal year
2000), but has steadily increased to current end February 2003 of 97.1
percent (23,843/24,553). The improved manning is the result of an
increase in the HM A-School plan from a traditional 3,000 inputs to
4,500 inputs per year along with a reduction in HM A-school attrition
from 18 percent to 8 percent. Out year projections have the rating
maintaining 98 percent manning for the next two years.
As overall HM rating manning has improved, C school seats are
increasingly being filled. Along with realignment of SRB and SDAP to
retain existing and attract applicants, inventories in the shortfall
NECs are steadily improving. Of the 40 distinct HM NECs, the following
are critically manned (manning <90 percent) as of end February 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEC NAME INV EPA PCT +/-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HM-8401 SAR TECH 89 111 80 -22
HM-8403 RECON IDC 26 29 90 -3
HM-8408 CARDIOVASULAR TECH 77 105 73 -28
HM-8416 CLIN NUC MED TECH 59 70 84 -11
HM-8425 SURFACE IDC 868 1,020 85 -152
HM-8427 RECON IDC 43 70 61 -27
HM-8432 PREV MED TECH 642 710 90 -68
HM-8452 ADV XRAY TECH 566 654 87 -88
HM-8466 PHYS THERAPY TECH 201 252 80 -51
HM-8467 OCC THERAPY TECH 12 19 63 -7
HM-8478 MED REPAIR TECH 197 270 73 -73
HM-8485 PSYCH TECH 273 376 71 -103
HM-8486 UROLOGY TECH 68 87 78 -19
HM-8489 ORTHO TECH 124 153 81 -29
HM-8492 HM SEAL 124 164 76 -20
HM-8493 HM DIVER 83 106 78 -23
HM-8494 HM DIVER IDC 69 80 86 -11
HM-8495 DERMATOLOGY TECH 40 54 74 -14
HM-8506 LAB TECH 1,246 1,594 78 -348
HM-8541 RESP THER TECH 102 147 69 -45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dental Technicians
--Overall DT rating manning has held constant over the last several
years with end February 2003 inventory at 102 percent (3,177/
3,150). The DT NECs listed below are critically manned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEC NAME INV EPA PCT +/-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DT-8703 DT ADMIN TECH 241 268 90 -27
DT-8708 DT HYGIENE TECH 53 84 63 -31
DT-8753 DT LAB TECH 100 113 89 -13
DT-8783 DT SURGICAL TECH 99 111 89 -12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The shortages in these NECs have been caused by limited
availability of school quotas at tri-service schools. The exception is
DT Hygiene Tech, established in fiscal year 2000. The Hygiene Tech
school pipeline is two years long and inventory has been slowly growing
toward the billet target. For the remaining shortages, efforts continue
to obtain quotas at the tri-service schools to ensure that we obtain
the seat increases we need to maintain the inventory.
Question. Did the Critical Skills Retention Bonus given for this
year help these specialties? In light of shortages and the disparity
between military and civilian salaries, how have you planned for
additional retention bonuses in future years?
Answer. A detailed explanation is provided by Corps in order to
detail the impact of the CSRB.
Dental Corps
When the CSRB was combined with the renegotiation of Dental Officer
Multi-year Bonus (DOMRB) contracts, the effect was increased obligation
for those that took DOMRB contracts. This in effect tied the one-year
CSRB to a multi-year obligation, having some positive effect. However,
a more comprehensive pay plan is needed for the long term.
--The NDAA fiscal year 2003 increased the caps on the Dental Officer
Multi-year Retention Bonus (DOMRB).
--Fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 dental pay plans need to take
advantage of the increase in the cap for the DOMRB as provided
by the fiscal year 2003 NDAA which would help bring pay to
higher levels, although are not in parity with civilian pay,
demonstrate a commitment by Navy to increase compensation.
However, in fiscal year 2004, funds have not been budgeted for
increases in Medical Special Pays.
--The Health Professions Incentives Work Group (HIPWG) is working on
a ULB fiscal year 2006 proposal that will raise Additional
Special Pay (ASP) for targeted year groups to enhance retention
after the first decision point for junior officers and after
training obligations are paid off by mid-career officers. This
ULB also proposes retaining ASP while in a training (DUINS)
status in efforts to attract more qualified applicants for
residency training. This proposal is under review within the
Department.
--A comprehensive pay plan is needed to enhance retention and narrow
the civilian-military pay gap. In the absence of such a plan
and in recognition that the status of the Incentive
Optimization Plan previously worked by OSD/TMA is unknown, the
Navy has proposed utilizing a multi-year dental CSRB to
critical shortages, namely dental officers with 3 to 7 years of
service. This is designed to address a significant downward
trend in retention of LT/LCDR General Dentists (anecdotally due
to high debt load). This shortage in turn has significantly
diminished our pool of applicants for residency training.
Applications for post-graduate residency training are down 54
percent over past 10 years, which has resulted in increasing
difficulty of producing specialists with the skills required to
meet mission requirements. This proposal is under review within
the Department.
Medical Corps
The CSRB helped retain some individuals in Anesthesia, Radiology,
Orthopedics, and General Surgery who would have otherwise gotten out of
the Navy. Because the CSRB was limited to a one year contract, the long
term benefit is minimal.
The fiscal year 2003 NDAA raised the maximum on special pays to
increase flexibility and utility of special pays. Development of a
special pay plan for fiscal year 2005 by OOMC and N131 is in progress
which takes advantage of the new maximums and increases the Multiyear
Special Pay (MSP) to levels that although not in parity with civilian
pay, demonstrates a commitment by the Navy to increase compensation.
Because of the process involved in creating a DOD Pay Plan, the final
pay plan for fiscal year 2005 may not emphasize the Navy's needs,
reflecting instead the overall needs of DOD (Air Force and Army.) This
proposal is under review within the Department.
Medical Service Corps
The Critical Skills Retention Bonus was not offered to any of the
Medical Service Corps specialties.
During fiscal year 2001, DOD (HA) provided guidance allowing the
Services to begin paying an Optometry Retention Bonus and a Pharmacy
Special Pay based on each Service's ``own accession requirements and
capabilities.'' The Army and Air Force have funded the new pays. Due to
funding constraints, the Navy has not yet begun paying the Optometry
Retention Bonus or the Pharmacy Special Pay, however, the Navy has
planned and budgeted for future funding of these bonuses and specialty
pays.
Nurse Corps
The Critical Skills Retention Bonus was offered to qualified nurses
resulting in acceptance rates of 87 percent for Certified Registered
Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) and 98 percent for Perioperative Nurses. For
the CRNAs, it has been a positive influence for staying beyond their
obligated service period. We are presently at end-strength in both
communities based on a combination of factors such as special pays,
scope of practice satisfaction and a focus on quality of life issues.
Therefore because the process involved in creating a DOD Pay Plan must
reflect the overall needs of DOD (including Army and Air Force,) the
final pay plan for fiscal year 2005 may not emphasize the Navy's
specific requirements.
The fiscal year 2003 NDAA raised the maximum on special pays to
increase flexibility and utility of special pays. Development of a
special pay plan for fiscal year 2005 by the Nurse Corps Office and
N131 is currently under review within the Department. The proposal,
which takes advantage of the new maximums and increases the Nurse
Accession Bonus and CRNA Incentive Pay to levels that although not in
parity with civilian pay, demonstrates a commitment by the Navy to
increase compensation.
Hospital Corps
We are working on an increase in our critical NEC's in SRB, SDAP
and accelerated advancement programs.
Question. Are there recruitment and retention issues within certain
specialties or corps? If so, what are your recommendations to address
this in the future?
Answer.
Dental Corps
As a result of a significant downward trend in retention of LT/LCDR
General Dentists coupled with significant under execution of CNRC DC
accessions, the Dental Corps is undermanned.
--Dental Corps overall manning has been trending downward for the
last three years, ending fiscal year 2002 at 94.4 percent
(1,294 INV/1,370 BA or -76). The EFY 2003 projection is
estimated at <90 percent.
--A BUMED-BUPERS working group is evaluating the following
recommendations for the future: increase in HPSP Scholarships
from 70 to 85 per year, establish a special pay that targets
General Dentists with 3 to 7 years of service; establish Dental
Corps Health Professions Loan Repayment (HPLRP) Program;
increasing the number of years of service for statutory
retirement to 40 years of service for 06s, along with raising
the age limit to 68. Active Duty dentists tend to leave the
service at 22 years vice 30 in order to enter the civilian
market at a competitive age range. If given the option of a
career for an additional ten years of service, many dentists
would choose to stay on Active Duty. Prior to approval
additional study is required on how this will impact the 06
promotion cycle.
--The shortage of General Dentists has directly impacted the Oral
Surgery and Endodontic communities, which are also
significantly undermanned. Since we train the vast majority of
our specialists from within, the shortage of General dentists
and the increase in loss rates has resulted in a reduction in
the numbers of officers available to enter the training
pipeline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal
Corps Specialty (PSUB) INV BA PCT +/- Year Year
2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC--Dentist (1,700)....................................... 486 594 82 -108 80 78
DC--Oral Surg(1,750J/K)................................... 66 82 80 -16 78 72
DC--Endodontist (1,710J/K)................................ 44 52 85 -8 83 80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The remaining Dental Corps specialties are stable at this time with
sufficient gains to compensate for losses, but that will take a
turn for the worse if the problems with General Dentist
retention and accessions are not corrected, as this is the
applicant pool for specialty training.
Medical Corps
Although pay is just one part of the benefits of a military career,
the civilian to military pay gaps are so large in some specialties that
it is difficult to recruit or retain someone after completion of their
obligated service for training. A comparison of civilian and military
average pays is as follows (this data was retrieved from an internet
physician pay site used by medical students):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civilian LCDR Mil
Specialty Pay Pay Differential
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anesthesia........................ $278,802 $140,556 $138,246
Radiology......................... 319,380 140,556 178,824
General Surgery................... 261,276 133,556 127,720
Pathology......................... 197,300 120,556 76,744
Internal Medicine................. 160,318 118,556 41,762
Dermatology....................... 232,000 122,556 109,444
Orthopedics....................... 346,224 140,556 205,668
Neurosurgery...................... 438,426 140,556 297,870
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To improve accessions (in the above specialties), the following
monetary and marketing tools are being evaluated by CNP/BUMED
Integrated Process Team (IPT):
--A Health Professional Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP).
--An increase in recall and direct accession goals for medical
officers.
--An increase in accession bonuses for health professionals from
$30,000 to an $80,000 cap for high demand specialties.
--An increase in Incentive Specialty Pay (ISP) and Multiyear
Specialty Pay (MSP) to decrease the pay gap. Emphasis is being
placed on increasing MSP so that retention may be improved.
Medical Service Corps
All specialties have met (or are expected to meet) fiscal year 2003
recruiting goals except for:
--Entomology (Goal: 4; 0 attained) have not met direct accession goal
since fiscal year 1999. There are limited Medical Entomology
graduate programs in the United States. Fiscal year 2002
manning was 89 percent.
--Physiology (Goal: 2; 0 attained) have not met direct accession goal
since fiscal year 1998. Fiscal year 2002 manning was 86
percent.
Use of the Health Services Collegiate Program (HSCP), a Navy
student pipeline program for Entomology was instituted in fiscal year
2002 and for Physiology in fiscal year 2003.
Retention in the Medical Service Corps is good overall. However,
difficulties remain in retaining highly skilled officers in a variety
of clinical and scientific professions.
Explore the possible use of Engineering and Scientific Career
Continuation Pay (U.S. Code: 37, Section 315) to improve the retention
of our highly skilled scientific officer.
Other tools being considered:
--Health Professional Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP). Those HPLRP
scholarships allocated to Medical Service Corps will be used
for both retention and accession.
Nurse Corps
The Active Duty force is expected to meet fiscal year 2003
recruiting goal.
The Reserve force has met 61 percent of the fiscal year 2003
recruiting goal, maintaining the same pace as last year. Successful
recruiting incentives for reservists in the critically undermanned
specialties include: The $5,000 accession bonus and loan repayment and
stipend programs for graduate education.
The BUMED Integrated Process Team (IPT) will evaluate two
initiatives to improve the end-strength of the Reserve force:
--Allocating the $5,000 accession bonus for all new nursing graduates
to the Reserve force. With the civilian recruiting bonuses and
loan repayment programs for student graduates, new nurses are
deferring entry into the Navy Nurse Corps Reserves until they
gain the one-year experience required to qualify for a bonus.
--Instituting ``pipeline'' scholarship nursing programs for the
reserve enlisted component similar to those available to active
duty enlisted.
Hospital Corps
No recruitment issues as CNRC has been able to fill requirements.
We have increased retention and programs have been put in place
directing Sailors into our undermanned NEC's. Some of the programs
instituted include job fairs, Detailers visits along with visits from
the Force Master Chief.
Question. Have incentive and special pays helped with specific
corps or specialties?
Answer.
Dental Corps
Although pay is just a portion of the military benefits package,
the dental military-civilian pay disparity is so large in certain
specialties that it is very difficult to recruit or retain a dental
officer after completion of their obligated service for training.
--There was a slight enhancement in overall retention as a result of
increases in dental ASP in 1997 and the initial offering of
DOMRB in 1998 when compared to previous years, but that effect
has since worn off. Despite the introduction of the DOMRB and
increase in ASP rates, the overall loss rate continues to climb
to the highest it has been at 12.2 percent in fiscal year 2002,
higher than the 11-year average of 10.8 percent. The majority
of losses are junior officers (LT-03) releasing from active
duty at the completion of their initial obligated service.
These year groups are not eligible for the DOMRB at this point
in their careers and the current ASP rates are too low to
impact their decision to stay on active duty.
Medical Corps
There is no study that correlates retention and accession with
special pays.
Medical Service Corps
The Medical Service Corps has very limited incentive and special
pays.
--Optometry Special Pay (U.S. Code: Title 37, Section 302a).--Each
optometry is entitled to a special pay at the rate of $100 a
month. This special pay has not been increased in thirty years
and therefore has lost value as an incentive or retention tool.
Fiscal year 2001 and 2002 manning was 88 percent and 98
percent. The manning is expected to drop below 98 percent
during fiscal year 2003.
--Psychologist and Nonphysician Health Care Providers Special Pay
(U.S. Code: Title 37, Section 302c).--This Special Pay is
better known as Board Certification Pay. Board Certified
Nonphysician Health Care Providers are entitled to a pay of
$2,000 per year, if the officer has less than 10 years of
creditable service; $2,500 per year (10-12 yrs); $3,000 per
year (12-14 yrs); $4,000 per year (14-18 yrs); and $5,000 per
year (18 or more). This special pay does not become a
significant annual amount until late in an officer's career and
therefore has a minimal impact as a retention tool. The Navy is
manned at 70 percent licensed psychologists.
--Accession Bonus for Pharmacy Officers (U.S. Code: Title 37, Section
302j).--This accession incentive of $30,000 may be paid to a
person who is a graduate of an accredited pharmacy school and
who, executes a written agreement to accept a commission as an
officer and remain on active duty for a period of not less that
four years. This accession bonus was first used in fiscal year
2002 and accession quotas were met in that year. Long-term
effectiveness as a successful accession incentive has not yet
been established. Fiscal year 2002 manning was 96 percent. The
manning is expected to drop below 96 percent during fiscal year
2003.
Nurse Corps
The Nurse Accession Bonus, Incentive Pay for Certified Registered
Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs), and Board Certification Pay (for those
eligible) contribute to successful recruitment and retention efforts.
Current CRNA manning is 108 percent. Manning is expected to drop to 100
percent throughout the year as members depart.
The increase of the maximum allowable compensation amount under
NDAA for the CRNA Incentive Pay and the Accession Bonus will further
enhance our competitive edge in the nursing market.
Hospital Corps
When incentive and special pays have been put in place for
undermanned specialties, accessions have increased.
Psychiatry Technician and Respiratory Therapy Technician
communities manning increased, 36 percent and 28 percent respectively,
after implementation of the Selective Training and Reenlistment (STAR)
Program and increased Selective Reenlistment Bonus.
Question. How does the fiscal year 2004 budget request address your
recruitment and retention goals?
Answer.
Medical Service Corps
The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes funding for the
Optometry Retention Bonus and the Pharmacy Special Pay (both
discretionary pays).
Nurse Corps
The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes increases to both the
Nurse Accession Bonus and the Incentive Pay for Certified Registered
Nurse Anesthetists.
FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION (FHP)
Question. As a result of concerns discovered after the Gulf War,
the Department created a Force Health Protection system designed to
properly monitor and treat our military personnel. What aspects of the
Department's Force Health Protection system have been implemented to
date? What are the differences between the system during the Gulf War,
Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Noble Eagle?
Answer. There has been a fundamental shift in Navy Medicine from
treating illness, to focusing on prevention and health. Our mission is
to create a healthy and fit force, so that when we deploy a pair of
muddy boots, the Sailor or Marine wearing them is physically, mentally
and socially able to accomplish any mission our nation calls upon them
to perform. This focus on prevention and health includes the delivery
of care to the spouses and families at home because by caring for them,
our warriors can focus on the fight. The Navy Medicine ``office place''
is the battlefield because our Sailors and Marines deserve the best
possible protection from all potential hazards that could prevent
mission execution. A critical element of our FHP continuum is having in
place, along with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), mechanisms
for making sure that people who become ill after deployment are
evaluated fully. Navy Medicine has several established mechanisms with
the DVA regarding post deployment illnesses. Between the Gulf War and
Operation Noble Eagle, several specific Force Health Protection (FHP)
measures were implemented. These include: Pre-Deployment Health
Assessment with the DD2795, Disease and Non-Battle Injury (DNBI)
surveillance, Post-Deployment Health Assessment with the DD2796, pre-
and post-deployment serum archival at the DOD Serum Repository, anthrax
and smallpox vaccination programs, occupational and environmental
health surveillance, formation of specialized deployable teams for FHP
(Navy Forward Deployable Preventive Medicine Units, Theater Army
Medical Laboratory, and Air Force Theater Medical Surveillance Team),
and the Post Deployment Health Clinical Practice Guideline. Just before
Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Joint Medical Work Station (JMeWS) was
deployed in the CENTCOM theater of operations, providing the capability
to collect patient encounters, DNBI, and general medical command and
control reports. With over 26,000 patient encounters and 1,000 DNBI
reports, this system has provided a substantial analysis and archival
tool for the combatant commanders and senior leadership.
OPTIMIZATION
Question. Congress initiated optimization funds to provide
flexibility to the Surgeons General to invest in additional
capabilities and technologies that would also result in future savings.
It is my understanding that a portion of these funds are being withheld
from the Services. Can you please tell the Committee how much
Optimization funding is being withheld from your service, what are the
plans for distributing the funds, and why funds since fiscal year 2001
are being withheld?
Answer. In fiscal year 2002 59 Optimization Projects were approved
but only one was funded before April 2002. Total funding for fiscal
year 2002 was $49.6 million. Twenty-seven of the projects were funded
in late September 2002 and are in their infancy. Since most of the
projects involved personnel actions, up to six months passed before
personnel were in place due to required DOD civilian hiring processes.
Hard evidence of financial return on investment is not yet available.
Anecdotal positive feedback, however, is plentiful, especially in the
following areas:
--Case management ($8.5 million fiscal year 2002).--All facilities
are reporting that the recently hired case managers are
champions for the transition from intervention to prevention.
Commanders have commented that case management is ``one of the
best BUMED programs in 30 years.'' The primary barrier to
success is the lack of integration of case management software
with the Composite Health Care System (CHCS).
--Clinic manager's course ($400,000 fiscal year 2002).--Over 500
personnel have benefited from the week long course and 80
percent of participants reported in follow up surveys that the
course adequately prepared them to implement optimization
concepts within their clinics. Barriers to achievement of the
goal of improved clinic effectiveness include lack of reliable,
readily available performance data and high turnover of clinic
management teams.
--Population Health Website ($400,000 fiscal year 2002).--Access to
real time patient level data regarding disease prevalence, care
provided, and patient panel demographics was viewed as
``extremely valuable'' by the 103 users trained thus far. Key
to success is WEB access (begun January 2003) and dedicated
training.
$11.4 million was devoted to critical advances in Medical Practice
supporting longer term goals of sustaining quality and reducing
invasive procedures where possible. The remaining $29.3 million was
devoted to targeted improvements in the Primary Care Product Line,
Birth Product Line and Mental Health Product Line as well as specific
interventions designed to ensure continued excellence in training in
mission-critical specialties (radiology and cardiology). Many of the
initiatives are designed to correct staffing ratios allowing clinicians
more time to devote to direct patient care. A full review of financial
and non-financial performance measures is underway for each of the
projects but conclusive data is not yet available given the recent
start up of the vast majority of the initiatives.
Question. How have you benefited from optimization funds? What
projects are on hold because OSD has not released funding?
Answer. Navy Medicine has not delayed projects due to OSD
withholding funds.
Question. What are the projected projects using the proposed $90
million in the fiscal year 2004 budget request?
Answer. If the Navy's share of the $90 million in the fiscal year
2004 budget request amounted to $30 million, the following is the
current proposal for the use of funds. Continuation of current
optimization projects is expected to require $16.6 million, planned
advances in medical practices (AMP) programs will require an additional
$10 million, and focused improvements in perinatal care, early mental
health intervention and training of clinic managers will require the
final $3.4 million. A full review of the proposed use of the funds is
underway as part of the annual budget and business planning process.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General James B. Peake
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
DEPLOYMENT OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL
Question. The staff's discussions with The Surgeons General
indicate that the Services have backfilled for deployed medical
personnel at the Medical Treatment Facilities at varying levels.
Some of the Services are relying more heavily on private sector
care rather than backfilling for deployed medical personnel.
To what extent has the recent deployment of military medical
personnel affected access to care at military treatment facilities?
Answer. Recent deployments of medical personnel have had varying
impacts upon access to care in individual Army medical treatment
facilities (MTFs). With the initial deployment of medical personnel,
there was an approximate 15-30 day underlap until Reserve Component
(RC) personnel arrived at the various MTFs. Additionally, RC backfills
were authorized only at approximately 50 percent of the deployed
losses. Although some have indicated that there should be no impact on
access to care because medical personnel were deployed as well as
troops (i.e., patients), this assumption is flawed. Troops are
generally the healthiest of the patient population served and do not
comprise a significant portion of the care provided at any one MTF. In
addition, at several posts, the medical personnel deployed long before
the troop populations mobilized.
While MTFs had varying strategies in dealing with these significant
shortages, there was some impact on access to routine and wellness
care. Strategies included utilization of the network, hiring/
contracting for civilian positions and reserve backfill. Success was
limited by network inadequacy, inability to hire, and insufficient
reserve backfills. Success varied by location due to the variability of
these factors.
Question. What are you doing to ensure adequate access to care
during this time?
Answer. Most MTFs have skillfully attempted to manage the access to
care issue by closure/consolidation of clinics, beds and operating
rooms; shifting of care to the network; extending shifts for both
physicians and nurses; double-booking appointments; overtime, including
mandatory weekend overtime; increasing resource-sharing contracts and
increasing contract hires. Urgent care access was maintained, but all
MTFs have had varying degrees of success in maintaining access to
routine and wellness visits. They have managed to decrease the number
and significance of access-to-care issues, but most MTFs continue to
struggle with the issue.
Question. What percentage of mobilized reservists in medical
specialties are being used to backfill positions in the United States?
Answer. The Reserve Component (RC) provided 22 percent of its
mobilized medical specialties to backfill the Army's Active Component
(AC) losses in the Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs). This accounts
for 1,631 reservists' backfilling AC personnel losses in MTFs out of
the total mobilized RC medical force of 9,195. This does not take into
consideration the physicians, dentists, and nurse anesthetists that are
on a 90-day rotation policy. There are 485 scheduled 90-day rotators in
the aforementioned 1,631 RC personnel backfill. To further compound the
backfill requirements the Senior Civilian Leadership only authorized a
50 percent backfill cap or one RC backfill for every two AC losses.
Question. Are there shortages of personnel in some specialties?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If so, which specialties are undermanned and by how much?
Answer. The Reserve Component (RC) backfill was initially
undermanned by seven medical specialties for a total of sixteen
personnel. These medical specialty shortages were Nuclear Medicine
Officer, Pulmonary Disease Officer, Dermatologist, Allergist, Pediatric
Cardiologist, Peripheral Vascular Surgeon, and ten Obstetrics Nurses.
The 90-day rotation policy added additional requirements by having to
rotate physicians, dentists, and nurse anesthetists. In the second 90-
day rotation the following medical specialties were undermanned by an
additional ninety-five physicians and dentists: three Urologists, an
Obstetrician and Gynecologist, six Psychiatrists, thirty-six Family
Physicians, six General Surgeons, five Thoracic Surgeons, five
Orthopedic Surgeons, two Radiologists, five Emergency Physicians, and
twenty-six Dentists.
Question. Are there other ways of structuring the staffing of
military medical units that might help address shortages in a few
specialties, such as making increased use of civilian contractors or
DOD civilian personnel in MTFs stateside?
Answer. The staffing of Army Medical Treatment Facilities (MTF) is
a mix of Active Duty military, direct hire civilians, and resource
sharing/contract arrangements. The Active Duty component is based upon
the wartime needs of the numbers and types of health care providers
needed to staff the deploying medical support units (Professional
Filler System and cadre hospital organizations). Many of the more
expensive specialties required at the MTF are the same specialties
needed for deployments. Even though more than 50 percent of the MTFs'
staffing is non-military, this tends to be in specialties that can be
afforded by the General Schedule payment tables. Beyond the direct hire
civilian staffing, MTFs also form a number of resource sharing
agreements and local contracts for services available in the area.
These contracting efforts are in addition to the TRICARE network that
may have some health care resources in the area. Healthcare providers
not already engaged with the MTF are fulltime engaged in their own
practices with limited expansion capability. The sudden demand for
additional health care services in an area is an immediate shock and
drain on the limited healthcare resources in the area.
Changes to structure and policy would assist in the future. There
should be a restructuring of Reserve Component Table of Distribution &
Allowance assets to match those of PROFIS losses in our MTFs. Modules
within Combat Support Hospitals (CSHs) and Forward Surgical Teams
(FSTs) to facilitate the mobilization/movement of mission-specific
teams should have corresponding backfill modules in the reserves.
Military authorizations for high OPTEMPO specialties--61J (General
Surgery), 61M (Orthopedic), 60N (Anesthesia), 66F (Nurse Anesthetists),
66H8A (Intensive Care Nursing) and 66E (Operating Room Nurse)--should
be increased for these hard-to-hire specialties. Pay scales need to be
increased for health care specialties as current scales and funding
levels for Civil Service and contracts are out-of-sync with the
civilian market. Increasing military authorizations for primary care
specialties in order to fill the PROFIS requirements for 62Bs (Field
Surgeon) would prevent the military from having to use critically short
subspecialties, such as pediatric cardiologists, to fill these slots.
Some specialties--60C (Preventive Medicine) and 61N (Flight Surgeons)--
have had to be structured to the military setting and it is difficult
to recruit for these same positions through the civilian sector since
the training, education, and experience levels are so different. This
lack of military-focused training in these specialties has made it
impossible to backfill losses in these specialties with the reserves.
MONITORING THE HEALTH OF GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL
Question. What improvements have been made to the medical
information systems to track the health care of reservists? Are they
electronic, do they differ among services?
Answer. The Army Medical Department's (AMEDD) Medical Operational
Data System (MODS) has added modules to address the need of improving
the health care for both the Guard and Reserve. The Active Duty Medical
Extension (ADMR) Web Reporting module manages those Guard and Reserve
soldiers requiring medical treatment that cannot be completed in less
than 30 days. The Line of Duty (LOD) Automated module automates the
completion of LOD Investigations and ancillary activities. To assist
the National Guard (NG) MODS has a NG Physical Web Reporting module
that allows the NG to obtain the physical information on each soldier
by state. The Automated Voucher System (AVS) facilitates scheduling
physical exams, dental exams, and immunizations for Army National Guard
and Army Reserve personnel. As a closeout to the AVS cycle, AVS
provides Medical Readiness results to MEDPROS module. MEDPROS provides
the Army Knowledge On-line (AKO) with a real time update of Active
Duty, National Guard and Army Reserve Individual Medical Readiness
elements to over 1.2 million registered AKO users at logon.
There is no significant difference in the Individual Medical
readiness tracking between the active or reserve component of the Army.
Question. During the mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom, how
many reservists could not be deployed for medical reasons?
Answer. Overall the medically non-deployable rate for reserve
component (RC) soldiers was 2.2 percent or 3,147 out of 141,365 RC
soldiers processed for mobilization. 566 of these non-deployable
soldiers are currently undergoing a medical board. More than 80 percent
of the non-deployable soldiers had a chronic medical problem. The most
common medical reasons for non-deployability were orthopedic and mental
health problems followed by adult onset diabetes. 27 percent of reserve
component soldiers had orthopedic conditions with the most common
problem areas being the back (32 percent), knees (24 percent), and
shoulders (14 percent). 8 percent of the non-deployable RC soldiers had
mental health problems and 6 percent had diabetes. Orthopedic
conditions and diabetes are expected to be more common in reserve
component soldiers given their generally older average age.
This information will be used to guide policy changes. Health
Affairs has mandated an Individual Medical Readiness metric that
requires the armed services to monitor compliance with required
periodic health assessments and identification and management of those
soldiers with deployment limiting conditions. Improving and enforcing
the profile process will enable earlier identification of significant
medical problems. However, until a digital profile process is in place
early identification of deployment limiting conditions will remain
problematic.
Question. An April 2003 GAO report documents deficiencies by the
Army in monitoring the health of the early-deploying reservists. Annual
health screening is required to ensure that reserve personnel are
medically fit for deployment when called upon. Review found that 49
percent of early-deploying reservists lacked a current dental exam, and
68 percent of those over age 40 lacked a current biennial physical
exam. In addition, monitoring the health of reservists returning from
deployment will be critical to ensuring the long term health of those
service members, and assisting in the identification of common
illnesses, such as those associated with the Gulf War Syndrome.
How many deployments (soldiers) were delayed due to dental reasons,
and how many reservists are not in Dental Class 1 or 2?
Answer. Only 192 soldiers (0.11 percent of 176,846 mobilized) were
delayed due to dental reasons; 33 were disqualified (0.02 percent).
However, several factors contributed to this extremely low number.
First, dental assets at mobilization sites, composed of both active and
reserve dental assets, worked very assiduously to bring mobilizing
reservists to deployable standards. Despite poor dental health of many
reservists, dental facilities worked tirelessly to accommodate their
acute oral health needs. Second, as funding for dental readiness of the
reserve components is lacking, Army G-3 provided an additional $23
million in OMA funds to support medical and dental readiness. As a
result, many reservists obtained dental examinations and requisite
dental care prior to mobilization. This care was provided primarily by
contracts with civilian network providers. Recent figures from
mobilization sites reflect that only 14 percent of those reporting to
mobilization sites were dental class 3 (non-deployable), reflecting a
vast improvement in dental readiness of our reserve forces over
previous mobilizations.
Current dental readiness of the reserves, reflected in MEDPROS
data, reflects that 64.4 percent (223,140) of the Army National Guard
are dentally non-deployable, and 72.9 percent (241,907) of the U.S.
Army Reserve (USAR) are dentally non-deployable. For the USAR, a
significant number of Class 4 soldiers are in the Individual Ready
Reserve, who are not considered early deployers. With adequate funding,
these statistics would be greatly improved.
Question. What is the current enrollment rate in the TRICARE Dental
Program (TDP) for reservists, and what action has DOD taken to
encourage reservists to enroll in TDP?
Answer. Data provided by TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) reflects
an overall DOD reserve component enrollment rate of 4.9 percent as of
January 2003. Mobilizations and deployments have decreased enrollment
temporarily; as a result, latest numbers were not used. Army specific
numbers are: USAR = 4.3 percent, and ARNG = 3.1 percent.
The TDP contractor markets the plan to its potential beneficiaries.
The initial marketing effort by the contractor entailed sending TDP
information to each reserve and guard unit. Quantities of information
sent were based on unit end strengths. The Defense Manpower Data Center
provides the TDP contractor quarterly files listing newly eligible
sponsors. This file is used for the ongoing marketing efforts under the
TDP. The contractor has also established a website for TDP. The
contractor has a staff of Dental Benefits Advisors that travel to
military installations to include reserve and guard facilities. TMA's
Communication and Customer Service marketing office has worked with
Reserve Affairs to develop and post TDP fact sheets on the TMA website
that are linked to other reserve and guard websites.
Question. What needs to be done and what will it cost to ensure
that reservists are medically and dentally fit for duty?
Answer. Despite numerous initiatives, the active component dental
assets shoulder the majority of Reserve Component (RC) mobilization
workload, a requirement for which they are not resourced. Additionally,
when active component dental assets are shifted to accommodate RC
mobilization requirements, a concomitant drop in active component
dental readiness occurs (a 7 percent drop in dental readiness of the
3rd Infantry Division occurred at Fort Stewart during mobilization of
the 48th Infantry Brigade [ARNG]). Use of active component dental
assets will remain a necessity, but ideally only as a back up and not
the primary means of preparing RC soldiers for deployment.
Title 10 USC Section 1074a authorizes members of the Selected
Reserve that are assigned to units scheduled for deployment within 75
days after mobilization, an annual dental screen and dental care
required to ensure deployability, at no cost to the soldier. However,
funding for this requirement is lacking. When OMA funds were recently
shifted to support this requirement for current operations, dental
Class 3 (non-deployable) rates dropped to 14 percent for RC soldiers
reporting to mobilization sites, a vast improvement from earlier
deployments that documented a range of 20-35 percent dental Class 3
(depending on mobilization and units involved). If a greater response
time had been available, even greater improvements in dental readiness
would have been realized. Adequate funding for this requirement would
greatly enhance dental readiness of the RC.
Several avenues are being studied to fulfill the dental
requirements outlined in Title 10 USC Section 1074a. DOD(HA) has
chartered an integrated process team to determine the best course of
action. However, one estimate of Class 3 costs, based on a Tri-Service
Center for Oral Health Studies Year 2000 Recruit Study of oral health
needs reported a cost of $334 per trainee. Annual dental examination
and required radiographs are estimated at $116 per soldier. Another
estimate using the TRICARE Dental Program to pay the entire premium and
selected co-pays to eliminate only Class 3 dental conditions resulted
in a government cost of $124.4 million for premiums and $16.5 million
for Class 3 dental care.
Question. Are there any repercussions for commanders who do not
ensure that their troops are fit for duty?
Answer. Fitness for duty effects overall readiness of a unit. It is
the commander's responsibility to ensure that all of his soldiers are
medically fit. He can do this by ensuring the soldiers have current
physicals, immunizations, dental exams, and participate in the semi-
annual Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and weigh-in. It is also the
commander's responsibility to take appropriate action when a soldier
does not meet the medical fitness standards as prescribed in Army
Regulation (AR) 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness. Appropriate
action would include the medical board process and/or separation of
soldiers in accordance with (IAW) AR 135-175, Separation of Officers or
AR 135-178, Enlisted Administrative Separations. Repercussions for
commanders who do not enforce individual medical readiness standards
are not punitive in nature, but could include relief of command or less
than adequate comments on the commander's performance evaluations.
COMBAT TREATMENT IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
Question. How well have your forward deployed medical support units
and the small modular units performed in Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom?
Answer. The transformation initiatives have greatly enhanced the
ability of the medical planners and commanders to place the appropriate
amount of medical care, up close where the soldiers needs it, yet
balanced with an economical use of the force. The Forward Surgical
Teams (FST) were used very effectively first in Afghanistan and then
they demonstrated dramatic results in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
The FST is extremely lightweight, 100 percent mobile and has the speed
to stay close to the combat element and provide immediate surgical care
close to the place of injury. In OIF a FST was placed with each Brigade
Combat Team. In addition each Brigade Combat Team was assigned 3
Medical Evaluation Helicopters to link the FST with the next element of
care the Combat Support Hospital (CSH). The CSH has a split base
operating capability demonstrated in OIF with the 21st CSH and the 86th
CSH. This flexibility allowed for the unit to more appropriately move
with the flow of Combat, remain with evacuation distance, yet provide
the next echelon of medical care in the theater. Three CSHs were
assigned to the 5th Corp and 3 CSHs were in the theater rear.
DEPLOYMENT OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL
Question. What are some of the lessons learned from our experience
in Iraq?
Answer. Operation IRAQI Freedom (OIF) reinforced the timeless
lessons of military medicine of proximity to the wounded, preventive
medicine, echeloned care, flexibility, and mobility. What was unique
about this war was the large dimensions of the battlefield and the
speed of the operation. The AMEDD has applied many of the lessons
learned from the first Gulf War and recent operations other than war.
As a result, our service members reaped the benefits of revised
doctrine and procedures during OIF. During the first Gulf War, Combat
Support Hospitals (CHSs) designed for the Cold War were large and
immobile. Today our CSHs are modularized and able to provide split
based operations. This war validated the importance of Forward Surgical
Teams (FST), which are attached to brigade combat teams. These teams
are light, extremely mobile, and have been trained as a trauma team at
some of the most advanced trauma centers in the United States. FSTs
take advantage of the ``Golden Hour'' and quickly provide life-saving
surgery close to the point of wounding. OIF also validated our 91W
transformation program. The 91W (Health Care Specialist) program
increased the training of basic combat medics to the Emergency Medical
Technician (EMT) level. Furthermore, medical planning officers were
included at the various operational staff levels in the planning of OIF
military campaign plan.
The Army and the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) have a formal
lessons learned process. As part of the initial OIF planning, The
Surgeon General directed comprehensive data collection to facilitate
the lessons learned process. Currently data collection is in process
and additional lessons learned will result from formal data analysis.
The preliminary analyses of injuries from this war indicate that
improved ballistic protection for the head and thorax resulted in a
reduction of immediately life threatening injuries. Patterns of injury
were very different in Iraqi vs. U.S. soldiers. Iraqi soldiers
experienced the whole spectrum of injuries: upper and lower
extremities, chest, abdomen and back. U.S. soldiers have had
predominately upper and lower extremity injuries. The use of body armor
has reduced abdominal, chest and head penetrating injury.
Excellent pre-deployment screening and preventive medicine kept the
disease rate extremely low. Increased automation of the AMEDD's major
systems such as logistics and patient tracking highlighted the need for
improved access to assured data communications throughout the
battlefield. The TRANSCOM Regulating and Command and Control Evacuation
System (TRACES) improved the ability to evacuate casualties. However
this system is still evolving and with appropriate funding, should have
the capability to electronically track patients from point of injury to
final disposition. The lessons learned from this war indicate that the
AMEDD is on the right track and will keep improving as medical
transformation continues.
IMPROVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE
Question. What tools/equipment is still required to improve the
care provided to combat casualties?
Answer. In order to expedite treatment, it is critical that
evacuation assets be available to facilitate the continuity of patient
care. Current modes for patient evacuation include ground and air
platforms, which includes the modernization of the UH60 Aero-medical
fleet. As part of the Aviation Modernization Program, the HH60 Aero-
medical evacuation helicopter has demonstrated exceptional capability
in providing enroute care in Afghanistan and during Operation Iraqi
Freedom. This is a significant improvement in the standard of care
provided during Operation Desert Storm. Continued fielding throughout
the entire MEDEVAC fleet is paramount to continued future success.
T-NEX, THE NEXT GENERATION OF TRICARE CONTRACTS
Question. The next generation TRICARE contracts will replace the
seven current managed care support contracts with three contracts. This
consolidation is intended to improve portability and reduce the
administrative costs of negotiating change orders and providing
government oversight across seven contracts.
The award date for these contacts has slipped from the scheduled
date in July of 2003.
Since the timeline for awarding the contracts has slipped, what is
the expected start date for the delivery of T-Nex?
Answer. The Army has not been notified of the slippage of award
date you describe. However, if that were to occur, we anticipate that
the currently planned start dates for all regions except Region 11 will
likely remain the same and that the Region 11 start date will be
adjusted to allow for a full ten month transition period.
Question. What planning is taking place to help ensure that when
the contracts are entered into there will be a seamless transition for
beneficiaries?
Answer. It is very important that transition to the T-Nex family of
contracts be seamless to beneficiaries and that continuity of care be
preserved to the greatest extent possible. Planning for seamlessness
and continuity started with the development of the T-Nex contract
request for proposals (RFP). Rules for interfacing of outgoing and
incoming contractors to ensure smooth hand off of claims, records, and
the like are designed into each RFP. A communications plan to inform
beneficiaries and providers about the change has been developed and is
being executed. Further, our beneficiary counseling and assistance
coordinators are trained and ready to assist beneficiaries should T-Nex
issues, questions, or problems arise. For example, the first T-Nex
contract--TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy (TMOP)--occurred March 1, 2003.
Based on a very low number of patient complaints, hand off of patient
records and prescriptions and delivery of pharmaceuticals according to
schedule went well from the beneficiary perspective. When problems
occurred, they were relatively minor and the incoming contractor moved
quickly to correct them. Our beneficiary counseling and assistance
coordinators were prepared and ready to assist beneficiaries if
problems occurred.
The larger Managed Care Support Services T-Nex contract, due to be
awarded this summer, is a larger and more complex contract than TMOP,
but the principles of execution to support seamless transition and
continuity still apply: intense prior planning and designing in phase
in/phase out rules to ensure smooth hand offs of records and claims
information, develop and execute a communication plan to inform
beneficiaries and all TRICARE providers of the coming contract change,
and intense preparation of the cadre of beneficiary counselors to
directly assist with beneficiary problems, issues, and concerns should
they occur. Other more specific provisions in this contract include
requiring the incoming contractor to negotiate with all current network
providers and encourage them to remain in the network, careful planning
to preserve continuity of care when resource sharing agreements are
converted to direct contracts or other contracting arrangements within
the military treatment facilities, preservation of the access standards
as in the previous contracts, preservation of the primary care manager
concept, and continuation of major programs--like TRICARE for Life and
TRICARE Prime Remote--continue unchanged.
Question. Are beneficiaries experiencing any change in quality of
care due to DOD's inability to enter into new long-term managed care
agreements?
Answer. Due to extensions of all seven current managed care support
contracts, beneficiaries continue to access quality health care both in
military treatment facilities and in the civilian networks just as they
have over the course of the current contracts. Quality of care
complaints from beneficiaries remain rare and almost always come from
beneficiaries in remote areas. When quality of care issues are raised
by beneficiaries, the complaint is immediately validated and is brought
to the attention of the relevant Lead Agent medical director. The
medical director presents the case to the responsible managed care
support contractor for investigation and resolution of the complaint.
Question. Under T-Nex, what services currently provided by the
TRICARE contractors will shift to the direct care system and what are
the costs associated with this shift in services?
Answer. Services that shift from the current TRICARE contractors to
the direct care system are military treatment facility appointing/
referral management, management of all resource sharing agreements,
internal utilization management services, management of the Health
Evaluation Assessment Report, management of the health care information
line, and transcription services. The estimated total cost to implement
these services by Army facilities is $753.4 million through the last
contract option, fiscal year 2008.
The cost for appointing services consists of personnel and
essential telephone equipment upgrades. To start health care delivery
in fiscal year 2004 (prorated to account for staggered start ups) $16.7
million is required with $26.5 million needed for the full fiscal year,
2005.
The estimated cost for replacing contractor personnel and equipment
to perform internal utilization management services for fiscal year
2004 is $6.5 million and $21.9 million in fiscal year 2005.
Converting over 1,100 resource sharing providers to direct
contracts or other arrangements to preserve continuity of care requires
$15.8 million in fiscal year 2004 and $104.6 million in fiscal year
2005.
To manage the health care information line, we estimate $2.3
million in 2004 and $7.3 million in 2005 is necessary. To assume
management of the Health Evaluation Assessment Report within our
facilities, the Army requires $.3 million in 2004 and $1.1 million in
2005.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Question. Personnel shortfalls still exist in a number of critical
medical specialties throughout the Services. The Navy has reported
shortfalls in Anesthesiology, General Surgery, Radiology, and
Pathology, and has stated the civilian-military pay gap is their
greatest obstacle in filling these high demand specialties. Recruiting
and retaining dentists appears to be a challenge for all the services.
To what extent have Critical Skills Retention Bonuses or other
incentives been successful in helping to retain medical personnel?
Answer. The table below shows the results of the recent Critical
Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps Eligible Takers Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Corps.................... 753 177 24
Dental Corps..................... 596 416 70
Nurse Corps...................... 493 329 67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen, the program seems more successful within the Dental
and Nurse community than the physician. What overall effect this will
have on retention has yet to be determined. We are hopeful that those
who opted for the CSRB in fiscal year 2003 will remain in the force
beyond that. The increases in the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) to the special pay ceilings may help us retain
some assuming that appropriation support for these increases is also
forthcoming.
Question. What else needs to be done to maximize retention of
medical personnel?
Answer. The retention of our highly trained and skilled health care
professionals is one of our greatest challenges. A recent study
submitted to Congress indicated that the pay compatibility gap at seven
years of service is between 13 and 63 percent, depending on the
specialty. The Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) raised the ceilings on discretionary special pays for our health
care providers for the first time in ten years. We are now working
within our system to obtain funding to support increases in our special
pays against these new ceilings. However, we need to recognize that it
isn't all about the money. The pay compatibility gap will never be
completely closed. There are a multitude of other factors that we have
addressed and keep addressing. Such things as adequate and skilled
administrative support staff to allow our clinicians to maximize the
time they spend practicing their craft is vitally important. That,
coupled with modern facilities and equipment, create an environment of
practice that is attractive to health care providers, and is often more
important than pure economics. In many cases the scope of practice of
our non-physician health care providers is greater than that in the
civilian community and is extremely satisfying. The ability of our
personnel to enter academic or research fields, in additional to the
purely clinical is another important facet that we will continue to
support. Quality of life is equally important to many of our personnel.
The benefits of service, such as housing, paid leave, and base
facilities, are difficult to replicate in the civilian sector. By
addressing the whole package--money, quality of life and environment of
practice, we hope to retain dedicated health care professionals that
will insure the soldier on point will not be alone and will have world
class health care both at home and while deployed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
JESSE SPIRI MILITARY MEDICAL COVERAGE ACT
Question. In 2001, a young Marine Corps 2nd LT from New Mexico lost
his courageous battle with cancer. Jesse Spiri had just graduated from
Western New Mexico University and was awaiting basic officer training
when he learned of his illness. However, because his commission had
triggered his military status to that of ``inactive reservist,'' Jesse
was not fully covered by TRICARE. As a result, he was left unable to
afford the kind of special treatment he needed. I believe it is time to
close this dangerous loophole. That is why I intend to offer a bill
entitled the ``Jesse Spiri Military Medical Coverage Act.'' This bill
will ensure that those military officers who have received a commission
and are awaiting ``active duty'' status will have access to proper
medical insurance.
Would you agree that this type of loophole is extremely dangerous
for those who, like Jesse, suffer with a dreaded disease?
Answer. Yes, we agree that for someone like Jesse, who has a
terminal illness, having no health insurance is very dangerous. We
mourn, as well, for the tragic loss of Jesse Spiri. The death of one's
child is perhaps the most difficult thing a parent must bear, and my
heart goes out to his family. The more potent issue for the Military
Health System is that Jesse suffered from a disease which made him
unable to perform military duties, and that existed prior to service
(EPTS). Similarly, any soldier on active duty who had Jesse's condition
would have been separated from active duty. And for those on active
duty less than 8 years who suffer from congenital or hereditary
conditions, they would not receive any disability benefits or coverage
for health care after they are discharged.
Question. And do you agree that our military health care system
should close this loophole, and can do so very cost effectively (given
the relatively low number of officers it would affect)?
Answer. We agree that individuals such as Jesse, who are part of
the 41.2 million uninsured (2001) in our country, face negative health
and financial consequences from terminal illnesses. We also recognize
that finding solutions to the problem of health coverage for the
uninsured is difficult and will require the efforts of both the
government and private sectors. The mission of the Military Health Care
System is to meet the challenge of maintaining medical combat readiness
while providing the best health care for all eligible personnel. These
include active duty and retired members of the uniformed services,
their families, and survivors, which today total approximately 8.5
million. Congress can expand the categories of eligible personnel, but
there are significant policy and equity issues of expanding eligibility
only to selected inactive Reserve Component officers. And any expansion
of TRICARE benefits to any Reserve Component personnel and/or families
must be accompanied by increases in Defense Health Program budgets. The
list of hereditary or congenital components (e.g., brain damage from an
Arteriovenous malformation, certain types of breast cancer, retinitis
pigmentosa) is continually growing as medical science advances, making
it impossible to implement fairly a system that mandates denial of
benefits if a condition is determined to be hereditary or congenital.
The Army would like to attain congressional approval of an initiative
that would reduce the 8-year provision to requiring only 18 months of
continuous active service before pre-existing conditions are covered.
MILITARY FAMILY ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE ACT
Question. I think everyone here is familiar with the adage that we
recruit the soldier, but we retain the family. That means taking care
of our military families and giving them a good standard of living. I
have introduced a bill that would provide a benefit to military
families seeking dental care, but who must travel great distances to
receive it. Specifically, my bill, the ``Military Family Access to
Dental Care Act'' (S. 336) would provide a travel reimbursement to
military families in need of certain specialized dental care but who
are required to travel over 100 miles to see a specialist. Often,
families at rural bases like Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis, NM meet
with financial hardship if more than one extended trip is required.
This bill reimburses them for that travel and is a small way of helping
our military families.
Given that current law provides a travel reimbursement for military
families who must travel more than 100 miles for specialty medical
care, do you believe it is important to incorporate specialty dental
care within this benefit?
Answer. I fully concur with the concept of providing a travel
reimbursement for military families who must travel more than 100 miles
for specialty dental care. However, most active duty family members
participate in the TRICARE Dental Program (TDP), the DOD-sponsored
dental insurance program. If these family members must travel greater
than 100 miles for specialty dental care at a civilian TDP provider,
travel reimbursement would ease some of their financial burden.
Management of this program may prove difficult, however. Unlike the
TRICARE Health Plan, DOD does not monitor nor control where TDP
enrollees go for care. Verification of that travel may prove
problematic, as greater reliance on the contractor (United Concordia)
for verification would be necessary.
Question. Do you think this benefit would improve the standard of
living of our military families.
Answer. Clearly, this benefit would improve the standard of living
of our military families.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
PATIENT PRIVACY (TRICARE)
Question. I would like to get your comments about several concerns
and questions I have related to the December 14, 2002 break-in of the
offices of TriWest, a TRICARE contractor. I am told that TriWest did
not notify the Department of Defense of the break-in and theft of
personnel information of over 500,000 TRICARE beneficiaries, for almost
a week after the event. Apparently, TriWest didn't even have basic
security equipment--guards, locks, cameras--and as a result, this
incident amounts to the biggest identity theft in U.S. history. Is this
information true?
Answer. The physical break-in of the locked TriWest Healthcare
Alliance corporate offices and theft of computer equipment occurred on
Saturday, December 14, 2002. On Monday, December 16, 2002, the break-in
and theft was discovered, authorities contacted, and TRICARE Management
Activity (TMA) operations staff were advised. Back-up tapes were run on
Tuesday, December 17, 2002, (which took 30 hours), and on Friday,
December 20, 2002, TMA/HA leadership was notified of the beneficiary
information theft. TriWest at that time had available from their back-
up tapes beneficiary information including names, addresses, phone
numbers, Social Security Numbers, some claims information with relevant
procedure codes, and personal credit card information on 23
individuals.
To date, the Army Medical Department has not received notification
of a single verified case of identity theft related to TriWest stolen
computer equipment.
Question. Has the Department of Defense finished its investigation
of this case and have sanctions been levied against TriWest or punitive
actions against TRICARE officials?
Answer. The criminal investigation is being conducted by the
Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), in coordination with other federal and local law
enforcement agencies.
To date, no sanctions have been levied upon or punitive actions
taken against TriWest or TRICARE officials. The investigation is
ongoing, and its findings are pending.
Sensitive information pertaining to TRICARE beneficiaries is
maintained by TRICARE contractors subject to the Privacy Act of 1974,
as implemented by the DOD Privacy Program (DOD 5400.11-R). The Act
provides criminal penalties for any contractor or contractor employee
who willfully discloses such protected information, in any manner, to
any person or agency not entitled to receive the information. The Act
also provides for civil penalties against DOD if it is determined that
the Department (or contractor) intentionally or willfully failed to
comply with the Privacy Act.
Question. Would you please share what you can about the lessons
learned as a result of this incident and the steps the Department and
the TRICARE organization and its contractors are taking to guarantee
beneficiary privacy?
Answer. As a result of close evaluation of our physical and
information security we found the following:
--Backup tapes not protected. For example, tapes left on the top of
servers, or left lying out in the open.
--A general lack of proper security in areas where servers reside. In
particular, Defense Blood Standard System and Pharmacy servers
were not being properly protected.
--Most sites had excellent password management policies and
guidelines in place, but they were not being followed.
--In general, there were proper locks on doors, but in several cases,
not being properly used. Many doors that should have been
locked after hours were found open which allowed entry to areas
where patient information is kept. Most items not secure were
portable medical devices containing patient medical information
and medical records.
--In many cases contingency plans for disaster recovery were lacking
or out-of-date.
--Lost hardware not reported through official channels.
--Hardware being turned in without data being wiped from hard drives.
--Concerning recent physical security self-assessments, a second look
found almost 60 percent of local assessments were inaccurate or
inexact.
--As a result of the TriWest issues all Army medical activities
participated in a Health Affairs directed self-assessment of
local physical security practices. Mitigation plans for all
deficiencies are due on May 16, 2003.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
Question. Healthcare, pay, and housing are the greatest Quality of
Life issues for our troops and their families. With the numbers of
health care staff deployed from your Military Treatment Facilities,
what strategies did you use to effectively plan and care for
beneficiaries back home?
Answer. The most expeditious means to maintain services for our
beneficiaries was accomplished by looking across our own regional
medical commands for opportunities to cross-level providers when
possible. The TRICARE Health Plan was designed with contingency
operations in mind and the Managed Care Support Contractor's (MCSC)
network of providers becomes the second echelon for health care
services if the MTF is unable to provide the care. Before requesting
any reserve component activation for backfill support, the MEDCOM staff
coordinated with the TRICARE Lead Agents and the MCSC to evaluate the
adequacy of the civilian provider network, especially in relation to
specific clinical specialties and locations that were hard hit. When
network adequacy was less than adequate, the request for reserve
component backfill request was prepared to maintain health care
services. Additionally, the MCSC provided backfill providers and
support staff through resource sharing agreements. A summary of
resource sharing backfill by DOD Region and skill type is provided
below for Army MTFs. The MCSC was successful in providing 88 percent of
the requested backfill. The majority of those filled by the MCSC were
in the Registered Nurse and Para-Professional skills. For those
positions capable of being filled with resource sharing personnel, the
MCSC's average ``fill time'' was 16 days compared to the industry
standard of 90 days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD TRICARE Region
Skill Type Data ----------------------------------------------- Grand Percent
3 5 6 12 7/8 Total By Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians............................. Subtotal FTEs Requested.................... 3 5 0.5 1.66 8.5 18.66 12
Subtotal FTEs Filled....................... 3 5 0.5 1.66 8.5 18.66 14
PAs/NPs................................ Subtotal FTEs Requested.................... 1 1 ....... ....... ......... 2 1
Subtotal FTEs Filled....................... 1 1 ....... ....... ......... 2 1
RNs.................................... Subtotal FTEs Requested.................... 21 9 ....... ....... 39 69 45
Subtotal FTEs Filled....................... 11 9 ....... ....... 39 59 43
Paraprofessionals...................... Subtotal FTEs Requested.................... 19 5 ....... ....... 30 54 35
Subtotal FTEs Filled....................... 10 5 ....... ....... 30 45 33
Administrative......................... Subtotal FTEs Requested.................... ....... 9 ....... ....... 2 11 7
Subtotal FTEs Filled....................... ....... 9 ....... ....... 2 11 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total FTEs Requested............. ........................................... 44 29 0.5 1.66 79.5 154.66 .......
Total FTEs Filled................ ........................................... 25 29 0.5 1.66 79.5 135.66 88
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How are you able to address the needs of patients coming
in from the battlefield and is this affecting the care of beneficiaries
seeking regular care?
Answer. Casualties evacuated from Operation IRAQI Freedom (OIF) and
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) were initially sent to either the
fleet hospital at ROTA Spain or Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
(LRMC). The staffing of LRMC was increased to manage the flow of
casualties. This enabled LRMC to execute both its peacetime mission of
providing health care to beneficiaries stationed in Europe and its
wartime mission of the primary OCONUS military treatment facility (MTF)
supporting the Global War on Terrorism. Evacuation from Europe was
facilitated by the TRANSCOM Regulating and Command and Control
Evacuation System (TRACES). This system improved the ability to send
casualties to medical centers best equipped to manage their specific
medical problem. For example: TRACES expedited the evacuation of burn
patients to the specialized burn center at Brooke Army Medical Center
(BAMC).
Army Medical Centers, such as Walter Reed Army Medical Center and
Womack Army Medical Center/Fort Bragg, and Army Community Hospitals,
such as the hospital at Fort Hood, deployed many health care providers
and paraprofessionals. Reserve component backfill and cross leveling
within the Army Medical Department maintained the capacity of most MTFs
in the Army. Localized shortages of certain beneficiary services did
occur. However, when the network capability was adequate, beneficiaries
were able to obtain health care on the local economy through TRICARE if
care within the MTF was not available or if waiting times exceeded
TRICARE access standards. In some locations, the TRICARE network
capability and the adequacy of that network, remains problematic. In
these areas, TRICARE access standards were exceeded. Across the Army
there has been approximately a 20 percent increase in purchased care.
This increase combined with the augmented numbers of reserve soldiers
on active duty, and the need to send health care providers on extended
temporary duty, will significantly increase the resource requirements
of the Army Medical Department.
Question. What authority were you given to backfill your vacancies
and are the funds sufficient to attain that goal?
Answer. The Army Medical Department has supported and is supporting
a number of missions requiring the deployment of medical personnel in
addition to those deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
and Operation Noble Eagle. None of our MTFs are overstrength, and the
impact of these deployments is always felt, but can generally be
managed for the short duration missions.
Dr. David Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, authorized a 50 percent backfill by Reserve Component
personnel of the number of vacancies created by the deployment of
active duty in PROFIS (professional filler system) positions to OIF
only. Additionally, limiting the amount of active duty time to 90-day
rotations for RC physicians, dentists, and Nurse Anesthetists has been
problematic as there are insufficient reserves to fill multiple
rotations in some specialties. Attempting to maintain the high quality
of care and the access to care for our beneficiaries with this
reduction in personnel has been extremely challenging. Increasing the
amount of funding for reserve backfill would increase the ability to
replace losses, especially in areas of inadequate TRICARE networks. To
accommodate the 90-day rotational policy, a significant increase in the
number of slots for reserves will be needed.
Question. What measures were used in determining what the services
were able to backfill and how did that compare to current requirements?
Answer. Current staffing before deployment; staff losses, by
specialty, due to deployment; loss of borrowed military manpower;
losses due to other taskings; TRICARE network adequacy; non-network
adequacy; historical ability to hire/contract healthcare workers;
reserve availability; and the ability of the regions to cross-level
losses, especially low-density specialties, were all taken into account
to determine the level and kind of backfill needed. As deployment
schedules, troop mix and actual units changed for this fluid operation,
reserve backfill and cross-leveling were and continue to be adjusted.
RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT
Question. With increasing deployments in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom and the Global War on Terrorism, can you describe your overall
recruitment and retention status of the Medical Department in each of
your services?
Answer. Our current accession projections for the year (as of May
7, 2003) are in the table below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps Mission Projection Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Nurse Corps................................................ 373 283 75.87
Dental Corps.................................................... 117 112 95.73
Medical Corps................................................... 389 389 100.00
Medical Service Corps........................................... 369 369 100.00
Medical Specialist Corps........................................ 83 106 127.71
Veterinary Corps................................................ 40 43 107.05
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 1,371 1,302 94.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our current loss projections seem to be following a historical
glide path, but this may have been influenced by the various programs
put in place to stop personnel from exiting the service. Once these
programs are no longer in place, it is unclear how our force will
react. If we utilize, for example, the number of people eligible for
Incentive Special Pay compared to those that elected to execute a
contract, we see that this fiscal year is significantly below the last
three years. This may well indicate a problem within the Medical Corps.
We project meeting our accession program for Medical Corps officers.
However, chronic shortages in some specialties (such as surgical
subspecialties) continue to exist in the Medical Corps.
Question. What specific corps or specialties are of most concern?
Answer. Currently, the Army Nurse Corps is of the most concern. The
nation wide shortage, coupled with two years of an inability to achieve
our accession target, has created a significant shortage of skilled
nurses. We are hopeful that utilization of the Health Professions Loan
Repayment Program, changes with United States Army Cadet Command and
planned increases in the Accession Bonus will enable us to more
successfully compete within the civilian market place for these skills.
Within the Medical Corps, our surgical specialties continue to present
us with the largest challenge. General surgery, orthopedic surgery and
anesthesiology continue to be specialties with a high Operational
Tempo. This high Operational Tempo, coupled with a significant pay gap
when compared to civilian situations, makes the retention of these
specialties difficult. Our radiology community is also experiencing a
decline in the inventory. Our past efforts within the Dental Corps are
now starting to pay dividends. While still short in terms of total
inventory, past increases in our student program support for this Corps
has resulted in positive strides toward eliminating our accession
problems.
Question. Did the Critical Skills Retention Bonus given for this
year help these specialties?
Answer. Within the Nurse Corps, 55 percent of the Nurse
Anesthetists and 76 percent of the Operating Room Nurses that were
eligible for the Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) opted for the
program. Within the Dental Community, 70 percent of those eligible took
the program. Medical Corps response was somewhat less than this with
only 24 percent of the eligible physicians opting for the program.
Question. In light of shortages and the disparity between military
and civilian salaries, how have you planned for additional retention
bonuses in future years?
Answer. The Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) increased the ceilings on our retention and accessions pays. In
the absence of any appropriation to support these additional
authorizations, we have attempted to make small modifications within
existing budgets for fiscal year 2004. However, working with our sister
services and Health Affairs, we are developing an aggressive plan with
increases in all specialties for fiscal year 2005 and beyond. The
actual amount of the increase will be determined based on projected
inventory. The proposed increases range anywhere from $2,000 to $25,000
(assuming a four year contract) depending on the specialty. This plan
is contingent on the availability of funds. Currently funds are not
programmed within the Defense Health Program or the services military
personnel accounts for this initiative.
Question. Are there recruitment and retention issues within certain
specialties or corps?
Answer. Currently, the Army Nurse Corps is of significant concern.
The nation-wide shortage, coupled with two years of an inability to
achieve our accession target--86 percent (288 of 333 authorizations)
and 79 percent (291 of 367 authorizations) for fiscal year 2001 and
fiscal year 2002 respectively--has created a significant shortage of
skilled nurses. Our predominant nursing shortages are for Operating
Room Nurses--86 percent (290 of 339 authorizations), Nurse
Anesthesists--72 percent (200 of 277 authorizations) and OBGYN Nurses--
73 percent (129 of 177 authorizations). We are hopeful that utilization
of the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program, changes within United
States Army Cadet Command and planned increases in the Accession Bonus
will enable us to more successfully compete within the civilian market
place for these skills. Within the Medical Corps, our surgical
specialties continue to present us with the largest challenge. General
Surgery--50 percent (126 of 251 authorizations), Orthopedic Surgery--54
percent (116 of 215 authorizations) and Anesthesiology--84 percent (138
of 164 authorizations) continue to be specialties with a high
Operational Tempo. This high Operation Tempo, coupled with a
significant pay gap when compared to civilian situations--36 percent
for General Surgeons, 48 percent for Orthopedic Surgeons and 42 percent
for Anesthesiologist (data as of fiscal year 2000 for providers at
seven years of service as reported in the Health Professions'
Retention-Accession Incentives Study Report to Congress by the Center
for Naval Analysis) makes the retention of these specialties difficult.
Our radiology community--58 percent (119 of 204 authorizations) is also
experiencing a decline in the inventory. Our past efforts within the
Dental Corps are now starting to pay dividends. While still short in
terms of total inventory--87 percent (987 of 1,136 authorizations),
past increases in our student program support for this Corps has
resulted in positive strides toward eliminating our accession problems
(achieved an average of 77 percent of accession requirements over the
past five years, as opposed to an average of 64 percent success rate
over the last ten years). We continue to use a variety of bonus
programs as well as initiatives to improve the quality of medical
practice to enhance provider satisfaction and improve retention.
Question. If so, what are your recommendations to address this in
the future?
Answer. Fully funded student programs coupled with accession
incentives comparable with those offered within the civilian market
place will be critical to maintaining our force structure. Aggressive
utilization of the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program as a
retention tool within the Nurse Corps will hopefully change some
retention behavior. We are also increasing the use Reserve Officer
Training Corps scholarships, restructuring bonuses and seeking
increased funding to increase bonus payments. We are also working to
improve our providers' satisfaction with the quality of their clinical
practice to improve retention. If this is successful within this Corps,
we will evaluate its utility within other Corps.
Question. Have incentive and special pays helped with specific
corps or specialties?
Answer. This is a difficult question to quantify. The percentage of
officers who elected to avail themselves of these special pays can be
an indication of success. For example, when we offered new retention
pays to our Optometry and Pharmacy community, 86 percent and 88 percent
respectively, opted for the pays. There is no way to refute the
argument that some of these individuals would have been retained
without these pays, however the bottom line is they work and are a
valuable aid to retention.
Question. How does the fiscal year 2004 budget request address your
recruitment and retention goals?
Answer. The Army has funded to 100 percent the requested Program
Objective Memorandum (POM) through fiscal year 2004. Even though the
fiscal year 2003 NDAA increased the discretionary special pay caps,
additional dollars were not appropriated. The Army is supportive of
validated POM requirements submitted for fiscal year 2005-09. We
anticipate the ability to implement partial changes in fiscal year 2004
and further aggressively increase special pay rates in fiscal year 2005
and the out-years.
FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION
Question. As a result of concerns discovered after the Gulf War,
the Department created a Force Health Protection system designed to
properly monitor and treat our military personnel.
What aspects of the Departments' Force Health Protection system
have been implemented to date?
Answer. The Persian Gulf War and experience with illnesses among
Gulf War veterans highlighted some deficiencies in the Army's force
health protection capabilities. The Army Medical Department (AMEDD) has
made significant progress in addressing these shortfalls, but more
needs to be done.
The U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine
(USACHPPM) was formed in 1994 to improve integration of AMEDD's force
health protection efforts for the warfighter. The emerging capabilities
of USACHPPM allow the AMEDD to anticipate, communicate, and protect
against health threats to deployed soldiers, including those posed by
the environmental health threats on the battlefield, through
Occupational and Environmental Health Surveillance. The USACHPPM, in
collaboration with the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center (AFMIC)
and other elements of the Defense intelligence community, has
dramatically improved the intelligence preparation of the battlefield
so that commanders are informed about potential environmental health
risks before they occupy a site that could cause their soldiers to
become ill. This is accomplished in part through a secure website. The
USACHPPM deploys preventive medicine teams to survey the occupational
and environmental health (OEH) risks to our forces. As these potential
OEH risks are identified, control measures are quickly recommended to
local commanders in the field. In addition, these exposure data are now
archived and will be included as part of the Defense Occupational and
Environmental Health Readiness System (DOEHRS) for review in later
retrospective health studies. Occupational and environmental health
surveillance policy, doctrine, tactics, techniques and procedures are
also continually being developed and updated by the AMEDD to further
promote the safety of our deployed forces.
The AMEDD tracks soldiers health throughout the career life-cycle
through the Defense Medical Surveillance System, which includes data on
pre- and post-deployment health assessments, episodes of health care,
immunizations, reportable disease conditions for over 7.6 million
personnel serving on active duty since 1990, and is linked to the DOD
Serum Repository in Silver Spring, MD, housing over 31 million serum
specimens collected from active duty service members since the late
1980's.
The 520th Theater Army Medical Laboratory, bringing state-of the-
art medical laboratory science and technical support for the combatant
commander, was established in 1995 and first deployed to Bosnia in
early 1996.
The Medical Protection System (MEDPROS) automates the Army's
medical readiness system, including tracking immunizations for
soldiers, beginning with anthrax vaccine in 1998, and continuing with
smallpox and other militarily important vaccines today.
The Army is Executive Agent for the DOD Global Emerging Infections
Surveillance and Response System (GEIS), established in 1996. Since
2001, GEIS has operated Project ESSENCE to provide early notification
of outbreaks of infectious diseases in military communities around the
world, including those that may represent manifestations of use of a
biological weapon.
Since 1991, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has licensed
vaccines against hepatitis A, Japanese encephalitis, and smallpox, and
Soman Nerve Agent Pretreatment, Pyridostigmine (SNAPP). These and other
products of military medical research allow the AMEDD to provide high
quality disease countermeasures to protect the deployed force.
As always, the AMEDD attends to the health care needs of soldiers
while they are deployed. In 2000, the AMEDD began the transformation of
the combat medic into the 91W (``Whisky''), the medical soldier for the
objective force.
The AMEDD provide quality care for soldiers following deployment,
employing valuable lessons learned from the first Persian Gulf War in
the Deployment Health Clinical Practice Guideline, and establishment of
the DOD Deployment Health Clinical Center at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center, Washington, DC in 1998.
Question. What are the differences between the system during the
Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Noble Eagle?
Answer. All accomplishments listed above reflect the growth and
evolution of the Army's robust deployment surveillance capability since
1991. Probably the most significant improvements in this capability are
the Deployment Health Clinical Practice Guideline and the extensive
longitudinal baseline health database provided by the Defense Medical
Surveillance System.
The Deployment Health Clinical Practice guideline is a very useful
tool for health care providers to assist patients with any health
problem or concern that the patient judges to be related to a military
deployment. By addressing deployment-related concerns proactively, we
anticipate that this guideline will facilitate appropriate, timely, and
trusted health care for soldiers and their families following
deployments.
The Defense Medical Surveillance System permits extensive analysis
of health issues among deployed personnel from all Services. In the
wake of the Gulf War, we were unable to answer many basic questions
about health and disease among military members due to lack of
appropriate data. With the establishment and growth of the Defense
Medical Surveillance System, including the DOD Serum Repository, we can
provide much more timely, accurate, and comprehensive answers to
questions about the health of the service members, individually and
collectively, including those deployed on contingency operations.
For Operation Iraqi Freedom, the deployment health surveillance
program has been enhanced with the addition of a more extensive post-
deployment health assessment questionnaire, a requirement for face-to-
face encounter between a health care provider and each service member
before demobilization, and the collection of a post-deployment serum
specimen to be added to the DOD Serum Repository. In this way, we are
collecting adequate information on the health of redeploying service
personnel to satisfy our surveillance requirements while assuring that
each service member receives the appropriate medical attention and care
he or she deserves before demobilization.
optimization
Question. Congress initiated optimization funds to provide
flexibility to the Surgeons General to invest in additional
capabilities and technologies that would also result in future savings.
It is my understanding that a portion of these funds are being withheld
from the Services.
Can you please tell the Committee how much Optimization funding is
being withheld from your service, what are the plans for distributing
the funds, and why funds since fiscal year 2001 are being withheld?
Answer. The AMEDD validated and approved 23 projects in fiscal year
2003. At this point, 15 of those projects with a fiscal year 2003 cost
of $2,143,800 have not been funded by OSD. My staff is reviewing an
additional 14 Optimization projects targeting fiscal year 2003 funding.
Once approved, they will be forwarded to OSD for funding. Optimization
funding is being held by OSD to resource a portion of their fiscal year
2003 $800 million shortfall. OSD does not plan to distribute funding
until they resolve the funding shortfall.
Question. How have you benefited from optimization funds?
Answer. Army Medical Treatment Facilities have benefited greatly
from your support to optimize the direct care system. This support
enables the Army to exploit cost effective opportunities to achieve
maximum benefit from existing MHS structure. The AMEDD actively manages
32 Optimization initiatives with an annual investment value of $16
million and a projected net annual savings at maturity of $5 million.
Although these projects are in varying stages of maturity the majority
have achieved self-financing status and are positioned to recoup their
initial investment. Much of the savings occur in private sector care
expenditures. Optimization funding is being used not simply to
recapture workload from the private sector but rather optimize the mix
of services making the most efficient use of existing MHS
infrastructure and private sector care capability. The benefits of
optimization may not always be apparent due in large part to the gap
between budgeted and actual medical inflation rates and changes to the
medical benefit. Optimization funding reduces the overall cost to the
MHS. Those costs would be rising at an increased rate absent your
support and commitment to the Optimization program.
Question. What projects are on hold because OSD has not released
funding?
Answer. The AMEDD has 15 Optimization projects on hold awaiting OSD
release of funds. Although time may not permit me to go into great
detail on each, there are some interesting characteristics of this
group. A VA/DOD sharing agreement brings MRI capability to the Fort
Knox community while increasing the VA's capacity to deliver those same
services in their local market. Optimization projects targeting child
mental health in the Northwest, active duty inpatient psychiatry in the
Southwest, and substance abuse in Hawaii are awaiting funding. A number
of projects such as lithotripsy at Fort Bliss and automated surgical
clothing swap stations at Fort Campbell can be implemented quickly and
offer rapid return with a modest investment.
Question. What are the projected projects using the proposed $90
million in the fiscal year 2004 budget request?
Answer. My subordinate commanders continue to develop optimization
opportunities in anticipation of fiscal year 2004 and beyond funding.
The AMEDD has institutionalized the optimization process. Early
successes improved our ability to develop and implement initiatives. I
anticipate increasing incremental benefit of the Optimization program
going forward.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
PATIENT PRIVACY (TRICARE)
Question. In December, 2002, one of the Department's managed care
support contractors for the military's TRICARE program experienced a
significant theft of military beneficiary personal identification--
possibly the largest personal identification theft in U.S. history.
This theft has potentially significant and serious implications for
those beneficiaries, and the vulnerability of these individuals may
well extend for years.
The Department pledged a full investigation of this matter, yet
little has been heard on the status and outcome of internal and
external reviews and investigations.
What is the status and outcome of the Department's Inspector
General investigation into this theft?
Answer. As requested by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs [ASD(HA)], the DOD Inspector General will complete all
facility physical security evaluations, by the end of May 2003. Soon
thereafter, they will brief the ASD(HA) on their preliminary findings.
Question. Has the Department determined that its policies and
oversight of its TRICARE managed care support contractors' personal
information security are adequate given the December incident?
Answer. We believe that our policies are strong, sound and
adequate, and this has been verified by a study conducted by the
Gartner consulting group. Each TRICARE contractor has the primary
responsibility for implementing sufficient security safeguards to
prevent unauthorized entry into its data processing facility and
unauthorized access to TRICARE beneficiary records in contractor
custody. We have also initiated a review of TRICARE contract language
to ensure that it incorporates current security policies. In addition,
we continue with oversight of managed care support contractors through
DOD's process of ongoing accreditation and certification of contractor
systems and networks, a process which incorporates into its criteria a
variety of facility physical security controls.
Question. Is the Department convinced its policies for the security
of personal health care information adhere to established industry best
practices?
Answer. The results of recent assessments, validations and the
Gartner study demonstrate that the Department's policies for the
security of personal health information meet, and in some cases, exceed
established Federal, DOD, and industry information security standards.
Question. Does the Department need any new authorities to address
personal information security and deal appropriately with entities
failing to adequately safeguard such sensitive information?
Answer. At this time, DOD does not require any additional
authorities to address personal information security.
Question. Is the Department considering implementing a system of
sanctions or penalties against companies who fail to provide reasonable
protections for personal information?
Answer. DOD currently has procedures and mechanisms in place to
address inappropriate management of personal and medical information.
Sensitive information pertaining to TRICARE beneficiaries is maintained
by TRICARE contractors subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as
implemented by the DOD Privacy Program (DOD 5400.11-R). The Act
provides criminal penalties for any contractor or contractor employee
who willfully discloses such protected information, in any manner, to
any person or agency not entitled to receive the information. The Act
also provides for civil penalties against DOD if it is determined that
the Department (or contractor) intentionally or willfully failed to
comply with the Privacy Act.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General George Peach Taylor, Jr.
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
DEPLOYMENT OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL
Question. The staff's discussions with the Surgeons General
indicate that the Services have backfilled for deployed medical
personnel at the Medical Treatment Facilities at varying levels.
Some of the Services are relying more heavily on private sector
care rather than backfilling for deployed medical personnel.
To what extent has the recent deployment of military medical
personnel affected access to care at military treatment facilities?
What are you doing to ensure adequate access to care during this time?
Answer. Despite deployments, access to routine health care in the
Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) has improved seven percent since
August 2002. Currently, military medical treatment facilities (MTFs)
are able to provide routine access to health care (within seven days)
83 percent of the time. MTFs are able to provide access to acute care
(within 24 hours) 96 percent of the time. MTFs have met peacetime
standards, but there has been an overall increase in costs,
particularly to supplemental care, in order to meet the health care
needs of Guard and Reserve members called to active duty.
Through the working relationships between our Managed Care Support
Contractors (MCSCs) and our MTFs, gaps in beneficiary access were
determined and resolutions sought throughout the activation and
deployment of service members to contingency locations. A multi-level
communication plan was developed and disseminated to support our MTF
effort to educate our beneficiaries of where and how medical services
could be accessed.
Question. What percentage of mobilized reservists in medical
specialties are being used to backfill positions in the United States?
Answer. No Air Force medical reservists were activated as backfill
during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Question. Are there shortages of personnel in some specialties? If
so, which specialties are undermanned and by how much?
Answer. The Air Force Medical Service has personnel shortages in a
variety of specialty areas. According to the Health Manpower Personnel
Data System Data from September 30, 2002, some of our more significant
shortages can be found in:
--Anesthesiology (63 percent staffed)
--Aviation/Aerospace Medicine (Residency Trained Only) (81 percent
staffed)
--Cardiology/Cardiovascular (64 percent staffed)
--Emergency Medicare (79 percent staffed)
--Otorhinolaryngology (ENT) (77 percent staffed)
--Radiology (65 percent staffed).
Question. Are there other ways of structuring the staffing of
military medical units that might help address shortages in a few
specialties, such as making increased use of civilian contractors or
DOD civilian personnel in MTFs stateside?
Answer. The TRICARE Next Generation (T-Nex) of contracts addresses
this very issue. While the current contracts provide staffing during
times of war, the new contracts allow for civilian backfill staffing
through a spectrum of military operations. Specifically, the T-Nex
Statement of Work states: ``a contingency plan designed to ensure that
health care services are continuously available to TRICARE eligible
beneficiaries as the military treatment facilities respond to war,
operations other than war, deployments, training, contingencies,
special operations, et cetera.'' Additionally, contingency plans
require an annual review and require the contractor to implement their
contingency plan within 48 hours of notification.
Question. Is DOD considering any changes to the mix of active duty
and Reserve personnel in medical specialties?
Answer. The mix of skill sets in the Active and Reserve Components
is currently being examined in several forums. The Operational
Availability Study, the OSD AC/RC Mix study, as well as individual
Service studies are all looking at the right mix of Active and Reserve
capabilities to ensure that the needs of the National Security Strategy
are met through the key factors of availability, responsiveness,
agility, and flexibility. The studies are ongoing, but initial results
indicate some capabilities need to be addressed. We will be examining
the possibility of rebalancing capabilities within war plans and
between the Active and Reserve Components. While recent mobilizations
have highlighted shortages in certain capabilities that stressed
Reserve forces, there are multiple solutions to address those issues.
Application of a variety of actions, including innovative management
techniques for the Reserves, will maximize the efficiency of our
existing forces and may therefore require very little change to
existing force structure.
MONITORING THE HEALTH OF GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL
Question. An April 2003 GAO report documents deficiencies by the
Army in monitoring the health of the early-deploying reservists. Annual
health screening is required to insure that reserve personnel are
medically fit for deployment when call upon.
Review found that 49 percent of early-deploying reservists lacked a
current dental exam, and 68 percent of those over age 40 lacked a
current biennial physical exam.
In addition, monitoring the health of reservist returning from
deployment will be critical to ensuring the long term health of those
service members, and assisting in the identification of common
illnesses, such as those associate with the Gulf War Syndrome.
What improvements have been made to the medical information systems
to track the health care of reservists? Are they electronic, do they
differ among services?
Answer. Although I am not familiar with the capabilities of the
other services, both the Air Force Reserve Command, and Air National
Guard unit programs have developed independent state-of-the art
computer physical exam management systems that track the health and
dental status of all assigned personnel, in real time. Data is
available at each supervisory level so all commanders can know the
status of their troops.
The Air National Guard and the Air Reserve Personnel Center
implemented the Reserve Component Periodic Health Assessment and
Individual Medical Readiness (PIMR) software this fiscal year to track
the medical readiness of the Air National Guard. Air Force Reserve
Command will soon attain this milestone. This software tracks six key
elements identified by Health Affairs for monitoring individual medical
readiness.
Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center has developed an access
database for all the 12,000+ Individual Mobilization Augmentees. It
provides Direct demographics downloaded from personnel system;
Tracking/recording of physical exam dates; Tracking/management of
medical/dental deferment, assignment and deployment restrictions, and
medical board action; Tracking/management of deployment and post-
deployment medical information (DD2796). Post-deployment assessment has
recently been upgraded to include a more robust questionnaire, an
interview with a provider, and a blood sample for later analysis.
Question. During the mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom, how
many reservists could not be deployed for medical reasons?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Unit program was able to meet 100
percent of its taskings with 1.5 percent not being able to deploy for
medical reasons (only 22 out of 1,450 total mobilized).
Five percent of our Individual Mobilization Augmentees were unable
to deploy; 40 out of 800 mobilized. Of these 40, four were later
mobilized by exception to policy (ETP) due to mission requirements. A
plan of care for these members was identified before mobilization and
approved by the wing commander.
The Air National Guard was able to meet 100 percent of its mission
taskings with 5,500 members deploying, each being medically and
dentally qualified for deployment. Local units may have substituted
personnel, but numbers are not available at this time.
Question. How many deployments were delayed due to dental reasons,
and how many reservists are not in Dental class 1 or 2?
Answer. Air Force Reserve Command: Five personnel had deployments
delayed for dental reasons. Currently 1,470 reservists are dental class
three and 34,473 are in dental class four (35,943 are not class one or
two). It is important to note that the majority of class three or four
reservists are in that category because of administrative and dental
records issues that can be corrected quickly if notified of deployment.
At a minimum, 78 percent of all class three and four members are in
that category because they have yet to insert their most recent
civilian dental examination paperwork into their Air Force dental
record. This issue is usually rectified immediately upon notification
of deployment and has not had negative impact on readiness during
Operation Iraqi Freedom or previous contingencies.
Air Reserve Personnel Center had 21 personnel out of 800 (2.6
percent) with delayed deployments for dental reasons. Currently the
Immediate Medical Associates (IMA) dental program has 328 personnel in
class three, and 4,616 (37 percent) who are class four.
Air National Guard had no deployments delayed due to dental
reasons. As of April 15, 2003 with 50 percent of the Air National Guard
units reporting: One percent was Class III (622); five percent was
Class IV--no exam (2,488). NOTE: When PIMR gets 100 percent populated
(July 2004) with data, the Air National Guard will be able to see
percentages on a real time basis.
Question. What is the current enrollment rate in the TRICARE Dental
Program for reservists, and what action has DOD taken to encourage
reservists to enroll in TDP?
Answer. Air Force Reserve Command (unit and IMA programs): 11
percent (8,290 Personnel with Dental Contracts of the 73,961 assigned);
Air National Guard 8 percent (6,158 Personnel with Dental Contracts of
the 78,663 assigned).
The Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard have all fully
advertised the TDP including notices on their web pages, coverage of
the program at major conferences and direct mailings to all personnel.
Question. What needs to be done and what will it cost to ensure
that reservists are medically and dentally fit for duty?
Answer. Both the Air Force Reserve Command and the Air National
Guard welcome enactment of legislation authorizing funding for annual
dental exams.
The Air Force Reserve favors funding annual dental exams, which
would cost approximately $3 million to $4 million. It is likely this
cost will be offset by the number of personnel who see their civilian
dentists and provide a completed DD Form 2813 (DOD Active Duty/Reserve
Forces Dental Examination). To ensure that reservists are medically
ready for duty, full funding of validated dental support Unit Type
Codes and full time manpower requirements will give medical units the
requirements necessary to accomplish the exams and assessments.
The Air National Guard favors providing dental treatment as a
benefit; pay the member's premium for dental insurance. The projected
cost to provide such a benefit to 78,663 traditional members at $9.00
per month is $8.5 million.
Unlike medical examinations, annual dental examinations are a new
unfunded requirement. Compliance with this requirement is contingent on
receipt of funds unlike the medical examination process, which is well
established and fully supported through POM submissions.
Both Air Force Reserve Command and Air National Guard continue to
enhance long established medical examination processes and record
keeping. This evolving process enjoys a robust partnership with active
duty support, the guidelines for which are included in the Program
Objective Memorandum (POM). No additional funding is required.
Question. Are there any repercussions for commanders who do not
ensure that their troops are fit for duty?
Answer. Although there are no commander-specific repercussions
specified in Air Force Regulations, fitness for duty is part of the
overall unit readiness equation along with factors such as dental
fitness and training reports. These factors are reviewed at Wing,
Numbered Air Force (or State), and Command levels. Disciplinary actions
for low readiness levels are at commander's discretion at each of these
levels.
COMBAT TREATMENT IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
Question. All of the Services have undertaken transformation
initiatives to improve how medical care is provided to our front line
troops.
The initiatives have resulted in more modular, deployable medical
units which are scalable in size to meet the mission.
How well have your forward deployed medical support units and the
small modular units performed in Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom?
Answer. Our transformation to these smaller, highly mobile, units
has paid huge dividends in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although many
Expeditionary Medical Support (EMEDS) activities in Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) are still classified, I
can share with you that we have positioned 24 EMEDS facilities in 12
countries. Four of these units are currently far forward in Iraq.
When U.S. forces captured one of the Iraqi air bases, elements of
the Air Force Medical Service were there with the entering forces.
Prior to creation of EMEDS units, it would have taken two to three
weeks before we could have erected an Air Force medical facility to
care for or troops occupying the base. In this conflict, we had the
capability to provide care to our troops the same day we took the air
base. Within just a couple days, we had established, equipped, and
manned a fully functioning EMEDS unit.
EMEDS not only ensures we can provide health care far forward, it
also helps us prevent illnesses and injuries. In OIF we have achieved
the lowest disease and non-battle injury rate in military history--
almost 20 percent lower than Operation DESERT SHIELD/STORM.
I am also quite proud of the Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) piece of
the EMEDS system. To date they have moved more than 2,000 patients
(including 640 battle casualties) in OIF without using dedicated AE
aircraft.
Aeromedical Evacuation operations in OIF comprise the most
aggressive evacuation effort since Vietnam, with not a single patient
death in transit, which makes it the most successful aeromedical
operation in military history.
Question. What are some of the lessons learned from our experience
in Iraq?
Answer. The Air Force Medical Service is in the initial stage of
collecting Operation IRAQI FREEDOM lessons learned. Two major issues
identified at this point are as follows.
First, concerns with ``In-Transit visibility'' (ITV). ITV of our
deploying personnel and equipment is a significant problem. Many man-
hours were spent searching each Aerial Port of Embarkation (APOE)
pallet yard for medical equipment pallets that did not meet the
required delivery dates. Additional man-hours were spent tracking down
individuals who departed their Continental United States (CONUS) duty
station, but did not make it to the deployed destination by the
required in-place dates. This severely hampered the ability of
operational planners and commanders to effectively employ constrained
resources to meet mission requirements.
TRANSCOM Regulating and Command & Control system (TRAC\2\ES) was
designed to provide ITV of patients returning from the theater of
operations to more definitive care. TRAC\2\ES was never designed to
provide visibility of patients when they exit the system, nor does it
provide information to deployed commanders on a return to duty status
or the patient's medical condition. Therefore, commanders, who have
overall responsibility for these individuals, in some cases had no
visibility of their status or medical condition, and no service-wide
system exists to provide them that critical information.
Second, validation of our concept of Critical Care in the Air.
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM demonstrated the value of teaming our Critical
Care Air Transport (CCAT) teams and our Aeromedical Evacuation (AE)
system. The CCAT teams are capable of providing critical care in the
air, a level of medical service that was unavailable to our forces
until our recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Additionally, CCATs
can accompany their wards on most any cargo aircraft transiting the
theater through the use of innovative Patient Support Pallets (PSPs).
These pallets contain the tools and equipment that permit CCAT team
members to quickly convert cargo aircraft into aeromedical evacuation
platforms. The synergistic relationship between our AE, PSPs, and the
CCAT teams who use them, permitted the AE movement of over 2,000
patients, some critically ill/injured and unstable, in the first 35
days of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, including 640 battlefield casualties.
Question. What tools/equipment is still required to improve the
care provided to combat casualties?
Answer. The challenges facing the deployed medical commander drive
requirements that the traditional conventional wartime scenario never
anticipated. As conflicts become more diverse and the potential for
unconventional warfare increases, so does our need for tools and
equipment that will assist us in preventing, detecting, and operating
within an unconventional chemical or biological environment.
Of great importance is the research and development, testing and
evaluation of initial patient decontamination equipment. These tools
are being developed now and will greatly aid our medics by allowing
them to perform their life-saving activities while protecting both
provider and patient from the contaminated environment.
Once biological, chemical, or radiological weapons are detected,
the Air Force medics will need NBC Casualty Treatment Capabilities
(ventilators, facility and personal protective equipment, etc.). This
equipment currently exists, but we require more to ensure a full
spectrum protection of our fielded medics and the patients for whom
they will provide care.
Disease surveillance programs are critical to early identification
of disease trends and appropriate responses. This includes both Weapons
of Mass Destruction (WMD) detection units and the software programs
capable of aggregating their data and providing meaningful information
to commanders and medics about potential epidemics or WMD attacks.
Another critical component to any casualty treatment plan is
oxygen, specifically the ability to generate oxygen for treatment in a
deployed environment. The Air Force Medical Service requires Deployable
Oxygen Systems (DOS) that can be inserted into its modular treatment
facilities in austere environments.
Finally, although TRAC\2\ES performs successfully to provide us
visibility of our patients as they are transferred in virtually any
aircraft, that visibility becomes much more difficult once the patient
enters the receiving medical facility. As of yet, there is no
TRAC\2\ES-like system that track the patient's discharge or transfer to
other locations. The entire Department of Defense health care system
would benefit from a program that would provide overarching patient
location visibility in both the sky and on the ground.
T-NEX--NEXT GENERATION OF TRICARE CONTRACTS
Question. The next generation TRICARE contracts will replace the
seven current managed care support contracts with three contracts. This
consolidation is intended to improve portability and reduce the
administrative costs of negotiating change orders and providing
government oversight across seven contracts.
The award date for these contracts has slipped from the scheduled
date in July of 2003. Since the timeline for awarding the contracts has
slipped, what is the expected start date for the delivery of T-Nex?
Answer. The overall schedule for the suite of T-Nex solicitations
has not been changed although some award dates may be delayed if
proposals require more extensive review. The TRICARE Mail Order
Pharmacy Contract was awarded, and performance began on March 1, 2003.
The TRICARE Retiree Dental Contract was also awarded and performance on
this contract began on May 1, 2003. Proposals have been received for
both the TRICARE Healthcare and Administration Managed Care Support and
the TRICARE Dual-Eligible Fiscal Intermediary contracts, and the
evaluation process for both of these is ongoing. Requests for Proposal
have been issued for the TRICARE Retail Pharmacy and National Quality
Monitoring contracts, and those proposals are due June 11 and June 3,
respectively.
Procurement sensitivity rules prohibit disclosure of any specific
information or details about the ongoing evaluation of proposals.
However, I can tell you that the evaluations are ongoing. No decision
has been made to alter the implementation schedule for any of the
contracts.
Question. What planning is taking place to help ensure that when
the contracts are entered into there will be a seamless transition for
beneficiaries?
Answer. No transition of this magnitude is easy. A customer-focused
perspective in execution is central to making this as seamless as
possible. We have already transitioned the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy
contract with success. The TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan contract was
also awarded without protest and now is in its first month of operation
without issues. With regard to our managed care contracts, going from
seven contracts to three will simplify administration, but more
importantly better serve our beneficiaries with incentivized
performance standards, greater uniformity of service, alleviation of
portability issues, and simplified business processes.
I have instituted a solid oversight structure (see attachment), and
appointed a senior executive to spearhead this transition and supervise
all aspects of the procurement, including the implementation of the new
regional governance structure. This operational approach and structure
requires my direct involvement through the Transition Leadership
Council made up of the Surgeons General, the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Health Affairs Deputy
Assistant Secretaries of Defense. This body is supported by a TRICARE
Transition Executive Management Team which is chaired by TMA's Chief
Operating Officer.
An area of detailed focus right now is access to care and all
business processes that will impact access including: networks,
provider satisfaction, appointing and scheduling, Military Treatment
Facility (MTF) optimization, and local support for MTF commanders. We
are optimistic that robust networks can be maintained. On all customer
service fronts, my staff and other participants are poised to execute a
smooth transition immediately following contract award. Regular
meetings are underway to measure our progress and formulate sound
decisions on any problematic issues. A contract transition orientation
conference is planned for June 2003 to fully engage government
participants in all aspects of the transition process.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Question. Are beneficiaries experiencing any change in quality of
care due to DOD's inability to enter into new long-term managed care
agreements?
Answer. The evaluation of contractor proposals is now underway and
will culminate in the awarding of three new Health Care and
Administration regional contracts. A planned 10-month minimum
transition period will precede start of health care delivery.
Surveillance for the delivery of services of outgoing contractors
during the transition period will remain focused to avoid any
deterioration in customer service standards. Current contracts have
been extended beyond original termination dates to ensure there is no
adverse impact on the beneficiary or quality of care.
Any signs of negative shifts in quality during this transition
period will be quickly recognized and dealt with on a priority basis.
Our proactive posture is expected to result in a near-seamless
transition to next generation contracts.
Additionally, in T-Nex contracts, industry best business practices
are fully expected to emerge through the competitive process. Customer
service protocols will be favorably impacted by outcome-based
requirements and accompanying performance standards. Additionally, web-
based service applications will also improve business processes and the
way customers can access information. This is all very exciting and
bodes well for our customers in the new contracts.
Question. Under T-Nex, what services currently provided by the
TRICARE contractors will shift to the direct care system and what are
the costs associated with this shift in services?
Answer. Appointing, Resource Sharing, Health Care Information Line,
Health Evaluation & Assessment of Risk (HEAR), Utilization Management,
and Transcription services will transition from the Managed Care
Support Contracts to Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) under T-Nex.
The Services have been tasked to provide requirements in each of
these areas, cost estimates, and transition timelines. We have worked
with the Services to develop a joint approach to determine local
support contract methodology.
Transition of Local Support Contract services must be completed not
later than the start of health care under T-Nex in each region.
Based on known contract and staffing lag times, funding is required
six months prior to the start of health care delivery to ensure smooth
and timely stand-up of new services. At this stage, cost estimates are
varied and of limited value until the requirement is validated and
fully known. Initial rough estimates are in the hundreds of millions of
dollars. The funding source for Local Support will come from funds
committed to the current Military Health System (MHS) Managed Care
Support contracts. Those funds were programmed based on existing
purchased care contracts that included these services. Because it is
understood that these funds may not cover the entire spectrum of Local
Support contracts, the Medical Services have prioritized these services
across the MHS into three tiers based on impact and need. Initial costs
may ultimately include some investment in telephone and appointing
infrastructure, thus driving a significant increase in front end costs.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Question. Personnel shortfalls still exist in a number of critical
medical specialties throughout the Services. The Navy has reports
shortfall in Anesthesiology, General Surgery, Radiology, and Pathology,
and has stated the civilian-military pay gap is their greatest obstacle
in filling these high demand specialties. Recruiting and retaining
dentist appears to be a challenge for all the services.
To what extent have Critical Skills Retention Bonuses or other
incentives been successful in helping to retain medical personnel?
Answer. Critical Skills Retention Bonuses (CSRB) helped retain
several hundred medical specialists, but may have had a greater impact
if it were to have been executed in its original form, as a two-year
program. This additional impact may have provided each Service with a
bridge to the long-term initiative of optimizing Special Pay
incentives, currently a goal for fiscal year 2005. Just over 850
physicians, dentists, and nurses in critical specialties accepted the
CSRB despite its one-year design. The CSRB became more of a good faith
gesture to show that we are making plans for the future, acknowledging
to those in the field that special pay increases are necessary if we
value the professions and the investment that the Air Force has made by
training highly specialized personnel.
We have a success story with the incentives that were implemented
to improve recruitment and retention of Pharmacists. We are interested
in repeating this success for physicians, dentists, and nurses if we
are allowed to optimize new special pay authority from the Fiscal Year
2003 National Defense Authorization Act. The Pharmacy accession bonus
increase to $30,000 in fiscal year 2002 and especially the Pharmacy
Officer Special Pay (implemented in fiscal year 2002) has greatly
improved recruiting and retention of pharmacists to the point that we
will reach our targeted endstrength in fiscal year 2003. Obtaining
appropriation for optimizing Special Pays by fiscal year 2005 is a
priority.
Lastly, we have seen short-term success in applying the Health
Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP) and hope to continue using
it over the next several years. We currently offer HPLRP for both
recruiting (accession) and retention, and the program has been quite
successful in buying-down debt in our critically manned specialties
within Biomedical Sciences Corps, Dental Corps, and Nurses Corps with
133, 74, and 241 HPLRP contracts signed respectively in fiscal year
2002. The HPLRP not only improves quality of life for personnel by
reducing their debt, it benefits the Service by adding a minimum of
two-year active duty commitment for one-year of loan repayment amount
of up to $26,000. (Note: The recipient of HPLRP has a two year minimum
active duty obligation attached to the first year of loan repayment and
for second, third and fourth year of loan repayment it is a one for one
active duty obligation payback). The goal is to enable officers to
remain serving and not be overburdened with financial commitments
(debt). For all Corps it is seen as a good faith gesture and carries
active duty obligation payback. For the Medical Corps (MC) and Dental
Corps (DC) and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) program it
is a bridge to the long-term optimization of the Health Professions
Scholarship Program (increased quotas for MC, DC and CRNAs. It is also
a bridge to implementing the discretionary pay increases authorized by
the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act (mentioned).
Funding of HPLRP is necessary beyond fiscal year 2005 to offer the
accession incentive necessary to recruit the critical Nurse Corps and
Biomedical Sciences Corps specialties. We are hoping to realize
additional success especially with the new allowance for Health
Profession Scholarship Program and Financial Assistance Program
recipients to apply for HPLRP. MC and DC officers will then have better
access to the benefits of this program. The Air Force has committed
funding through fiscal year 2005 at $12 million per year (since fiscal
year 2002). This commitment is a testament to our belief that HPLRP
should remain a tool for both recruiting and retention in the future.
Question. What else needs to be done to maximize retention of
medical personnel?
Answer. I perceive a three-fold approach to improving retention of
medical personnel: (1) Increasing incentives such as special pays,
bonuses, and loan repayment is a key component. The special pays and
health professions scholarship programs are two high-impact tools used
to recruit and retain medical professionals. Our collective effort to
increase the authorizations for these tools under the National Defense
Authorization Act 2003 was a true victory, but our commitment will be
proven when we provide funding to see these programs through execution.
Only then will our people see the benefits of our efforts. (2) Another
component linked to improving medical officer retention is continued
support for optimizing the medical officer promotion policy. The policy
should be enhanced to ensure our clinical staff members are provided
equitable opportunity for advancement. (3) Another tool to maximize the
retention of our medical personnel is improving the clinical practice
environment. This is accomplished by investing in our medical
infrastructure--our facilities--and optimizing our support staff. Such
optimization funding improves workplace support, enhances workflow, and
contributes to both provider and patient satisfaction.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
DOD/VA HEALTHCARE RESOURCE SHARING
Question. Combining the resources of the Veterans' Administration
and the Department of Defense to address health care needs of active
duty personnel and our veterans is a concept that I am proud to say I
championed a number of years ago. That initial effort combined brought
together the resources of the VA and AF to provide care for the
military at Kirtland Air Force Base and the city of Albuquerque's
sizable veteran population. To date, the results have been very good.
General Taylor, can you provide an update on the progress of the
joint venture concept in general, and between DOD and VA at the
Albuquerque VA hospital specifically?
Answer. The Air Force Medical Service continues to partner with the
Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) in a number of locations. Examples
include joint ventures at Elmendorf AFB, AK; Nellis AFB, NV; Travis
AFB, CA; and Kirtland AFB, in Albuquerque, NM.
The Albuquerque joint venture in particular has demonstrated the
benefits of joint venture relationships. In fiscal year 2002, the VA
and Kirtland AFB medical group exchanged $6.5 million in health care
resources. This facilitated 8,100 outpatient referrals, 3,400 emergency
department visits, and 14,000 ancillary procedures. If the two partners
had purchased the services from local providers--as they would have
before the joint venture--it would have cost an additional $1.32
million. In fiscal year 2003, the joint venture program will build upon
its success and expects to execute $6.7 million of sharing.
Question. What is the status of their agreement to provide
professional VA psychologist oversight to our Air Force mental health
services in Albuquerque?
Answer. The Veteran's Administration and Kirtland Air Force Base
have been extremely successful in this endeavor. The agreement has been
in place since 2001 and provides supervision to Air Force psychology
residency graduates. This supervision is required as 49 of the 50
states require at least one year of post-doctoral supervision. Without
this agreement, the Air Force would be forced to hire additional
psychologists. The agreement with the Veteran's Administration is a
vital and successful part of the Air Force mental health mission at
Kirtland.
Question. Also, has there been progress in reducing the veterans'
colonoscopy procedures backlog?
Answer. Over the past year, the Kirtland Air Force Base medical
facility has provided both operating room space and support personnel
in assisting the VA in completing colonoscopies on veterans. This is
another example of the cooperative efforts ongoing between Kirtland and
the VA, and allowed the Air Force to perform about 40 VA colonoscopies
a month. However, although I do not know how exactly how many
procedures are ``backlogged,'' I do know that demand is still outpacing
supply.
Recent deployments have required we cease sharing activities for
colonoscopies. As most of the combat activity appears to be behind us
now, our facility in Albuquerque will soon be able to turn its
attention once again toward the joint venture and determine how it can
best assist the VA with this and other issues.
JESSE SPIRI MILITARY MEDICAL COVERAGE ACT
Question. In 2001, a young Marine Corps 2nd Lieutenant from New
Mexico lost his courageous battle with cancer. Jesse Spiri had just
graduated from Western New Mexico University and was awaiting basic
officer training when he learned of his illness.
However, because his commission had triggered his military status
to that of ``inactive reservist,'' Jesse was not fully covered by
TRICARE. As a result, he was left unable to afford the kind special
treatment he needed.
I believe that it is time to close this dangerous loophole. That is
why I intend to offer a bill entitled the ``Jesse Spiri Military
Medical Coverage Act.'' This bill will ensure that those military
officers who have received a commission and are awaiting ``active
duty'' status will have access to proper medical insurance.
Would you agree that this type of loophole is extremely dangerous
for those who, like Jesse, suffer with a dread disease?
Answer. Lieutenant Spiri's tragedy with cancer is a loss not only
to his family, but also to our country that he spent years preparing to
serve. This is indeed a tragic case; however, limiting TRICARE coverage
legislation to commissioned inactive reservists would establish an
inequity with over 40,000 annual Air Force delayed enlistees that have
also pledged themselves to our country. Additionally, all new recruits
and officers are counseled that they must maintain their private health
insurance until they enter active duty to ensure there are no gaps in
medical coverage.
Question. And do you agree that our military health care system
should close this loophole, and can do so very cost effectively (given
the relatively low number of officers it would affect)?
Answer. To understand the scope of the issue, my staff has done
some preliminary research on the cost of the change in legislation.
The studied group includes Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC)
and other commissioning sources where there is a delay from
commissioning to active duty and our delayed enlistment programs. Air
Force ROTC commissions approximately 2,500 lieutenants annually, while
our direct commissioning program for the Judge Advocate Corps,
Chaplains and Medical professions bring in about 1,500 officers
annually. The delayed entry program for enlistees ensures our military
training schools have a steady flow of students and provides new
recruits with increased choice of available career fields. We estimate
40,000 enlisted enlistees would be affected.
Your proposed benefit change will affect each source differently
due to the commissioning/enlistment dates of the various programs.
These delays may be a month to multiple years based on approved delays
(i.e. educational delay). For the purposes of this analysis, we used an
estimate that the average wait is two months prior to active duty.
Our 2003 evaluation of military compensation and benefits compared
to the civilian sector equates our healthcare benefit to a monthly
value of $279.35 per individual and $758.36 family rate respectively.
Our estimate of 3,000 inactive reserve officers would potentially cost
$1.6 million annually, while the delayed enlistment program would
require an additional $22.3 million bringing the total annual cost for
just the Air Force to about $24 million.
The impact of this legislation on our Sister Services must also be
analyzed in order to truly appreciate the total cost and provide an
informed recommendation.
MILITARY FAMILY ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE ACT
Question. I think everyone here is familiar with the adage that we
recruit the soldier, but we retain the family. That means taking care
of our military families and giving them a good standard of living.
I have introduced a bill that would provide a benefit to military
families seeking dental care, but who must travel great distances to
receive it. Specifically, my bill, the ``Military Family Access to
Dental Care Act'' (S. 336) would provide a travel reimbursement to
military families in need of certain specialized dental care but who
are required to travel over 100 miles to see a specialist.
Often, families at rural bases like Cannon Air Force Base in
Clovis, NM meet with financial hardship if more than one extended trip
is required. This bill reimburses them for that travel and is a small
way of helping our military families.
Given that current law provides a travel reimbursement for military
families who must travel more than 100 miles for specialty medical
care, do you believe it is important to incorporate specialty dental
care within this benefit?
Answer. Yes, although the proposed legislation (S. 336), as
written, does not enhance the current travel benefit because travel
reimbursement is already provided when a Primary Care Manager refers a
TRICARE Prime enrollee for covered dental adjunctive care under 10 USC
1074i.
Question. Do you think this benefit would improve the standard of
living of our military families?
Answer. Yes, travel reimbursements do enhance beneficiary quality
of life. Such benefits become especially important to beneficiaries in
rural or remote areas since their travel costs can be expensive if they
are referred to multiple treatment appointments for a dental condition.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
PATIENT PRIVACY (TRICARE)
Question. I would like to get your comments about several concerns
and questions I have related to the December 14, 2002 break-in of the
offices of TriWest, a TRICARE contractor. I am told that TriWest did
not notify the Department of Defense of the break-in and theft of
personnel information of over 500,000 TRICARE beneficiaries, for almost
a week after the event. Apparently, TriWest didn't even have basic
security equipment--guards, locks, cameras--and as a result, this
incident amounts to the biggest identity theft in U.S. history. Is this
information true?
Answer. The physical break-in of the locked TriWest Healthcare
Alliance corporate offices and theft of computer equipment occurred on
Saturday, December 14, 2002. On Monday, December 16, 2002, the break-in
and theft was discovered, authorities contacted, and TRICARE Management
Activity (TMA) operations staff were advised. Back-up tapes were run on
Tuesday, December 17, 2002, (which took 30 hours), and on Friday,
December 20, 2002, TMA/HA leadership was notified of the beneficiary
information theft. TriWest at that time had available from their back-
up tapes beneficiary information including names, addresses, phone
numbers, Social Security Numbers, some claims information with relevant
procedure codes, and personal credit card information on 23
individuals.
To date, the Army Medical Department has not received notification
of a single verified case of identity theft related to TriWest stolen
computer equipment.
Question. Has the Department of Defense finished its investigation
of this case and have sanctions been levied against TriWest or punitive
actions against TRICARE officials?
Answer. The criminal investigation is being conducted by the
Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), in coordination with other federal and local law
enforcement agencies.
To date, no sanctions have been levied upon or punitive actions
taken against TriWest or TRICARE officials. The investigation is
ongoing, and its findings are pending.
Sensitive information pertaining to TRICARE beneficiaries is
maintained by TRICARE contractors subject to the Privacy Act of 1974,
as implemented by the DOD Privacy Program (DOD 5400.11-R). The Act
provides criminal penalties for any contractor or contractor employee
who willfully discloses such protected information, in any manner, to
any person or agency not entitled to receive the information. The Act
also provides for civil penalties against DOD if it is determined that
the Department (or contractor) intentionally or willfully failed to
comply with the Privacy Act.
Question. Would you please share what you can about the lessons
learned as a result of this incident and the steps the Department and
the TRICARE organization and its contractors are taking to guarantee
beneficiary privacy?
Answer. As a result of close evaluation of our physical and
information security we found the following:
--a. Backup tapes not protected. For example, tapes left on the top
of servers, or left lying out in the open.
--b. A general lack of proper security in areas where servers reside.
In particular, Defense Blood Standard System and Pharmacy
servers were not being properly protected.
--c. Most sites had excellent password management policies and
guidelines in place, but they were not being followed.
--d. In general, there were proper locks on doors, but in several
cases, not being properly used. Many doors that should have
been locked after hours were found open which allowed entry to
areas where patient information is kept. Most items not secure
were portable medical devices containing patient medical
information and medical records.
--e. In many cases contingency plans for disaster recovery were
lacking or out-of-date.
--f. Lost hardware not reported through official channels.
--g. Hardware being turned in without data being wiped from hard
drives.
--h. Concerning recent physical security self-assessments, a second
look found almost 60 percent of local assessments were
inaccurate or inexact.
--i. As a result of the TriWest issues all Army medical activities
participated in a Health Affairs directed self-assessment of
local physical security practices. Mitigation plans for all
deficiencies are due on 16 May 2003.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
Question. Healthcare, pay, and housing are the greatest Quality of
Life issues for our troops and their families. With the numbers of
health care staff deployed from your Military Treatment Facilities,
what strategies did you use to effectively plan and care for
beneficiaries back home?
Answer. The Air Force Medical Service, our sister Services, TRICARE
Management Activity, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs collaborated to develop a Regional
Contingency Response Plan to be executed by each Lead Agent to ensure
continued beneficiary care during the current deployments.
Specifically, each Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) and Managed
Care Support Contractor (MCSC) were tasked to analyze their capacity
and that of the local civilian network with attention paid to possible
mobilized assets deployed over a specific period of time.
Working together, MCSCs and MTFs identified potential gaps in
beneficiary access that might be caused by the deployment of service
members. The MCSCs and MTFs then drafted a comprehensive communication
plan MTFs could use to educate beneficiaries of where and how medical
services could be accessed.
The uncertainty of the duration of the operations precluded a one-
for-one reserve backfill of forces to our MTFs. Specific guidance and
requirements to mobilize a Guard or Reserve medical backfill in our
MTFs was developed to guide MTFs and Air Force Major Commands.
To ensure continuity of care with our current beneficiaries and the
addition of activated Guard and Reserve members and their families, a
coordinated Health Affairs letter was disseminated to the field
directing our MTFs and Major Commands to prioritize and efficiently use
available resources of the direct care system and network system as
available. These resources consist of reallocation of internal staff,
Major Comman leveling manning assistance, expansion by resource sharing
and continued partnering with the Veterans Affairs.
Despite deployments, access to routine health care in the AFMS has
improved seven percent since August 2002. Currently, MTFs are able to
provide routine access to health care (within seven days) 83 percent of
the time. MTF are able to provide access to acute care (within 24
hours) 96 percent of the time.
Question. How are you able to address the needs of patients coming
in from the battlefields and is this affecting the care of
beneficiaries seeking regular care?
Answer. The operational success of our young women and men was not
only in our combat victories, but also in our delivery of care from the
battlefield through our joint evacuation responsibilities to our
theater hospitals. We were able to address the needs of patients coming
from the battlefield; one of the most successful was the use of our
aeromedical evacuation system. Using non-dedicated available aircraft,
aeromedical evacuation crews and our TRAC\2\ES regulating system
provided continuity of care and visibility of our patients from the
theater to our CONUS receiving facilities.
United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) revised the Concept of
Operations for patient distribution for treatment in DOD/TRICARE
facilities ensuring our casualties were closer to their unit's home
location and individuals support network. These facilities included the
direct care MTFs, TRICARE network partners including the VA and finally
the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) if needed.
Fortunately our casualties were limited and our Military Healthcare
System was able to support both missions of caring for patients
returning from the Theater of Operations and our regular non-
contingency beneficiaries without significant impact to access or
quality of care to either.
Question. What authority were you given to back-fill your vacancies
and are the funds sufficient to attain that goal?
Answer. The Air Force did not require the Air Reserve Component
(ARC) forces to backfill our medical facilities during Operation Iraqi
Freedom; however, if we had required backfill to sustain Graduate
Medical Education or to expand beds to receive war illness or injuries,
the policy providing for this activity was developed in concert with
both Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) (ASD/HA) and the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Manpower and Reserve Affairs (SAF/
MR) guidance.
Funding was readily available for backfills. Funds to support pay,
allowances, and per diem for mobilized personnel are reimbursable
funds. Had ARC forces been required, all associated costs would have
been charged to Emergency Special Program Coded (ESP Coded) fund which
was reimbursable to the Air Force Major Commands.
Question. What measurements were used in determining what the
Services were able to back-fill and how does that compare to current
requirements?
Answer. AF/SG backfill policy was developed in concert with both
ASD/HA and SAF/MR guidance. Backfill requests had to meet the following
specific criteria listed below. Before using members to backfill:
--Medical treatment facilities and headquarters certified all non-
mission essential deployed personnel had been returned to base
for mission support.
--Headquarters re-directed their own personnel who were not mission-
essential or working in their specialty to be moved to the unit
level to support mission essential requirements.
--Major Commands had to certify that their support requirement could
not be met through internal headquarters cross leveling.
--Efforts to support missions through Major Command-to-Major Command
headquarters cross leveling/sharing had been exhausted.
--Volunteers had to have been unsuccessfully sought for the position.
--The backfill request had to be in direct support of OPERATION NOBLE
EAGLE or OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.
--Before receiving backfills, the gaining unit had to prove that
their personnel in the requested specialty were working
extended duty hours and that their leave/TDYs had been
restricted.
--Services that would be provided by the requested specialty had to
be unavailable in local area TRICARE Support network.
--Services requested were not currently covered by Resource Sharing
Contracts and that ARC assistance was required only for minimum
time until a new contract could be approved and funded.
--Services provided by the requested backfill had to be unavailable
through VA partnering.
--If the member was involuntarily mobilized, his or her mobilization
must be for the shortest duration possible.
Comparison to current requirements is extremely difficult to answer
as all medical facilities have different situations. Some were not
heavily tasked with contingency responses and have little impact.
Others were heavily tasked and have significant numbers of mobilized
ARC dependents authorized care. Additionally these facilities have the
added weight of post deployment health assessments and follow-up care
for both returning active duty and ARC personnel.
RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT
Question. With increasing deployments in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom and the Global War on Terrorism, can you describe your overall
recruitment and retention status of the Medical Department in each of
your services? What specific corps or specialties are of most concern?
Answer. Recent operations have truly challenged the Services'
resources, but our people have responded with vigor and determination.
We have noticed little change in the recruitment of medical
professionals during recent operations and are on pace to meet or
exceed last year's recruiting averages. Retention has artificially
improved due to STOP LOSS policy (effective May 2, 2003 for the Air
Force) and programs such as Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB).
The specialties we were forced to STOP LOSS provided a summary of
our specific concerns (see Table 1). Note that on May 14, 2003, stop
loss specialties were released due to the winding down of Operation
Iraqi Freedom.
TABLE 1.--AIR FORCE SPECIALTIES UNDER STOP LOSS (MAY 2, 2003)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specialty AFSC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officer Personnel:
BIOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER................ 43EX
PUBLIC HEALTH............................ 43HX
BIOMEDICAL LABORATORY.................... 43TX
EMERGENCY SERVICES PHYSICIAN............. 44EX
INTERNIST................................ 44MX
ANESTHESIOLOGIST......................... 45AX
ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON....................... 45BX
SURGEON.................................. 45SX
AEROSPACE MEDICINE SPECIALIST............ 48AX
GENERAL MEDICAL OFFICER.................. 48GX
RESIDENCY TRAINED FLIGHT SURGEON......... 48RX
FLIGHT NURSE............................. 46FX
NURSE ANESTHETIST........................ 46MX
CRITICAL CARE NURSE...................... 46NXE
OPERATING ROOM NURSE..................... 46SX
Enlisted Personnel:
MEDICAL MATERIAL......................... 4A1XX
BIOMEDICAL EQUIPMENT..................... 4A2XX
BIOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING............. 4B0XX
PUBLIC HEALTH............................ 4E0XX
CARDIOPULMONARY LABORATORY............... 4H0XX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Did the Critical Skills Retention Bonus given for this
year help these specialties? In light of shortages and the disparity
between military and civilian salaries, how have you planned for
additional retention bonuses in future years?
Answer. Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) helped retain
several hundred medical specialists, but may have had a greater impact
if it was executed in its original form, as a two-year program. This
additional impact may have provided each Service with a bridge to the
long-term initiative of optimizing Special Pay incentives, currently a
goal for fiscal year 2005. Just over 850 physicians, dentists, and
nurses in critical specialties accepted the CSRB despite the one-year
design. The CSRB became more of a good faith gesture to show that we
are making plans for the future, acknowledging to those in the field
that special pay increases are necessary if we value the professions
and the investment that the Air Force has made by training highly
specialized personnel.
We are currently drafting the fiscal year 2004 Special Pay Plan to
address critically manned specialties with application of minimum
increases allowed within our current projected allocation.
Question. Are there recruitment and retention issues within certain
specialties or corps? If so, what are your recommendations to address
this in the future?
Answer. We do have several challenges in maintaining our required
number of medical personnel to perform our mission optimally. I believe
in a three-fold approach to improving retention of medical personnel.
(1) Increasing incentives such as special pays, bonuses, loan repayment
and health professions scholarship programs. Our collective effort to
increase the authorities under the National Defense Authorization Act
2003 was a true victory, but our commitment will be proven as we
provide funding to see these programs through execution. Only then will
our people see the benefits of our efforts. (2) Improving the clinical
practice environment by investing in our medical infrastructure and
optimizing support staff. (3) A final component linked to improving
medical officer retention is continued support for optimizing medical
officer promotion policies to ensure our clinical staffs are provided
equitable opportunity for advancement.
Question. Have incentive and special pays helped with specific
corps or specialties?
Answer. The final results of our efforts to increase incentive and
special pays are not yet available, but we have witnessed a noticeable
impact from increasing our accession and retention bonuses as well as
offering Health Professions Loan Repayment. In fiscal year 2002, 241
nurses signed Health Professions Loan Repayment Program contracts and
extended their individual service commitments by two years. Likewise,
we have seen positive trends in our Optometry and Pharmacy specialties
due to increased accession and retention incentives. We have not
realized as much improvement in our physician and dental communities as
the military-civilian pay gap is much wider. However, we are highly
committed to optimizing our health professions officer special pay
program.
Special pays are targeted at professional staff (physicians,
dentists, nurse anesthetists, and several allied health professionals),
and are designed to improve both recruiting and retention, as well as
recognize the market value of these highly trained officers. The
National Defense Authorization Act 2003 provided significant increases
in the authorities to fund special pays and the three Services are in
the process of developing their fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005
special pay plans with ASD/HA. We plan to increase several
discretionary special pays for the various specialties that are
difficult to recruit and retain. Coupled with improved opportunity to
train medical professionals under Health Professions Scholarship
Program, increasing these pays will help improve the staffing shortages
we've experienced in recent years. We would appreciate your continued
support in these efforts.
Question. How does the fiscal year 2004 budget request address your
recruitment and retention goals?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes three items
that have significant impact on recruiting and retention:
Special Pays.--The fiscal year 2004 Special Pays Plan will serve as
a bridge to better optimization of special pays in fiscal year 2005. We
are currently drafting the fiscal year 2004 Special Pay Plan to
addresses critically manned specialties with application of minimum
increases allowed within our current projected allocation.
Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP).--The Air Force
has committed funding through fiscal year 2005 at $12 million per year
(since fiscal year 2002). This commitment is a testament to our belief
that HPLRP should remain a tool for both recruiting and retention in
the future. HPLRP not only improves quality of life for personnel by
reducing their debt and making it more affordable to remain in the
military, but adds a minimum two-year active duty commitment for a one-
year loan repayment amount of up to $26,000. (Note: The recipient of
HPLRP has a two-year minimum active duty obligation attached to the
first year of loan repayment while the second, third and fourth year of
loan repayment has a one-for-one active duty obligation payback). The
goal is to enable officers to remain serving and not be overburdened
with financial commitments (debt).
Health Professions Scholarship Program/Financial Assistance Program
(HPSP/FAP).--For fiscal year 2004, Health Professions Scholarship
Program and Financial Assistance Program will continue to be one of the
best recruiting tools for physicians and dentists. Even though we would
like to see an increase in HPSP/FAP allocations in fiscal year 2004,
this will not be possible because the budget has been locked for that
fiscal year. With the rising costs of medical and dental schools, we
will actually have fewer allocations in fiscal year 2003 than we had in
fiscal year 2002. We hope to increase allocations from 1300 to 2000
between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2009.
FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION
Question. As a result of concerns discovered after the Gulf War,
the Department created a Force Health Protection system designed to
properly monitor and treat our military personnel. What aspects of the
Departments' Force Health Protection system have been implemented to
date? What are the differences between the system during the Gulf War,
Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Noble Eagle?
Answer. The Department places the highest priority on protecting
the health of military personnel throughout their military careers and
beyond. Deployments and other military operations often involve unique
environments that must be addressed by force health protection
procedures. We use lessons learned from each military operation to
improve our force health protection program.
Requirements to assess health before, during and after deployments
and to assess, monitor and mitigate environmental hazards predate
OPERATION DESERT STORM. However, the Department has implemented a
number of significant changes since the Gulf War to further inculcate
and improve these procedures. In 1997, deployment health surveillance
policy was released directing pre and post-deployment health
assessments and the collection of pre-deployment serum samples. If
concerns or medical problems are identified, a comprehensive evaluation
by a provider is required. Data from health assessments and serum
samples are stored in a central DOD repository. Health assessments and
records of medical evaluations are placed in the member's permanent
medical record.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff released an updated
deployment health surveillance policy in February 2002. The policy
provides more detailed guidance on required health assessments and
required prevention countermeasures for deploying personnel. It also
greatly enhances the requirements for environmental assessments and
implements operational risk management processes for the theater of
operations. From the time the Department standardized the requirements
for pre and post deployment health assessments, the Air Force has
submitted more that 420,000 pre and post deployment assessments to the
DOD repository.
After the Gulf War, the Air Force implemented a deployed electronic
medical record, called GEMS (Global Expeditionary Medical System), to
record clinical care provided in theater. The Air Force implemented an
immunization tracking and management system that allows visibility of
immunization records and requirements both at home and in theater. The
Air Force also has had an ongoing quality assurance program to assess
all Active Duty and Air Reserve Component installations for compliance
with deployment health surveillance requirements.
Since the beginning of OPERATIONS ENDURING FREEDOM and NOBLE EAGLE,
the Department has accelerated efforts to automate the collection of
deployment heath surveillance information. OSD is developing a theater
medical record system and is now testing parts of a comprehensive
theater information management program. Pending implementation of these
OSD systems, the Air Force has continued to improve GEMS so it now
captures public health and environmental/occupational surveillance
information as well as electronically forwards disease and non-battle
injury data to headquarters. To date, more than 73,000 theater medical
encounters are stored in GEMS.
Furthermore, the Department has implemented a policy for checking,
at every patient visit, whether or not a deployment-related health
concern exists. The Department implemented a clinical practice
guideline, developed by Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense, to
ensure military members receive orderly, standardized evaluations and
treatments for deployment-related conditions.
Despite the myriad improvements implemented since the Gulf War, the
onset of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM illuminated the need for further
enhancements to the Department's post-deployment health assessment
requirements. Just released OSD policy enhances post-deployment health
assessment procedures by requiring that each military member returning
from deployment have a blood sample sent to the DOD repository and
receive an assessment by a provider to address potential health
problems, environmental exposures and mental health issues. The policy
also requires more detailed quality assurance programs to validate,
within 30 days, that returning personnel have completed all deployment
health assessment requirements and that all information is in permanent
medical records, and to report on compliance.
OPTIMIZATION
Question. Congress initiated optimization funds to provide
flexibility to the Surgeons General to invest in additional
capabilities and technologies that would also result in future savings.
It is my understanding that a portion of these funds are being withheld
from the Services. Can you please tell the Committee how much
Optimization funding is being withheld from your service, what are the
plans for distributing the funds, and why funds since fiscal year 2001
are being withheld?
Answer. No optimization funds are being withheld from the Air Force
Medical Service. Optimization funds have been released relatively
quickly upon request.
Question. How have you benefited from optimization funds? What
projects are on hold because OSD has not released funding?
Answer. I view optimization funding as critical to patient care and
staff retention. Optimization funds have enabled the Air Force Medical
Service to institute loan repayments for selected health professions,
with anticipated improvement in recruitment and retention in critical
medical and dental specialties; Automate several pharmacies, thereby
improving productivity and recapture of pharmacy workload from the
private sector; Improve the efficiency of the Heating, Ventilation and
Air Conditioning system at Nellis AFB; Hire coders at Medical Treatment
Facilities to improve data for billing, population health and
accounting; Contract with industry leading business consultants to
identify best practices and industry benchmarks to improve Air Force
Medical Service business processes; Upgrade Medical Treatment Facility
telephony for first time in years for many Medical Treatment
Facilities; Contract for providers/staff to address mission critical
shortages in Active Duty staffing; Implement a Specialty Care
Optimization Pilot resourcing strategy to validate new manpower
standards, metrics, and training to improve readiness and clinical
currency and increase recapture from network; Perform advanced testing
of a Light-weight Epidemiology Detection System; Accelerate deployment
of Tele-Radiology capabilities at bases without Active Duty radiology
support; Fast-track deployment of counter-chemical warfare training;
Accelerate refractive surgery pilot to identify the best technology to
address flight crew refractive deficiencies; Accelerate implementation
of Long View resourcing strategy Air Force wide for general surgery,
orthopedics, ENT, Ophthalmology, and Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB/GYN)
to improve expeditionary and clinical currency and increase recapture
from private sector to decrease overall DOD cost of healthcare.
No optimization projects are on hold because OSD has not released
funding.
Question. What are the projected projects using the proposed $90
million in the fiscal year 2004 budget request?
Answer. The Air Force Medical Service intends to use its portion of
fiscal year 2004 optimization dollars for Health Professions Loan
Repayments ($12 million) and Long View Execution ($18 million). The
Long View is our strategy for achieving the optimal mix of assigned and
contracted manpower to Medical Treatment Facilities in such a way as to
maximize expeditionary medical capability, clinical currency and cost
effectiveness.
______
Questions Submitted to Brigadier General William T. Bester
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Question. Recruitment within the services for all the Nurse Corps
is better than the civilian market. There have been several tools to
help with the recruitment effort including the accession bonus of
$5,000 for Nurses joining the services. The greatest retention tool for
all services has been the opportunity for advanced out-service
education for a masters or doctorate degree. Other issues that have
also positively affected retention are: challenging assignments, more
leadership responsibility, and greater promotion opportunities. Of the
many tools for recruiting and retention, which tools have been most
successful?
Answer. We believe that it is vital to have a combination of
recruiting and retention tools in order to maintain a successful
manning posture. All the tools provided allow us to retain the
flexibility to address regional differences in the civilian recruiting
market as well as address the retention needs of our officers currently
on active duty. It is imperative that we proactively anticipate the
continued civilian competition and must have the money to increase our
accession bonuses plus our retention bonuses for our critical
specialties such as nursing anesthesia. We also anticipate strong
results for both recruiting and retention once we implement the Health
Professions Loan Repayment Program. Our current promotion percentages
are strong in all ranks except for Colonel. We are taking the
appropriate actions to resolve some of the systemic personnel issues
that have stalled the promotion to Colonel in the past with the intent
to enlarge the promotion rate in the future.
Question. Do you think a Loan Repayment Program would be helpful to
recruit more nurses?
Answer. Absolutely. The Health Professions Loan Repayment Program
is absolutely essential to our efforts to remain competitive with the
recruitment activities currently in place by our civilian counterparts.
In fact, we plan to execute the Health Profession Loan Repayment
Program through fiscal year 2005 with monies we obtained through a
Defense Health Program (DHP) Venture Capital Initiative. We plan to
program monies for fiscal year 2006 to sustain this program in the
future.
WAR'S EFFECT ON THE NURSE CORPS PLAN
Question. The number one retention tool is the opportunity for
advanced education. The war could negatively affect the number of
Nurses that will be available to begin out-service education
opportunities in fiscal year 2004, thereby mitigating the effectiveness
of this important retention tool. How has the war in Iraq and
deployments of personnel to the Middle East affected your overall out-
service education plan for this year and next?
Answer. We are taking all measures possible to ensure that all Army
Nurse Corps officers scheduled to attend an out-service education
program this year and next year are redeployed in the appropriate
amount of time to begin their education program. At this time, we do
not anticipate any education losses due to deployment.
Question. For instance will you have to send fewer nurses to school
for advanced degrees this year because of the numbers deployed?
Answer. At this point, we are taking all measures to ensure that
officers scheduled to attend out-service education in fiscal year 2004
are redeployed in a timely manner. If redeployment for some or all of
the officers is delayed for reasons out of our control, it could result
in a decrease in the number of officers attending out-service education
and would negatively affect our overall numbers.
Question. How will the continued deployments affect you staffing
plans for the Medical Treatment Facilities?
Answer. To ensure we have had adequate numbers and mix of
providers, we have taken the following measures to ensure acceptable
staffing plans. We have initiated regional cross leveling of staff to
ensure appropriate distribution of staff to provide care and meet
patient demand and used internal management decisions by commanders
such as decreasing the number of beds available for care, and in some
instances, decreasing the number of surgical cases performed. In
addition, we have combined patient care units, used creative scheduling
to ensure appropriate staffing coverage, increased the use of contract
nurses, requested and received reserve backfill up to the 50 percent
authorized fill rate and invoked the local commander's consideration to
send patients to the TRICARE network for care as needed. We will
continue to use all appropriate staffing management tools to ensure
that we meet the care needs of our beneficiary population.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Question. In light of a national nursing shortage, please describe
the status of your recruitment and retention efforts in the Nurse Corps
for each of your services?
Answer. We are approximately 230 Active Duty nurses below our
budgeted end strength of 3,381. We are proceeding with the following
initiatives to improve accessions and maintain a steady state retention
posture. We are developing an implementation plan with the Triservice
Recruitment and Retention Workgroup to obtain the funding to support an
incremental increase in the accession bonus starting in fiscal year
2005. It is imperative that we proactively anticipate the continued
civilian competition and must have the resources necessary to increase
our accession bonuses plus our retention bonuses for our critical
specialties such as nursing anesthesia. Funds for HPLRP are available
now (fiscal year 2003) until fiscal year 2005 and we plan to POM funds
beginning in fiscal year 2006. We are also exploring the feasibility of
reinstituting the Army Nurse Candidate Program as funding permits and
have expanded the number of slots available for the Army Enlisted
Commissioning Program from 50 to 85 per year. We will continue to send
approximately 100 Army Nurse Corps officers to out-service schooling
each year and will continue to provide specialty care courses in all
our specialty areas. We will continue to provide a wide variety of
clinical and work experiences in both the inpatient and ambulatory care
settings as well as in the field setting, both in the United States and
overseas. We feel strongly that providing leadership opportunities
early in the officer's career is crucial in preparing officers for
positions with greater scope of responsibility. We strongly promote
collegiality, camaraderie, and teamwork and develop these concepts
initially in our entry-level officer basic course and reinforce these
concepts throughout the officer's career. We continue to support career
progression, educational opportunities, and continuing education for
all our officers. Finally, we are proud of our excellent promotion
opportunities as well as the military benefit package that all soldiers
and their families are entitled.
MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
Question. With the numbers of nurses and medics/corpsmen deployed
from your facilities, how have you ensured the delivery of safe patient
care at the military medical facilities here at home?
Answer. To ensure we have had adequate numbers and mix of
providers, we have taken the following measures to ensure acceptable
staffing plans. We have initiated regional cross leveling of staff to
ensure appropriate distribution of staff to provide care and meet
patient demand and used internal management decisions by commanders
such as decreasing the number of beds available for care, and in some
instances, decreasing number of surgical cases performed. In addition,
we have combined patient care units, used creative scheduling to ensure
appropriate staffing coverage, increased use of contract nurses,
requested and received reserve backfill up to the 50 percent authorized
fill rate and invoked the local commander's consideration to send
patients to the TRICARE network for care as needed. We will continue to
use all appropriate staffing management tools to ensure that we meet
the care needs of our beneficiary population.
DOCTORATE PROGRAM IN NURSING
Question. Fiscal year 2003, this Subcommittee appropriated funds to
create a Nursing PhD program at the Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences. Students will begin in the fall of 2003. How do
you plan to use this PhD Program to educate your leaders and nurse
researchers?
Answer. The Army Nurse Corps has 33 validated Army Nurse Corps
prepared positions with a current inventory of 26 Active Duty nurses
holding Doctorate degrees. The Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences (USUHS) PhD program will afford us additional diversity
for our fully funded doctoral education program. In addition, this
program will provide the unique focus on content that is out of the
ordinary from civilian content and specific to the needs of the
military. This year, we will send two Active Duty Army Nurse Corps
officers to USUHS and in the future, will attempt to send 3-4 per year.
We also plan to support attendance by Active Duty personnel on a part-
time basis. We are exploring the options for attendance by Reserve
personnel.
NURSING RESEARCH
Question. The Committee appropriated $6,000,000 for the TRISERVICE
Nursing Research Program and directed the Secretary of Defense to fully
fund it in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. To my knowledge, there
are no funds for this program in fiscal year 2004. Why was this not
funded and what are the potential implications if this is not funded in
future years?
Answer. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
(USUHS) has long been a strong supporter and proponent of nursing
research and the TriService Nursing Research Program (TSNRP) and any
decline in this program would have a negative effect on our pursuit of
nursing research. In addition, TSNRP has historically been physically
located at USUHS. We have learned that USUHS is exploring the
development of a center focused on military health and research. If
this concept is developed and approved, we feel that this may be an
ideal conduit for research funding in the future. We have made contact
with USUHS regarding the feasibility of identifying the funding through
this option and will continue to explore all options regarding the
feasibility of funding TSNRP via USUHS.
______
Questions Submitted to Rear Admiral Nancy J. Lescavage
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Question. Recruitment within the services for all the Nurse Corps
is better than the civilian market. There have been several tools to
help with the recruitment effort including the accession bonus of
$5,000 for Nurses joining the services.
The greatest retention tool for all services has been the
opportunity for advanced out-service education for a masters or
doctorate degree. Other issues that have also positively affected
retention are: challenging assignments, more leadership responsibility,
and greater promotion opportunities.
Of the many tools for recruiting and retention, which tools have
been most successful?
Answer. Our recruitment and retention efforts targeting active duty
Navy Nurses have been successful through a blend of initiatives, such
as:
--Diversified accession sources, which also include pipeline
scholarship programs (Nurse Candidate Program, Naval Reserve
Officer Training Corps, Medical Enlisted Commissioning Program,
and Seaman to Admiral Program).
--Pay incentives (Nurse Accession Bonus, Certified Registered Nurse
Anesthetist Incentive Special Pay, Board Certification Pay and
Critical Skills Retention Bonus).
--Graduate education and training programs focus on Master's
Programs, Doctoral Degrees, and fellowships. Between 72-80
officers/year receive full-time scholarships based on
operational and nursing specialty requirements.
--Initiatives that enhance personal and professional quality of life,
mentorship, leadership roles, promotion opportunities,
operational opportunities, professional collegiality and full
scope of practice.
Question. Do you think that a Loan Repayment Program would be
helpful to recruit more nurses?
Answer. With the increasing number of competitive loan repayment
programs for student graduates, a Loan Repayment Program with fiscal
support will be helpful to recruit more nurses as the national nursing
shortage worsens, particularly if the program has the flexibility to be
used to repay either baccalaureate degree loans or master's degree
loans for critically under manned specialties.
WAR'S EFFECT ON THE NURSE CORPS PLAN
Question. The number one retention tool is the opportunity for
advanced education. The war could negatively affect the number of
Nurses that will be available to begin out-service education
opportunities in fiscal year 2004, thereby mitigating the effectiveness
of this important retention tool.
How has the war in Iraq and deployments of personnel to the Middle
East affected your overall out-service education plan for this year and
next? For instance will you have to send fewer nurses to school for
advanced degrees this year because of the numbers deployed?
Answer. Our Navy Nurses in outservice training have continued with
their curriculum, unaffected by present deployments. We do not
anticipate any delays in the release of our nurses from their present
duty stations to begin their advanced education program this coming
academic year.
Question. How will the continued deployments affect your staffing
plans for the Medical Treatment Facilities?
Answer. Military and civilian nurses who remained at the homefront
continue to be the backbone and structure in promoting, protecting and
restoring the health of all entrusted to our care. In addition, key
Reserve personnel in designated specialties are utilized at specific
Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs). Ultimately, all MTFs do
everything possible to conserve and best utilize the remaining medical
department personnel through appropriate resource management practices
and staffing plans (i.e. leave control, overtime compensation,
streamlined hiring practices). Through an active Patient Safety
Program, our military, civil service and contract personnel are
constantly monitoring the delivery of patient care. To insure
consistent superior quality of services, we utilize evidence-based
clinical practices with a customized population health approach across
the entire health care team. To maintain TRICARE access standards,
patients may be guided to the appropriate level of care through the
Managed Care Support Contract Network resources, assisting them every
step of the way. The TRICARE network is designed to support the
military direct care system in times of sudden and major re-deployment
of MTF staff.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Question. In light of a national nursing shortage, please describe
the status of your recruitment and retention efforts in the Nurse Corps
for each of your services?
Answer. The Navy Nurse Corps continually strives to be recognized
as an employer of choice. National shortage projections and civilian
compensation packages are very closely monitored to determine the best
course to take in the competitive market. Our recruitment and retention
efforts targeting active duty Navy Nurses have been successful through
a blend of initiatives such as:
--Diversified accession sources, which include pipeline scholarship
programs such as the Nurse Candidate Program, Naval Reserve
Officer Training Corps (NROTC), Medical Enlisted Commissioning
Program, and Seaman to Admiral Program.
--Pay incentives including the Nurse Accession Bonus, Certified
Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) Incentive Special Pay,
Board Certification Pay and the one-time Critical Skills
Retention Bonus.
--Graduate education and training programs that focus on Master's
Programs, Doctoral Degrees, and postgraduate fellowships.
Between 72-80 officers/year receive full-time scholarships
based on operational and nursing specialty requirements.
--Initiatives that enhance personal and professional quality of life
including mentorship, leadership roles, promotion
opportunities, operational opportunities, professional
collegiality and full scope of practice.
Recruiting incentives for reservists include:
--The Nurse Accession Bonus ($5,000) for critical wartime
specialties.
--Loan repayment and stipend programs for graduate education.
--Several additional initiatives are under review with the
Department.
MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
Question. With the numbers of nurses and medics/corpsmen deployed
from your facilities, how have you ensured the delivery of safe patient
care at the military medical facilities here at home?
Answer. Navy Medicine is committed to high quality, cost-effective
and easily accessible primary and preventive health care services, such
as our population health management programs through health promotion,
disease management and case management. Military and civilian nurses
who remained at the homefront continue to be the backbone and structure
in promoting, protecting and restoring the health of all entrusted to
our care. In addition, key Reserve personnel in designated specialties
are utilized at specific Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs).
Ultimately, all MTFs do everything possible to conserve and best
utilize the remaining medical department personnel through appropriate
resource management practices (i.e. leave control, overtime
compensation, streamlined hiring practices). Through an active Patient
Safety Program, our military, civil service and contract personnel are
constantly monitoring the delivery of patient care. To insure
consistent superior quality of services, we utilize evidence-based
clinical practices with a customized population health approach across
the entire health care team. To maintain TRICARE access standards,
patients may be guided to the appropriate level of care through the
Managed Care Support Contract Network resources, assisting them every
step of the way. The TRICARE network is designed to support the
military direct care system in times of sudden and major re-deployment
of MTF staff.
DOCTORATE PROGRAM IN NURSING
Question. In fiscal year 2003, this Subcommittee appropriated funds
to create a Nursing PhD program at the Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences. Students will begin in the fall of 2003. How do
you plan to use this PhD Program to educate your leaders and nurse
researchers?
Answer. Navy Nurse Corps participation in civilian PhD programs has
resulted in a community of nurses with an in-depth knowledge of
clinical specialty practice, leadership, organizational behavior,
health policy, education, and/or scientific research. Historically,
only two or three PhD candidates are trained annually, one of which is
required to support the Navy Nurse Corps Anesthesia Program. When the
PhD program is offered at the Uniformed Services University of Health
Sciences, Navy Nurses will be strongly encouraged to apply. We
anticipate that one will be selected annually to attend USUHS and
adjusted accordingly, based on needs. In our vision, nurse researchers
will take on the most senior executive positions to create health
policies and delivery systems. Their valued experience will be critical
to advance and disseminate scientific knowledge, foster nursing
excellence, and improve clinical outcomes across Navy Medicine and
Federal agencies. As role models, they will instruct military and
civilian nurses in the accomplishment and utilization of nursing
research.
NURSING RESEARCH
Question. The Committee appropriated $6,000,000 for the TRISERVICE
Nursing Research Program and directed the Secretary of Defense to fully
fund it in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. To my knowledge, there
are no funds for this program in fiscal year 2004. Why was this not
funded and what are the potential implications if this is not funded in
future years?
Answer. The TriService Nursing Research Office, through their
component organization, Uniformed Services University of Health
Sciences, submitted a request for a fully funded program budget of $30
million beginning in fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2009. Since the
first budget request submission in 1994, Health Affairs determined that
the fiscal support requirements of other competing programs superceded
this request. Health Affairs has not released any fiscal year 2004
funding, however we continue to work within the system to stress the
importance of TriService Nursing Research. Through your support of
TriService Nursing Research Program (TSNRP) funding, Navy Nurses have
expanded the breadth and depth of our research portfolio, increased
military nursing research capacity, developed partnerships for
collaborative research and built an infrastructure to stimulate and
support military nursing research. TSNRP-funded research has been
conducted at our three major medical centers, our two Recruit Training
Centers, several Naval Hospitals, onboard more than six aircraft
carriers and collaboratively with our uniformed colleagues and more
than thirteen universities across the country. In addition, our Navy
nursing research has been published in numerous professional journals.
Without TSNRP funding, the contractual management of 58 current active
ongoing research grants will cease. Some open studies may require
additional dollars, which would no longer be available. Promising new
evidence-based practice initiatives to current and emergency military
health care delivery and services will be discontinued. Past and
current findings to affect change will be not systematically
disseminated and military nursing science will only be a dream.
______
Questions Submitted by Brigadier General Barbara Brannon
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Question. Recruitment within the services for all the Nurse Corps
is better than the civilian market. There have been several tools to
help with the recruitment effort including the accession bonus of
$5,000 for Nurses joining the services.
The greatest retention tool for all services has been the
opportunity for advanced out-service education for a masters or
doctorate degree. Other issues that have also positively affected
retention are: challenging assignments, more leadership responsibility,
and greater promotion opportunities.
Question. Of the many tools for recruiting and retention, which
tools have been most successful?
Answer. Although the Air Force has many excellent recruiting tools,
we cannot yet claim to be better than--or to have reached parity with--
the recruitment capabilities of our civilian counterparts. However,
each tool currently at our disposal has proven to be essential building
a strong Air Force nursing force--a force with the right numbers and
the right clinical experience and skills.
We believe the General Accession Bonus and Health Professions Loan
Repayment Programs are our most successful recruiting tools. The
civilian market is flooded with incentives to capture the best nurses,
and our incentive programs offer us the opportunity to compete for this
scarce pool. As the nursing shortage grows we feel it is imperative
that our recruiting tools remain competitive, and funding is crucial.
Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP).--Based on the
success of HPLRP as a retention tool last year, we have been able to
offer up to $26,000 in exchange for an additional 2-year obligation for
new accessions. This is the first time we have offered loan repayment
as a recruiting tool and will monitor its impact. HPLRP appears to be a
positive incentive for recruitment, a random data pull of 22 new
accessions showed 100 percent opted for loan repayment.
General Accession Bonus.--We currently offer a $5,000 bonus for a
four-year service obligation. We have the authority to offer up to
$30,000. The Health Affairs/Services Special Pays Working Group is
currently working the funding to increase this bonus.
The Critical Skills Retention Bonus was hugely successful and
boosted retention 82 percent in the limited specialties targeted, the
Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist and Perioperative nurses. This
year, 66 percent of CRNAs and 98 percent of Perioperative nurses
accepted the bonus for a one-year obligation. Further application and
funding would positively impact nurse retention.
The Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) supports nursing,
physician, biomedical science and dental education. We are aggressively
seeking an increase in HPSP scholarships for nursing to boost
recruiting in the Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist specialty.
Critical Skills Accession Bonus (CSAB).--We have the authority to
provide a CSAB to those specialties manned at less than 90 percent. The
Air Force Nurse Corps has submitted packages through the appropriate
channels on those specialties to be considered for this bonus.
Initiative still pending.
Retention in the Air Force Nurse Corps appears to be healthy
overall. We have several specialties that are below the 90 percent
staffing threshold. They are: Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists
(CRNAs), Perinatal Nurses, Neonatal Intensive Care Nurses, Women's
Health Nurse Practitioners, and Emergency Room Nurses.
One of the most successful retention tools targeting our Certified
Registered Nurse Anesthetist is our Incentive Special Pay. We have the
authority to offer up to $50,000 on an annual basis for a one-year
obligation. Currently we are funded to offer $15,000 for those
personnel who are unconstrained by school obligations and $6,000 for
those with school obligation. The Tri-Service Health Professions
Incentive Pay Group is working to increase the funding by $5,000 in
fiscal year 2004 and then incrementally by $5,000 until the desired
retention is met. This program is instrumental in bridging the pay gap
between civilian and military systems.
Health Professions Loan Repayment Program was offered to junior
Nurse Corps officers with outstanding college debt. Results were
outstanding, for fiscal year 2002, 241 nurses accepted up to $25,000
for loan repayment in exchange for a 2-year service obligation.
Question. Do you think that a Loan Repayment Program would be
helpful to recruit more nurses?
Answer. This year the Air Force Nurse Corps was able to offer loan
repayment as an accession tool. This is the first time we have offered
loan repayment as a recruiting tool and we will closely monitor its
impact. Preliminary data indicates this will be a tremendous success.
Technical challenges have limited our ability to fully implement this
program and we are working hard to overcome the barriers. Loan
repayment appears to be a powerful recruiting tool and we will engage
to sustain this tool for the Air Force Nurse Corps.
WAR'S EFFECT ON THE NURSE CORPS PLAN
Question. The number one retention tool is the opportunity for
advanced education. The war could negatively affect the number of
Nurses that will be available to begin out-service education
opportunities in fiscal year 2004, thereby mitigating the effectiveness
of this important retention tool.
How has the war in Iraq and deployments of personnel to the Middle
East affected your overall out-service education plan for this year and
next? For instance will you have to send fewer nurses to school for
advanced degrees this year because of the numbers deployed?
Answer. The Air Force Nurse Corps has made every effort to ensure
the integrity of our advanced degree program starts. We have worked
pre, during and post-deployment personnel actions to ensure all
selected for programs will be able to start as requested. We will not
change our requirements based on deployments or operations tempo as
these programs are vital to retention and the enhancement of quality
patient care. We will validate all future advanced education
requirements through our usual Air Force processes and will stay the
course to ensure system integrity.
Question. How will the continued deployments affect you staffing
plans for the Medical Treatment Facilities?
Answer. The Air Force Nurse Corps could and did meet all of our
deployment requirements. We sparingly applied stop-loss to three of our
critical Air Force nursing specialties as an insurance policy against
potential expanded deployments of a prolonged conflict for future
requirements.
The Air Force Nurse Corps uses a variety of staffing options to
avoid patient risk. We can employ reserve units, individual
mobilization augmentees, manning assistance and contract personnel.
In addition, our facilities will continue to be staffed based on
patient nurse staffing ratios advocated by National Specialty
Organizations. If we cannot meet safe patient care standards we divert
to civilian facilities, enroll patients to the civilian network or
extend clinic hours. This was needed on a limited basis at some of our
Air Force Medical Treatment Facilities.
The Air Expeditionary Forces (AEF) cycle continues to be crucial to
maintaining not only deployment unit integrity, but also to planning
patient care delivery. Most deployments include multiple personnel
specialties from physicians and nurses to technicians. The advanced
deployment projections of the AEF allows a facility to plan for manning
assistance, service closures and/or contracting of personnel to fill
voids. By this methodology we ensure safe patient care through
planning.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Question. In light of a national nursing shortage, please describe
the status of your recruitment and retention efforts in the Nurse Corps
for each of your services?
Answer. The programs initiated on a national level to address the
nursing crisis are encouraging. Recruiting nurses will continue to be a
huge challenge in the coming decade. Fiscal year 2002 was the fourth
consecutive year the Air Force Nurse Corps failed to meet its
recruiting goal. We recruited approximately 30 percent less than our
recruiting goal and shortfall has remained relatively consistent since
fiscal year 1999. Our fiscal year 2003 recruiting goal is 363 and as of
March 2003, we had recruited 120 nurses.
We believe the General Accession Bonus and Health Professions Loan
Repayment Programs are critical to healthy recruiting. The civilian
market is flooded with incentives to capture the best nurses and our
incentive programs offer us the opportunity to be competitive for this
scarce pool. As the nursing shortage grows we feel it is imperative
that our recruiting tools remain competitive and funding is crucial.
Health Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP).--Based on the
success of HPLRP as a retention tool we have been able to offer up to
$26,000 in exchange for an additional 2-year obligation for new
accessions. This is the first time we have offered loan repayment as a
recruiting tool and will monitor its impact. We received the funding to
start this program in January 2003 and we are working the loan
reimbursement constraints. HPLRP appears to be a positive incentive for
recruitment, a random data pull of 22 new accessions showed 100 percent
opted for loan repayment. Full accounting will be available once all
the loan repayments have been made.
General Accession Bonus.--Currently offering a $5,000 bonus for a
four-year service obligation. We have the authority to offer up to
$30,000.
The Critical Skills Retention Bonus was hugely successful and
boosted retention 82 percent in the limited specialties targeted, the
Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) and Perioperative nurses.
This year, 66 percent of CRNAs and 98 percent of Perioperative nurses
accepted the bonus for a one-year obligation. Further application and
funding would positively impact nurse retention.
The Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) supports nursing,
physician, biomedical science and dental education. We are aggressively
seeking an increase in our HPSP scholarships for nursing to boost
recruiting in the CRNA specialty. The program covers tuition costs and
provides a monthly stipend.
Critical Skills Accession Bonus (CSAB).--We have the authority to
provide a CSAB to those specialties manned at less than 90 percent.
Retention in the Air Force Nurse Corps appears to be healthy
overall. We have several specialties that are below the 90 percent
staffing threshold. They are: CRNAs, Perinatal Nurses, Neonatal
Intensive Care Nurses, Women's Health Nurse Practitioners, and
Emergency Room Nurses.
One of the most successful retention tools targeting our Certified
Registered Nurse Anesthetist is our Incentive Special Pay. We have the
authority to offer up to $50,000 on an annual basis for a one-year
obligation. Currently we are funded to offer $15,000 for those
personnel who are unconstrained by school obligations and $6,000 for
those with school obligation. The Tri-Service Health Professions
Incentive Pay Group is working to increase the funding by $5,000 in
fiscal year 2004 and then incrementally by $5,000 until the desired
retention is met. This program is instrumental in bridging the pay gap
between civilian and military systems.
Health Professions Loan Repayment Program was offered to junior
Nurse Corps officers with outstanding college debt. Results were
outstanding for fiscal year 2002, 241 nurses accepted up to $25,000 for
loan repayment in exchange for a 2-year service obligation.
MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
Question. With the numbers of nurses and medics/corpsmen deployed
from your facilities, how have you ensured the delivery of safe patient
care at the military medical facilities here at home?
Answer. Patient safety remains the central focus of our health care
delivery. Our staffing models support healthy patient staff ratios
which will not be breached. The Air Force Nurse Corps endorses and
supports the standards of practice outlined by nursing specialties or
organizations. These standards guide nursing practice and provide the
Chief Nurse Executives at our medical treatment facilities the
framework for safe care delivery.
We have many tools available to support safe nursing practice. We
divert patients to other civilian facilities if patient acuity is
higher then the nurse staffing can support. The decision for diversion
is a collaborative decision between all healthcare disciplines. Nursing
plays a dual role in the diversion option; they are the advocate for
patients and staff ensuring neither is placed at risk.
Air Force facilities have embarked on a robust Patient Safety
Program that prevents patient harm. The focus of this program is
preventive in nature, putting into place the procedures and processes
to keep healthcare delivery safe and patients and staff members free
from harm.
We have employed the Managed Care Support Contracts and local
contracts to fill the gap when deployments have taken their toll on
staffing. Air Force Reserve personnel have also been mobilized to fill
critical shortfalls.
DOCTORATE PROGRAM IN NURSING
Question. In fiscal year 2003, this Subcommittee appropriated funds
to create a Nursing PhD program at the Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences. Students will begin in the fall of 2003. How do
you plan to use this PhD Program to educate your leaders and nurse
researchers?
Answer. Each year the Air Force sends nurses back to school for
doctorate education in Nursing. Currently there are a total of 20 PhDs
in the Air Force Nurse Corps.
The Air Force will request two nurse corps doctoral requirements at
the Integrated Forecast Board in June 2003, which is the process the
Air Force uses to validate educational requirements. Both of the
officers will attend the doctoral program at the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences. This program prepares leaders
skilled in military-specific health care issues, preparing graduates to
conduct research and take leadership roles in federal and military
policy development. This program is integral to provide experts who are
uniquely qualified in issues specific to the Department of Defense and
orchestrates research supporting evidenced-based nursing practice that
positively impacts patient outcomes in peacetime and wartime.
NURSING RESEARCH
Question. The Committee appropriated $6,000,000 for the TRISERVICE
Nursing Research Program and directed the Secretary of Defense to fully
fund it in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. To my knowledge, there
are no funds for this program in fiscal year 2004. Why was this not
funded and what are the potential implications if this is not funded in
future years?
Answer. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
(USUHS) has long been a strong supporter and proponent of nursing
research and the TriService Nursing Research Program (TSNRP) and any
decline in this program would have a negative effect on our pursuit of
nursing research. In addition, TSNRP has historically been physically
located at USUHS. We have learned that USUHS is exploring the
development of a center focused on military health and research. If
this concept is developed and approved, we feel that this may be an
ideal conduit for research funding in the future. We have made contact
with USUHS regarding the feasibility of identifying the funding through
this option and will continue to explore all options regarding the
feasibility of funding TSNRP via USUHS.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Inouye. And I thank all of you for your testimony
this morning and the subcommittee will reconvene next
Wednesday, May 7 when we will hear from the chiefs of the
National Guard and Reserve components. We will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., Wednesday, April 30, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
May 7.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:20 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Hutchison,
Burns, Inouye, Leahy, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
National Guard
STATEMENTS OF:
LIEUTENANT GENERAL H. STEVEN BLUM, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, CHIEF,
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROGER C. SCHULTZ, DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL
GUARD
LIEUTENANT GENERAL DANIEL JAMES III, DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL
GUARD
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. We welcome you, General, all of you who
are Generals. I'll tell you one of the reasons I'm late, I just
had a little demonstration session up on the ninth floor with
the Special Operations and Logistics Center. It is extremely
interesting. They have brought to show to us here in the Senate
a whole series of devices that were really created in demand to
situations that developed in Iraq, and it's just a wonderful,
wonderful demonstration of the ingenuity of American service
people.
They've just adapted to the need and developed even a
device to go down into a well. They saw the problem and devised
an answer, and produced a result in 4 hours. Now, they can look
right down at the bottom of the wells and see if they've hidden
anything down at the bottom--very interesting. I was on the
phone telling other Senators to get up there and see it before
they move it. They're not going to be there very long.
Senator Dorgan. How long are they going to be there?
Senator Stevens. 10:30.
General, we welcome you to our hearing, and I thank you for
stopping by to visit with us yesterday. We've got two panels
scheduled today. First, we're going to hear from the National
Guard leadership followed by the leaders of the four Reserve
forces. On our first panel, obviously, Lieutenant General
Steven Blum, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, Lieutenant
General Roger Schultz, Director of the Army National Guard, and
Lieutenant General Daniel James, Director of the Air National
Guard.
General Blum, General James, we welcome you to your first
hearing before this subcommittee and look forward to working
with you throughout your assignments, and General Schultz, it's
nice to have you back with us today.
Let me yield to my friend from Hawaii, our co-chairman, and
see if he has any comments to make.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. First
I want to commend you on that show on the ninth floor. It's
something that all of us should see, and I wish to join you in
welcoming all of the Generals this morning, General Schultz,
General Blum, and General James.
May I request that my full statement be made part of the
record? Unfortunately, at quarter to 11:00, Mr. Chairman, I
will have to leave. I have to get to our favorite place, Walter
Reed, for a function.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Mr. Chairman, I want to join you in welcoming our witnesses
today, General Blum, General Schultz, and General James of the
National Guard who will be followed by General Helmly, Admiral
Totushek, General McCarthy, and General Sherrad of the
Reserves.
Since September 11th, our Guard and Reserve personnel have
been called up at unprecedented rates. They have performed
their service in almost every aspect of homeland security and
the global war on terrorism. Once again, they have reinforced
their integral role in our military.
As a result of the increased activations and deployments,
many concerns have arisen on the strain placed on our Guard and
Reserve and their families. One must not forget that our Guard
and Reserve not only leave their families in most cases but
must take leave from their jobs as well. This can cause undo
strain on both employers and family finances. Our Guard and
Reserve also cover a wide professional spectrum outside the
military, including first responders, medical specialists, and
engineers. These professions, and many others, are crucial for
both civilian and military and their activations create an
additional burden on our states and localities. We hope to
address some of those issues during today's hearing.
We will also want to focus on the Administration's fiscal
year 2004 Budget proposal that merges the Military Personnel
Accounts of Active, Guard, and Reserve. As you can imagine,
this proposal is being met with some resistance on Capitol Hill
and I assume among yourselves as well. As I understand it, this
is the first of many account mergers that are headed our way in
future budget requests and we would like to begin the
discussion today.
This committee also continues to be concerned over the
longstanding issues of procuring weapons and equipment for our
Guard and Reserve.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing and look
forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.
Senator Stevens. I will be pleased to yield to you,
Senator. Does any other Senator have an opening statement?
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to welcome
our witnesses with you and Senator Inouye and commend them for
the leadership they have given in this time of real test for
the men and women who serve in the National Guard. It's been
very impressive. They've been involved in every respect of the
national defense, from combat to rear guard operations, and
they've achieved conspicuous success, and we appreciate very
much your leadership.
Senator Stevens. Senator, do you have any opening
statement?
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, just to echo your thanks to
the Guard and Reserve. In North Dakota, over a third of the
members of our Guard and Reserve have been deployed, and I want
to ask some questions about that, but I'm enormously proud of
our citizens soldiers and what they have done for this country,
and thank you for appearing today.
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici. Happy birthday, Senator
Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Well, thank you so much.
Senator Stevens. Senator Burns, do you have any comments to
make?
Senator Burns. I have a statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for this hearing, and I'll submit it and look forward to
hearing from the witnesses.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank all of you
for being here today to discuss the status of your respective
National Guard and Reserve Components. I know you are all--as
so many are--incredibly busy, considering the current situation
around the world.
The men and women of the Guard and Reserve have seen an
increased operations tempo over the past few years and have
been pitching in, working with the Active Component on a more
regular basis. This increased optempo does not, however, come
with out costs. Short lead times for call-ups, coupled with
uncertain or lengthy periods of service can make life very
difficult. Employers and communities and families have been
incredibly understanding and supportive of these men and women
in our volunteer service. However, one can only be supportive
and understanding for so long. The difference between military
and civilian pay can cause undue stress on families. The loss
of one or two employees is a big deal to a small business. In
Montana, specifically, where business is small business, some
business owners, despite how supportive they have been, have
been pushed to the line and are having a real difficult time
making ends meet. I know you are all aware of this and are
working towards solutions.
Our Guardsmen and Reservists have performed nobly in the
latest missions with which they have been tasked--the Global
War on Terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Both the Guard
and Reserve are extremely skilled, capable forces, responding
to various missions across this nation and across the world.
They continue to play very important, but somewhat diverse
roles in the protecting our homeland and warfighting operations
overseas. This further lends credence to the flexibility,
adaptability and rapid reaction of this force.
Ensuring that our Guard and Reserve Components have the
proper training, equipment and facilities necessary to carry
out their duties is essential. I pledge to do what I can to
make sure that our Guardsmen and Reservists have the support
they need to get the job done.
Again, I thank all of you for being here today. I look
forward to hearing the testimony today and listening to the
discussion that takes place this morning.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. I have no statement, but I do want to
take this occasion to join with all of you in thanking the
National Guard and the Reserve for their great service, and
particularly those from New Mexico. New Mexico is having a
very, very large contingency at every level. They've done a
marvelous job, and we thank you for the leadership you provide
for them. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. It's a pleasure to serve in this committee
with such a young man, Senator.
Senator Domenici. That's correct. Am I the youngest,
looking around? Oh, no, you must be slightly--no. No.
Senator Stevens. General, I remarked to General Blum
yesterday that we've just witnessed the real absolute success
in Senator Stennis' policy with regard, which really ultimately
led to the total force concept, but when he initiated a concept
of trying to get the Guard and Reserve really into active duty
formations and have their training with the active duty
formations in Europe. I think he started something that we will
live with for the rest of our military service people. The
concept of total integration, as Senator Burns has said, has
just absolutely been demonstrated in Iraq, so we welcome you,
and we welcome your statement.
We will put all of your statements in the record in full,
and make such statements as you wish. General Blum.
General Blum. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good
morning. Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to address
you this morning on what we consider to be a national treasure,
the National Guard of the United States, and you're all very
correct, each and every one of the States that you represent
and every State in our Union and our four territories has
soldiers right now in 84 countries around the world prosecuting
the global war on terrorism and defending our homeland
simultaneously, and we have not dropped a single mission in
order to do that, and we still have a fairly robust capability
available to the Governors to respond for State emergencies, as
you have seen happening, unfortunately in the last few days.
On a personal note, I'd like to thank each and every one of
you for your solid strong support of my nomination. I intend to
lead the National Guard Bureau in a manner that will fully
justify your confidence in that nomination and the confidence
that you have placed in me. I think the National Guard has
assembled a superb leadership team, with Lieutenant General
Roger Schultz and Lieutenant General Danny James who will ably
assist me. With their vast experience and wide and varying
backgrounds I think we have put together a leadership team that
will deliver to this Nation the kind of defense and security
that they have come to expect from our Army and Air National
Guard.
We will also fulfill our obligation as a channel of
communications between the Secretaries and the Services in the
several States of the United States, the Governors and their
Adjutants General.
We will be one National Guard Bureau. We will be unified in
our effort. We will be agents of change. We're very proud of
our past, but we're more interested in our future, and we need
to make sure that the National Guard of the United States is
ready to provide the kind of security to our Nation and its
citizens for future generations that past generations and the
present generation has come to accept as a standard of
excellence, so toward that end we will have the following
priorities.
First and foremost, it has always been and is today and
will always be our number one priority to defend the homeland
of the United States of America. It is our oldest mission, but
with today's realities and new emerging threats it takes on
even a more significant meaning than it did only 2 years ago.
We will at the same time support the global war on terrorism,
which we view as an extension of homeland defense.
We see it as an away game on defending our homeland. We
will take the fight to the enemy anywhere in the world, and we
would hope that we could keep that off of the homeland of the
United States of America, and in order to do these things,
we're going to have to change and transform the National Guard
Bureau, the headquarters of the National Guard in the various
several States, and some of the units and functions and
organizations will need some rebalancing and revisiting so that
we are not curators of the historical reenactment group but
prepared for current threats and future threats that may face
our Nation.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Both General Schultz and General James will now offer some
brief comments, after which we would welcome your questions,
but I want to take this last opportunity now to thank you once
again for the magnificent opportunity to appear before this
committee.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum,
Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz, and Lieutenant General Daniel
James III
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to come before you today to discuss your National
Guard. Your continued support and trust have been instrumental in
making the National Guard what it is today--a highly capable force,
responsive to a myriad of homeland security missions as well as
warfighting operations overseas.
Since the first muster of three militia regiments in Salem,
Massachusetts, December 13th, 1636, the National Guard has protected
America at home and abroad. Nearly every generation in American history
can attest to the significant contribution citizen-soldiers and airmen
have made in defense of our freedoms and way of life. Long before
September 11th, 2001, the National Guard, both at home and abroad, had
served this nation at unparalleled levels. In the recent past, the
National Guard contributed substantial forces, equipment and personnel
to critical stabilization forces in Bosnia and Kosovo; peacekeeping
forces in the Sinai; no-fly zone enforcement in Southwest Asia; State-
to-State partnerships; domestic emergencies; humanitarian operations;
and numerous contingency operations across the world.
The National Guard's number 1 priority is the security and defense
of our homeland. For the past 366 years, the National Guard has been
actively engaged in this endeavor, which has solidified our roots. We
lead Department of Defense efforts in providing force protection,
critical infrastructure protection, border security, missile defense,
intelligence, Weapons of Mass Destruction civil support, communications
support, as well as medical, and air sovereignty capabilities to
homeland security. The National Guard is present for duty--bringing
great skills, talent and capabilities to bear in an increasingly
dangerous world. Our presence in more than 2,700 communities throughout
the United States and its territories serves to connect the American
people to their fighting forces.
As the Department of Defense works to define its role in providing
homeland security, the National Guard will play a key role because of
our inherent and unique capability to cultivate better federal/state
relationships. In nearly every conceivable scenario, local National
Guard units--under the control of State Governors and Adjutants
General--will be the first military responders on the scene. The
statutory role of the National Guard Bureau is to be the channel of
communication between the Army and the Air Force and the National Guard
of the several states. Recently, we have coordinated with the Combatant
Commander of U.S. Northern Command to perform that same role between
NORTHCOM and the states. As part of this arrangement, the National
Guard Bureau provides situational awareness on state-commanded National
Guard operations to General Eberhart to augment his ability to
effectively plan for and manage his command's diverse missions. Having
previously served as Chief of Staff to NORTHCOM and NORAD, I witnessed
the need for and value of this relationship.
The National Guard's second priority is to support the Global War
on Terrrorism here and abroad. On September 11th, 2001, while already
heavily engaged in other mission areas, numerous National Guard troops
responded to our local, state and national needs. Citizen soldiers and
airmen dropped everything and ran to the defense of our nation and
communities--many were on the scene literally within minutes. Since
then, over 131,000 others have been mobilized to support the front
lines of the Global War on Terrorism at home and abroad. This is in
addition to the nearly 35,000 Active Guard Reserve members whose
already-heavy workload grew significantly as well. Today's National
Guard deploys citizen-soldiers and airmen worldwide to dangerous and
complex places in 84 countries to include Afghanistan and Iraq to
conduct combat operations in the Global War on Terrorism.
Wherever this anti-terrorist warfight goes--the National Guard will
go with it--alongside our joint partners in the Active and other
Reserve Components. The National Guard has the will and the fighting
spirit, however we need sustaining resources for both our people and
equipment. This includes simplified and standardized benefits for all
National Guard and reserve members, regardless of the status in which
they serve their country.
Over the last 18 months, American leaders have come to appreciate
fully the adaptability and ability to react quickly provided by the
National Guard's three different duty statuses--State Active Duty as
the state militia; the federal-funded and state-executed operations
under Title 32 as the National Guard of the several states; and the
federal role as the National Guard of the United States in Title 10
status. This flexibility should be protected and well-resourced at all
times. In addition, many discovered that while Partial Mobilization
authority is critical at times of great need, the use of volunteerism
in combination with the necessary Partial Mobilization authority gives
National Guard commanders the proper tools and flexibility to ensure
sustained and ready forces over the longer term.
Still, many of the issues that surfaced following mobilization of
National Guard personnel for Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring
Freedom revolved around the disparity of benefits associated with
different service statuses. Those mobilized under USC Title 10 could
claim protection under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, while
those serving under USC Title 32 could not.
Many factors influence the abilities of our forces to meet today's
increasing demands. Certainly, the level of full-time manning available
to the Army National Guard has been a readiness factor for years. Now
more than ever, the Air National Guard depends on its full-time force
as well to sustain growing air sovereignty alert, force protection, and
command and control requirements. Full-time management has always been
a critical factor in how we deal with logistics, administration and
training, and their impact on readiness, and includes the ability to
support traditional forces that contribute at extraordinary rates and
in new mission areas.
Infrastructure and facilities are increasingly important. Many
National Guard facilities are well past their useful life. Inadequate
facilities impact both the training and quality of life of soldiers and
airmen, as well as drain valuable resources. Our facilities have to be
able to support the developing roles and missions of increased National
Guard participation in both homeland security and global contingencies.
Infrastructure also includes the tremendous information technology
capabilities distributed across the 54 states and territories. This
technology is both a current and future warfare enabler--both at home
and abroad.
America insists on a relevant, reliable and ready force that is
transformed for the 21st Century. Consequently, Transformation, the
National Guard's third priority, is necessary to achieve our first two
objectives. National leaders have consistently gone on record stating
that America cannot go to war without the National Guard. History
demonstrates repeatedly, the sage wisdom, and indeed democratic
necessity, of including the National Guard in America's warfighting
efforts. The National Guard, like no other military entity, ensures the
American will and support for military action.
``When you call up the National Guard, you call up all of
America.'' The future in this regard will not be different. National
Guard members must be prepared to fight in new combat environments that
include high-technology equipment and complex weapon systems. As major
contributors to the force structure and capability of the U.S. Army and
U.S. Air Force, the National Guard must not be left behind. From the
outset and throughout the process, we must be a full and integral part
of any plan to transform our military Services.
Now, more than ever, the Army and Air National Guard are critical
components of the Total Force and employed in a much different manner
than just 15 years ago. Current Operational Tempos are placing wear and
tear on our equipment at a much greater pace than planned. Legacy
systems that cannot be replaced must be recapitalized to preserve
combat capability and retain mission relevance. Life extension
programs, re-engining, and modern targeting systems are a few examples
of the improvements that continue to be needed to maintain our superior
force. It is necessary that the National Guard be a full partner within
all Services' modernization plans. This will allow the National Guard
to provide the modern joint forces needed by the Combatant Commanders
to fight and win America's wars.
The National Guard is strong, our personnel ready, and our missions
crucial for the security of America, her interests and her people.
Around the world, both Army and Air National Guard commanders have
stepped up to the challenge, accepting leadership positions which have
allowed them to interact not only with other Service components, but
the international community as well. Having commanded multi-national
peacekeeping coalition forces in Bosnia, I can personally attest to the
full spectrum capabilities National Guard forces bring to a theater. As
Chief of Staff to NORTHCOM and NORAD, I saw firsthand that both of
these commands cannot perform their missions without the National
Guard. Our troops have contributed to and learned from the
``jointness'' of these environments. This experience will allow
National Guardsmen in the future to further leverage their unique core
competencies when fighting alongside other Services and our allies.
Whether at home or abroad, securing the safety of Americans through
homeland security functions or fighting the Global War on Terrorism are
inherent responsibilities of the National Guard. With proper resourcing
of both people and equipment, the Guard will always be there when the
nation calls. As Former Congressman Sonny Montgomery has repeatedly
said, ``This nation would be nearly paralyzed by various crises if the
Guard did not exist.'' Thankfully the Guard does exist and will be even
better prepared to respond to future threats with the proper support
and direction. National security is a team effort. We are proud to be
part of that team. Together we must lead our National Guard forward
with determination and vision. We must orchestrate a future for the
National Guard that combines modern and effective resources, relevant
and comparable mission profiles, an enthusiasm to adapt to changing
environments, and the unique spirit and patriotism of the National
Guard citizen-soldier and airman.
Army National Guard
We have a non-negotiable contract with the American people to win
our nation's wars and are entrusted with their most precious assets,
America's sons and daughters. These sons and daughters are proud and
patriotic members of the Army National Guard family.
The Army National Guard plays a crucial role in providing security
to the nation, the nation's citizens, and the interests of the country
overseas. We fulfill our role in the National Military Strategy by
supporting combatant commanders and conducting exercises around the
world. Within our borders, Guard soldiers continue to provide
assistance to victims of disaster and protection from our enemies. Our
soldiers always stand ready to support the United States and its
citizens whenever and wherever they are needed.
From September 2001 to September 2002, the Army National Guard
alerted and mobilized more than 32,000 soldiers throughout the country
and around the world, fighting the Global War on Terrorism and
defending freedom with our engagement in numerous operations. Operation
Noble Eagle has mobilized in excess of 16,000 soldiers from 36 States
and Territories to provide force protection at various Department of
Defense facilities and at our nation's borders. Operation Enduring
Freedom has mobilized about 16,100 soldiers from 29 States and
Territories to support the Global War on Terrorism in Southwest Asia
through the U.S. Central Command area of operations. Army National
Guard soldiers are also involved in other peacekeeping operations
throughout the world. The Global War on Terrorism, homeland security,
and Peacekeeping are expensive undertakings for the country. It is
critical that the U.S. armed forces receive the required funding and
intelligently utilize those resources throughout what is expected to be
a protracted war.
Beyond the war effort, the Army Guard is fully integrated in the
Army's transformation. The Objective Force for 2015 will incorporate
the Army National Guard as part of a seamless joint, interagency, and
multi-national team in support of rapid deployment and operations
against a range of threats, including homeland security and the
maintenance of a strategic reserve for extended campaigns and multiple
engagements.
The nation asks a great deal of the Army National Guard soldiers,
and it is our responsibility to ensure that these citizen-soldiers are
equipped with the best possible training, the most current aircraft and
vehicles, and the most lethal weapon systems.
Army National Guard soldiers, most of whom have successful civilian
careers, sacrifice their normal lifestyle in an effort to preserve
democracy and freedom in the nation and the world. Family members of
our troops provide us with great support and thus help us maintain unit
readiness and strength. Employers of these patriotic soldiers are now
being asked to sustain a much greater level of employee absence due to
an increased rate of deployment. Our nation owes a debt of gratitude to
the soldiers themselves, but no less gratitude is due our families and
our employers who allow us to accomplish our missions. Our ability to
be ready when called upon by the American people is, and will always
be, our top priority and our bottom line.
Readiness
Full-Time Support
Recent events, including fighting the Global War on Terrorism,
underscore the vital role Full-Time Support personnel have in preparing
Army National Guard units for a multitude of missions both in the
homeland and abroad. Full-Time Support is a critical component for
achieving unit-level readiness during this period in the nation's
history. To meet readiness requirements, the Chief, National Guard
Bureau, in concert with the State Adjutants General, has placed
increasing Full-Time Support authorizations as the number-one priority
for the Army National Guard. Those full-time Guard members are
responsible for organizing, administering, instructing, training, and
recruiting new personnel, as well as the maintenance of supplies,
equipment, and aircraft. Full-Time Support personnel are critical links
to the integration of the Army's components.
The Department of the Army validated total and minimum Full-Time
Support levels for the Reserve Components in fiscal year 2000 and
determined the minimum level should be attained as quickly as possible.
The Army, Army National Guard, and United States Army Reserve
cooperatively developed an incremental ramping method for achieving
minimum Reserve Component Full-Time Support levels by fiscal year 2012.
The Army National Guard minimum support level end-state is reflected in
the ``DA High-Risk Requirement''. The Full-Time Support end-state
provides 71 percent of the resources required. Congress has supported
increases in authorizations and funding in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and
2003. The Army National Guard received 794 additional Active Guard and
Reserve authorizations and 487 Military Technician authorizations above
the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget; these increases were funded in
fiscal year 2003.
While recent developments represent progress, the increase in
missions for the Army National Guard has emerged, missions including
the Global War on Terrorism and Homeland security that require a
further increase in Full-Time Support personnel.
Recruiting and Retention
The United States cannot undertake any worldwide military
contingency or operational effort without the National Guard. The
events of September 11, 2001 have placed increased demands on the Army
National Guard to recruit and retain a quality force of 350,000
soldiers. This force of officer and enlisted soldiers is vital to
integrating sufficiently trained and equipped personnel and units for
response to State or federal missions.
There is a correlation between the frequency of military
deployments and the retention rates of Guard soldiers. This attrition
of trained personnel, combined with the soft recruiting market, present
new challenges for the Guard to sustain readiness levels.
Although the Army Guard historically recruits and retains a
sufficient number of enlisted soldiers to achieve strength objectives,
it is currently experiencing a shortage of junior officers. Incentive
programs will continue to assist the Army National Guard in keeping
readiness levels high in this time of war.
Accelerated Officer Candidate School Program
The Army National Guard initiated a very successful accelerated
Officer Candidate School Program in 1996. This accelerated program cuts
11 months off the traditional course duration (eight weeks of full-time
versus 13 months of part-time training). This is particularly
beneficial to States experiencing large company-grade officer
vacancies. Class sizes were increased to 200 students in 2001 and to
400 students in fiscal year 2002 to meet the forecasted training
requirements submitted by the States. Moreover, an additional class was
conducted beginning in January 2003 to support the current war effort.
The Army National Guard will continue to grow the program to address
the shortage of company-grade officers.
Initial Entry Training Management
The Chief of Staff of the Army has provided guidance to the Reserve
Component to have at least 85 percent of assigned soldiers qualified in
their duty specialties by fiscal year 2005. The Army National Guard
fully intends to meet or exceed this goal. In the past, the Army
National Guard has had difficulty getting the proper Initial Entry
Training quotas to meet the demands of the force. As a result, the Army
National Guard has been lacking in qualified personnel in certain
occupational specialties. These shortages affect its ability to
mobilize and/or deploy.
In order to meet the quota goal, the Army National Guard has taken
input from the Adjutants General and has developed a new Initial Entry
Training management system. This system has refined the Army National
Guard's ability to accurately forecast Initial Entry Training
requirements. These forecasts will more closely match that necessary to
meet Army National Guard readiness goals than previous methods.
The Army School System and Qualifying Army National Guard
Soldiers
The Army School System is a multi-component organization of the
United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, the Army National
Guard, and the U.S. Army Reserve that has been organized to deliver
Military Occupation Skills Qualification Reclassification,
Noncommissioned Officer Education System, Officer Education System, and
functional military courses. This system provides the National Guard
with the means to train and retain quality soldiers and leaders who are
so essential to rapidly and effectively responding to the federal
mission or to missions of homeland security.
The Army National Guard has developed an In-Unit Training program
that has enhanced the ability to produce a larger number of soldiers
who have achieved Duty Military Occupational Skill Qualification. The
Army National Guard has also provided Mobile Training Teams overseas to
sustain the training of its soldiers who are deployed around the world.
The Army Guard and Reserve instructional, training development, and
budget management staffs are combining efforts to build a future United
States Army Training and Doctrine Command that can deliver seamless
training to standards as part of the institutional training within the
Army.
The Army National Guard supports the initiative by the Army Deputy
Chief of Staff for Personnel to hold selective retention boards that
will allow selected captains and majors to be retained so that they may
reach 20 years of active service. The Army National Guard also supports
the Deputy Chief's initiative to select captains for promotion who do
not possess a baccalaureate degree or military education certification.
The actual promotion to the next higher grade will become effective
once the individual completes the required civilian or military
education.
Distributed Battle Simulation Program
The Army National Guard has structured the Distributed Battle
Simulation Program to satisfy congressionally mandated requirements.
Concerned with readiness and training issues, these mandates explore
the processes of integrating training aids, devices, simulations, and
simulators into live, virtual, and constructive training environments.
The program focuses training on individual and crew qualification,
platoon maneuver, and leader development/battle staff training at the
level of organization. It provides technical support personnel and
advisors to commanders at various levels to recommend ``best practice''
strategies and methodologies to provide objective feedback, continuity,
and technical support. With the proper training, simulations,
simulators, and advanced training technologies increase opportunities
for soldiers and units to minimize post-mobilization training time
required for combat units.
The challenge for the Army National Guard is to make maximum use of
advanced technologies and simulations so as to develop mechanisms and
processes that efficiently and effectively integrate and synchronize
individual and collective training requirements.
Empirical data reveals that soldiers who have practiced on various
gunnery and maneuver simulators have much higher gunnery qualification
rates and conduct maneuvers at higher levels of readiness than soldiers
who are not exposed to simulators. Further, after action reviews from
both the National Training Center and war-fighter exercises reflect
that the Armory Based Battle Staff Training units have increased
synchronization and raised the competencies of commanders and staff at
brigade and battalion levels.
The continued support for this successful program will ensure the
readiness of the Guard in meeting future missions; live, virtual, and
constructive training infrastructure; and training modernization.
Combat Training Centers
In fiscal year 2002, over 35,000 Guardsmen in 25 Army National
Guard Combat units, including two Enhanced Separate Brigades and a host
of support units, conducted war-fighting training at the National
Training Center, Joint Readiness Training Center, and Battle Command
Training Center. The training contributed to enhanced unit readiness by
allowing these units to execute their wartime combat, combat support,
and combat service support missions in realistic wartime scenario.
Mobilization Issues
Mobilizing Active Guard Reserve Soldiers under Title 32
The Active Guard Reserve program is designed to ensure that the
training and readiness of Army National Guard soldiers are maintained
at a high level. These codes have very specific limits on how the Army
or the States and Territories can utilize their Active Guard Reserve
force in times of need.
The events of September 11, 2001 brought these limitations to the
forefront. Under Title 32, Active Guard Reserve soldiers are not
authorized to support State missions after 72 hours unless specific
criteria are met, such as the imminent loss of life. The inability of
State Governors and Adjutants General to utilize all of their full-time
soldiers caused some significant organizational and leadership problems
within affected formations.
Active Guard Reserve members are critical assets to the force,
enabling units to rapidly respond to State emergencies and homeland
security efforts.
Medical and Dental Readiness
Individual medical readiness of Army Guard soldiers has become a
heightened priority since September 11, 2001. Individual medical
readiness requirements include immunizations, dental, and medical
screenings. The speed at which units deploy today places significant
time constraints on the Guard to properly identify or correct medical
or dental deficiencies at mobilization stations.
In October 2001, the Army National Guard initiated the Medical
Protection System, an automated tracking system for medical and dental
records. This system also tracks Physical Exam readiness data, as well
as HIV and DNA readiness data on file at the Army and Department of
Defense repositories; it is used at mobilization stations to verify
Individual Medical readiness in the Mobilization Level Application
Software. When fully implemented, the system will allow commanders and
human resource managers to monitor individual medical readiness of
their soldiers. Resources can then be directed where needed, and early
decisions can be made regarding the readiness of individuals and units
to be deployed.
It is important to understand that with very few exceptions, Army
National Guard soldiers are not entitled to medical or dental care for
pre-existing disorders, only for injury or illness incurred in the line
of duty. Dental readiness is particularly problematic. Both Congress
and Department of Defense have attempted to positively influence dental
readiness, but the remedy is not yet available. Units are still
arriving at mobilization stations with soldiers in need of dental care
to bring them to deployment standards.
If the nation continues to utilize the Army National Guard and Army
Reserve in support of the Global War on Terrorism, it must ensure that
these Reserve Components maintain the same high level of medical
readiness as the active component.
Current Operations
Force Protection
In fiscal year 2002, the Army National Guard provided soldiers for
deployments in the continental United States and overseas. Almost
20,000 soldiers worked 1,490,000 mandays conducting force protection
missions and executing border security missions at 83 sites owned by
the Army Materiel Command; U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command;
U.S. Army Forces Command; Immigration and Naturalization Service; and
U.S. Customs Service. The National Guard supported homeland security
missions by guarding airports, nuclear power plants, domestic water
supplies, bridges, and tunnels in support of the State Governors.
Contingency Operations
The Army National Guard has assumed the lead as the stabilizing
force in the Balkans and in Southwest Asia. Six Army National Guard
brigades and numerous battalions participated in rotations as part of
the Multinational Force Observers in the Sinai, and in Southwest Asia,
providing support to the Air Defense Artillery units in Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia. The Army National Guard is scheduled to provide Division
Headquarters and maneuver units to four of the next six rotations to
Bosnia.
Partial Mobilization
During fiscal year 2002, the Army National Guard contributed tens
of thousands of soldiers to support the Global War on Terrorism. By
September 2002, over 20,000 soldiers were mobilized from within the
Army Guard's ranks, and those numbers are expected to continue to
increase. These fine citizen-soldiers were deployed with very little
post-mobilization training, yet stand ready to enforce the will of the
United States.
Military Support to Civilian Authorities
Since September 11, 2001, Army National Guard soldiers have
responded to 263 requests for emergency support for a total of 645,419
mandays. These soldiers provided security, logistics support,
transportation, and family care centers. They worked in support of
World Trade Center relief, the Winter Olympics, and security at
American icons such as Mount Rushmore, the Boston Marathon, and the
Super Bowl in Louisiana. Major wildfires involving 21 States and
consuming over 6.6 million acres required 47,519 mandays of support.
The Army National Guard provided aviation support with water-bucket
drops, security, and command and control as needed. The Guard's
soldiers supported flood recovery operations in Kentucky, West
Virginia, Tennessee, and Texas for a total of 23,882 mandays.
Modern Infrastructure and Facilities
Army National Guard facilities are vital for the operations,
preparation, and execution of emergency assistance and the Global War
On Terrorism missions. Readiness centers, maintenance facilities, and
training centers provide the citizen-soldier a base from which to
train, maintain equipment, and mobilize at a moment's notice.
Most of the Army National Guard's existing infrastructure was built
prior to 1990, with a very significant number being more than 50 years
old. The Army National Guard has refined the method used to validate
requirements for its aging facilities. This refinement has given the
Army National Guard a much more accurate analysis of what is needed to
maintain and improve the Guard's facilities. The validated requirement
in fiscal year 2004 is approximately $1.18 billion.
Military Construction
The Army National Guard's Military Construction, Sustainment,
Restoration and Modernization and Facilities Base Operations programs
support construction, maintenance and operations of Army National Guard
facilities.
The programs provide facilities for Guard units and personnel to
operate, prepare for, and execute required missions. The priority is to
afford units with readiness, maintenance, and training facilities that
enhance unit capability to effectively mobilize and deploy when called.
Military Construction funding in 2004 supports general facilities
revitalization, the Army National Guard Division Redesign Study,
planning and design for Range and Training Lands Program, Aviation
Transformation, and the Stryker Brigade Combat Team. General facilities
revitalization consists of restoration and modernization based on 67-
year recapitalization of existing facilities for current missions and
building out facilities to support existing missions. The Army
Facilities Strategy is a component of Facilities Revitalization. The
program supports readiness by providing standard facilities to support
training of personnel and maintenance of equipment for existing and new
missions.
The existing infrastructure is outdated and inadequate with many
facilities unable to support current unit training or operational
requirements. The ranges do not meet current standards and without
adequate facilities, units cannot meet war fighting or homeland
security readiness. At present, newly fielded vehicles are unable to
fit into existing maintenance bays, and there is insufficient space to
store equipment properly to ensure adequate operation.
The increased requirements for these programs have been staggering.
Funding for Military Construction is on the increase, though not at the
same level as requirements. The requirement increases 62 percent in
fiscal year 2004 and reaches almost 107 percent for fiscal year 2009.
The funding of Military Construction increases over 5 percent in fiscal
year 2004 and reaches an increase of about 38 percent in fiscal year
2009.
The Military Construction funding ramp increases considerably over
the next five years to address the Army National Guard's facilities
shortfalls in quality and quantity. A significant portion of this ramp
addresses the 56th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Aviation
Transformation, Army Range and Training Lands program, and Army
National Guard Division Redesign. These transformational programs
address the facilities needs of our transforming force structure. A
full two-thirds of the Military Construction program addresses
facilities revitalization from fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
The refinement of the Army National Guard real property inventory
has increased the validated requirements for sustainment by an average
of $4 million per year for fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Funding for
sustainment in fiscal year 2004 is approximately 93 percent of
validated requirements as generated by the Department of Defense
Facilities Sustainment Model. Base Operations, requirements have
increased significantly; however, funding has not increased at the same
rate.
Environmental Programs
The Army National Guard Environmental Program is a world-class
environmental management program; its core competency is ``ensuring the
sustainable use of Army National Guard training lands and facilities to
enable essential training and support functions critical to operational
mission accomplishment.'' Through National Guard pollution prevention,
conservation, and restoration activities, the Army National Guard
maintains compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The Army
Guard also practices sound stewardship and promotes innovative ways to
ensure compatible use of sustainable natural resources in its charge
and military training lands to support national defense.
Within the past year, the Army National Guard has met statutory
requirements to develop and begin implementation of Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans for 90 of the Army Guard's installations. The
Army National Guard is aggressively continuing development of
Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plans in a similar fashion, in
addition to completing many precursor planning-level surveys, such as
wetlands and forest inventories that fed the above major environmental
management plans. The Army Guard's Environmental Compliance Assessment
System program has innovative technology solutions to maintain the
Guard's leadership role in this program.
There are approximately 42 listed threatened and endangered species
on 36 Army National Guard training sites, and the Army National Guard
has proven it can maintain compatible use. The Army National Guard has
taken the lead in developing a comprehensive computer-based tool that
will provide near real-time data on environmental resource sustainment
factors at training centers. These facilities are critical to realistic
unit and weapons training. The new electronic tool will be used to
assess environmental vulnerabilities to ensure ranges and maneuver
lands are available for training. This capability has great potential
for pre-emptive rather than reactive environmental management.
Homeland Security
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Program
The National Guard is playing a significant role in the defense
against ballistic missile threat by organizing, manning, and deploying
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Units. The Army National Guard received
approval to activate a Missile Defense Brigade, based on the results of
the Total Army Analysis 2009. The Brigade Headquarters will be located
in Colorado and the first Battalion will be located in Alaska. These
organizations will serve as the cornerstone for the Ground-Based
Midcourse Defense program.
The Missile Defense Agency, Ground-Based Midcourse Defense-Joint
Program Office has agreed to provide pay and allowance for initial
personnel required for this program in preparation for Initial
Defensive Operations beginning in fiscal year 2004.
As critical as this mission component is to the national defense,
it requires adequate full-time manning to achieve full operational
capability. By offering the needed manpower to the Army Space Command
and the Space and Missile Defense Command, the Army Guard will provide
this primary land-based homeland security system.
Anti-Terrorism Force Protection
The Army National Guard's Anti-Terrorism Force Protection and
physical security programs provide for security and protection of
facilities, personnel, and equipment, as well as the monitoring and
maintenance of intrusion detection systems that detect and assess
threats at 397 critical sites. Intrusion systems, closed circuit
television, and access control systems decrease the number of personnel
needed to guard facilities as well as prevent personnel from exposure
to potentially harmful situations. The security systems save on
personnel costs: Fewer soldiers are needed to guard Department of
Defense facilities, equipment, and property and are channeled instead
into mission deployment or crisis management.
Guard Knowledge Management
The Guard Knowledge Management initiative and the Distributive
Training Technology Project support the Army National Guard's ability
to maintain and improve individual and unit readiness, the ability to
mobilize, and quick, efficient deployment. Through the effective
integration of information technology programs and implementation of
Knowledge Management initiatives, the Army Guard is enhancing its
capability to identify, distribute, and access critical information
that directly impacts the Army Guard's ability to meet readiness goals
and mission objectives.
For example, the Army National Guard saves money and resources and
heightens readiness by providing increased foreign language sustainment
and enhancement training using distance-learning technologies.
Courseware is being developed at several sites throughout the United
States, including Iowa, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Arkansas, and New
Jersey. In addition, the Vermont Army National Guard has been
conducting Information Operations training since February 1999 for all
components of the Army. The Army National Guard made full use of its
Knowledge Management capabilities to conduct extensive pre-deployment
training for the 29th Infantry Division (Light) Headquarters for their
peacekeeping rotation in Bosnia.
The Army Guard has also partnered with the National Air and Space
Administration to deliver a wide array of educational content to young
people to stimulate interest in science, math, and technology. The Army
National Guard is building on these and other success stories to help
increase readiness through a vigorous implementation of Knowledge
Management principles.
Transformation
Legacy Force Sustainment
While still experiencing critical modernization challenges in High-
Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles, Single-Channel Ground and
Airborne Radios, chemical and biological detection equipment, and Night
Vision Devices, the Army National Guard continues to improve its
overall readiness posture. The redistribution of assets will continue
to be a part of the remedy to a variety of shortfalls throughout the
Army National Guard's force. As the Army National Guard completes its
Division Redesign, some equipment will be made available for use in
other formations. Similarly, as the 56th Brigade in Pennsylvania
transforms, equipment will be redistributed.
Over the last decade, the Army National Guard has made significant
progress in modernizing the heavy force with the M1A1 Abrams, M2A2
Bradley, M109A6 Paladin, and M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System. It is
the Army National Guard's plan to continue efforts to transform
equipment and technologies to ensure interoperability and readiness
levels.
Interim Force
The Army National Guard modernization strategy provides for a
compatible and fully networked force. A key component of the
transformation strategy is the activation of the 56th Brigade of
Pennsylvania that is expected to become the first Army National Guard
Stryker Brigade prior to 2008. Overall, the six Army-wide Stryker
Brigade Combat Teams' mission is to be a rapid deployment force that
can be deployed anywhere in the world in 96 hours.
The Army National Guard's highest priority remains maintaining war-
fighting readiness. In support of this imperative, the organization is
pursuing a modernization strategy that will provide the nation with
compatible, interoperable, and strategically viable forces well into
the future. The transformation campaign plan articulates the strategy
of how to achieve the Army vision of an objective force that is more
responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, and sustainable in
times of crisis. Current forces will continue to be viable long into
the future and will provide the margin of security that allows the Army
to undertake transformation. The Army will maintain the combat
overmatch capabilities of the current force through selective
modernization, technology insertion, and recapitalization. The Army's
plan is to have all of Pennsylvania's Stryker Brigade Combat Team's
facility construction and other infrastructure requirements started by
fiscal year 2006.
Objective Force
The Army National Guard Division Redesign Study is a four-phase
transformation project. Phases I and II of this study will involve the
conversion of six brigades along with a portion of two divisions. The
purpose is to address a long-standing U.S. Army concern regarding a
lack of combat support and combat service support in the force
structure.
Military construction is required to meet this critical change, and
with the assistance of 24 participating States, the Army National Guard
is in the process of planning the modification and rebuilding of older
facilities to accommodate this new mission. Phases III and IV are under
revision, and the pending Army Guard Restructuring Initiative will most
likely impact these later stages of restructuring; funding for this
initiative is in excess of $370 million.
Restructuring Initiative
On September 8, 2002, Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White
introduced the Army National Guard Restructuring Initiative at the 2002
National Guard Association of the United States annual conference. Mr.
White stated that ``in light of our new plan for national defense [we]
are now undertaking a new initiative which we will call the Army
National Guard Restructuring Initiative. Whereas the original
initiative Army Division Redesign Study converts combat formations to
support structure, the new initiative restructures a sizeable portion
of the National Guard combat formations to better support our combatant
commanders' requirements.''
The concept is to convert existing heavy and light combat structure
to new designs that better support Combatant Commanders (including the
new Northern Command) under the new defense strategy. Tentatively
called Multi-Functional Divisions and Mobile Light Brigades, these new
organizations will be first and foremost war-fighting organizations
prepared for full-spectrum operations. The first unit could begin
conversion as early as fiscal year 2005.
The conversion to these new organizations, combined with efforts
already under way as part of the Army National Guard Division Redesign
Study effort, will result in a 30 percent decrease in the current
number of tracked vehicles in Army Guard Combat Divisions and Brigades.
Although this constitutes a reduction of heavy assets, the National
Guard is determined to ensure that the Army Guard does not maintain
obsolete systems that are inconsistent with future Army operational
concepts including unit design, support and sustainment.
Aviation Transformation
Army National Guard aviation is one of the nation's highest value
assets for both wartime and peacetime missions. In wartime, these Army
National Guard aviation units provide the sustaining and reinforcing
power required for successful execution of the National Military
Strategy, as well as the most readily available Army aviation assets
for homeland security. In peacetime, these critical aviation assets are
equally important for the widest possible range of missions at both the
State and Regional levels. These peacetime missions range from Air
Ambulance, Search and Rescue, and Counterdrug support in areas having
no such civilian capacity, to wide-scale and timely response to both
natural and man-made disasters.
The Army National Guard's aviation units continue to contribute
almost half of the Army's aviation structure, including Counterdrug
Reconnaissance and Aerial Interdiction Detachments in 37 States and
Territories, which use specially modified OH-58 observation aircraft to
support federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies with
counterdrug efforts in the United States. These units are also postured
to support homeland security efforts. Six of these units were deployed
along the Northern Border supporting the U.S. Border Patrol and
Operation Noble Eagle during fiscal year 2002.
Since fiscal year 2002, the Army's Aviation Transformation effort,
coupled with other aviation modernization and recapitalization
improvements, has not only significantly improved the readiness and
capabilities of Guard aviation units, but also has reduced the overall
aviation footprint. While significant quantities of modern series UH-
60, CH-47, and AH-64 aircraft have been cascaded from active Army units
to Army Guard units, the associated equipment (tool set, tool kits,
test equipment, and parts) critical for the successful support of these
aircraft has not kept pace. Current Army procurement levels will leave
the Army Guard permanently short of its required number of aircraft. In
addition, many of the remaining allocated aircraft are not scheduled
for upgrade to the most current standard configurations:
--AH-64 ``Apache''.--Army National Guard will receive 254 of 296
required (42 short). Of the 254 AH-64s to be provided, only 63
will be the most modern AH-64D model.
--CH-47 ``Chinook''.--Army National Guard will receive 136 of 150
required (14 short). Of the 136 CH-47s to be provided, only 93
will be the most modern CH-47F model.
--UH-60 ``Blackhawk''.--Army National Guard will receive 687 of 775
required (88 short). All 687 are scheduled for eventual upgrade
to most modern UH-60M model.
--Homeland Security/RAID Aircraft.--The OH-58A/C aircraft currently
used for this mission are nearing the end of their useful life
span.
Personnel Transformation
The Army Guard's Permanent Electronic Records Management System is
a web-based system utilizing digital imagery to store and retrieve
personnel records. The importance of the Permanent Electronic Records
Management System lies in its seamless records management capability
throughout the Army, enhancing both mobilization and personnel
readiness.
By consolidating the administrative operations of human resources
in one place, the Permanent Electronic Records Management System allows
personnel records to follow a soldier regardless of component. In the
past, the system was slow and labor-intensive, resulting in pay
problems, promotion delays, difficulties in making new assignments, and
low personnel morale. Fixing the problem involves the conversion of
paper files to electronic files; and is a practice currently used by
the Department of the Army for all of its personnel actions. At present
the Army National Guard is the only military component that lacks
electronic records storage capability.
Under the Department of Defense's vision for a ``paperless
environment,'' the Army National Guard will be required to provide
electronic capabilities for personnel records in the 50 States, three
Territories, and the District of Columbia.
The Army National Guard will adopt an Automated Selection Board
System to support and improve the process under which information and
votes regarding personnel actions are processed by military personnel
boards.
Departing from an obsolete ``paper'' system to a digital system
that views data and images from the Permanent Electronic Records
Management System and the Department of the Army Photo Management
Information System is a time-consuming process. However, once the
Automated Selection Board System is adopted, it will save the Army
National Guard more than $150,000 per year in microfiche production and
postage costs.
This system is essential to achieve and fully support Personnel
Transformation. The Army National Guard must remain interoperable with
the Army and the Army Reserve by adopting this system. The conduct of
boards at the State level will become extremely cumbersome due to
unavailability of routine printed information. By failing to adopt the
Automated Selection Board System, the Army National Guard will be
required to download paper copies of an automated viewing and storing
system.
Strategic Readiness System
The Army National Guard's Strategic Readiness System was developed
pursuant to the Chief of Staff of the Army's guidance for a more
holistic assessment of readiness information. The Strategic Readiness
System is an integrated strategic management and measurement system
that ensures that all levels of the Army, including the National Guard
Bureau and the Army National Guard, recognize and align their
operations to the vision, objectives, and initiatives of the Army Plan.
The system also measures each element's success in achieving these
goals.
The Army Scorecard is the tool used to measure progress toward
stated goals and objectives. This tool will enable the Army National
Guard leadership to see the resource and readiness linkages throughout
the system and better predict a modeling capability that improves the
allocation of resources to achieve the highest degree of readiness.
Conclusion
The Army National Guard comprises diverse individuals from all
walks of life united by the desire to keep the American people safe and
secure. Many soldiers in the Guard leave behind promising career tracks
and loving families to serve their country without compromise or
hesitation. These soldiers lead dual lives; their sacrifices are
overwhelming and should not be forgotten or discounted.
Army National Guard soldiers have accomplished much work ``behind
the scenes'' in the past fiscal year, providing relief to victims of
catastrophes, security at numerous vulnerable locations, and
mobilization to various military operations world-wide. The Army
National Guard, the crucial foundation of the Army, reinforces and
augments the efforts of fellow soldiers to ensure that objectives are
achieved and initiatives are met.
While it has succeeded on many fronts, certain challenges still
face the Army National Guard. The issues of recruitment, retention, and
subsequent development of junior officers continue to be areas of
discussion. Dental and medical care remain sub par or lacking for many
soldiers in the Guard. Furthermore, the dearth of cutting-edge, state-
of-the-art facilities and equipment hampers the efforts of the Army
National Guard to perform at an optimum level.
The Army National Guard is a stalwart entity that is ever ready to
protect and defend the United States with zeal and determination. With
proper and judicious funding over the coming years, its continued
transformation will ensure brighter prospects for the Army itself and
the American people.
Air National Guard
The year 2002 will be marked by the volunteer spirit and dedication
of Air National Guard men and women spanning the globe: the War on
Terrorism at home, the War on Terrorism abroad, and ``routine''
deployments as full partners in the Air and Space Expeditionary Force.
Since September 11, 2001, we've been busier than ever before. We've
been flying fighter combat air patrols over cities keeping our country
safe. We've been seeking out terrorists where they live. We've been
gathering and interpreting data supporting the warfighters and securing
airports, bridges, and military installations. We've maintained our
aircraft and communications infrastructure so the mission can be
accomplished. We've done this with volunteers and mobilized personnel,
most of whom left their families and jobs to serve. We've done this as
proud members of the Total Force even while we continued to train for
what lies ahead.
During his campaign in Tunisia, General Eisenhower said, ``It is
not the man who is so brilliant who delivers in time of stress and
strain, but rather the man who can keep on going.'' The Air National
Guard not only delivered in a time of stress and strain but also kept
on going. In this past year we've gone from a surge force to a
sustaining force. At the peak of operations in February 2002, almost
15,000 people were mobilized and almost 8,000 were volunteers.
Throughout the summer both the volunteers and mobilization numbers came
down as the War on Terrorism reached a lower tempo. Often times we were
employed as a ``just in case'' force rather than a ``just in time''
force, mobilizing personnel in case they were needed rather than when
needed to fulfill immediate requirements. On many occasions Air
National Guard members were mobilized to backfill deploying active duty
troops. Employers understand better, as do families, when Guard men and
women deploy overseas rather than backfill. Whatever the call, we were
there.
We've been a solid team player in Operation Enduring Freedom and
the Air and Space Expeditionary Force. As fiscal year 2002 came to a
close, we had flown 25 percent of the fighter sorties, 31 percent of
the tanker sorties, and 27 percent of the airlift sorties. Through
innovative management techniques such as ``rainbowing'' units, we've
been a seamless part of the Total Force. We will continue to prosecute
the War on Terrorism on all fronts.
Combat operations couldn't happen without the exceptional support
capabilities provided by maintainers and logisticians; civil engineers
and security police; communicators and intelligence analysts. These
myriad support skills are brought to bear to make operations
successful. Many of these specialties are ``stressed'' but the troops
keep on giving.
Air National Guard citizen-airmen are the backbone of Operation
Noble Eagle. By the end of fiscal year 2002 we had flown 74 percent of
the fighter sorties, 62 percent of the tanker sorties, and 36 percent
of the airlift sorties. We maintained almost 100 percent of the alert
sites. The Air National Guard is extremely proud of its ability to
execute the homeland security mission. Through smart management of
resources and capabilities, we can continue to participate in the
homeland security mission as a by-product of our wartime tasking.
Continued Air National Guard participation in the Air and Space
Expeditionary Force is vital to our wartime readiness. Any unique
homeland security missions should be appropriately resourced.
As the War on Terrorism continues, our people and systems will be
employed at above-average rates. Through utilization of civilian skills
and innovation, Air National Guard professionals are keeping our aging
systems up and running. But in the face of fiscal and manpower
constraints the nation will not be able to afford the high costs
associated with maintaining legacy systems; therefore, the Air National
Guard will need to be transformed across the full spectrum of missions
with our active brethren. Through transformation to future high-tech
systems such as information operations, space-based capabilities,
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, C-17, and F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter, we
will be able to continue to leverage our civilian skills to make the
most of these systems' capabilities.
Technology, however, is only one part of transformation. Other
parts include concepts of operations and organizational structures. The
Air National Guard stands ready to explore and implement new concepts
of operations and organizations. We've done so already with the 116th
Air Control Wing at Robins AFB, Georgia. Together with the active force
we've established a Total Force unit that will highlight the
capabilities of both components and have broken down barriers that
would have otherwise precluded this structure. This is the right kind
of unit for the right mission. Not all future total force units should
look like this but should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Additionally, we should consider ``Reverse Associate'' units where
active duty members are associate to an Air National Guard unit. This
will take advantage of the operational infrastructure savings
associated with Air National Guard installations while broadening
assignment opportunities and experiences for active members.
Since the entire force cannot be transformed at once, some part of
the force will need to be modernized to include the latest
capabilities. Areas that are best suited for modernization include
facilities, precision-guided munitions, communications systems, air
refueling platforms and engines. These systems are necessary to provide
the required capabilities to fly and fight in today's battlefields.
Today, the Air National Guard is a vital part of this great nation's
security. We will proactively face the challenges ahead to remain a
ready, reliable, and relevant force.
Ready speaks to being sufficiently manned with trained personnel
capable of doing the global mission on short notice. Ready means
jumping into an aircraft and launching in minimum time should we be
attacked. Ready means support troops who can build and sustain support
facilities at austere airfields anywhere in the world when called upon.
Ready is being able to deploy in support of the Air and Space
Expeditionary Force to Turkey, Bosnia, or Iceland. Ready is the ability
to patrol airports or deliver food and supplies to those affected by
natural disasters. We are ready!
Reliable means that we can be accessed when we are needed. Reliable
means that whether through volunteerism or mobilization we have the
required people ready to go when and where needed. Reliable means we
can respond to the Governor of a state when in state duty or to a
Combatant Commander when federalized. Reliable means we'll be there,
and we will be!
Relevant means we are modernized and transformed to carry out
missions that are important to support the national security strategy.
Relevant means we've got targeting pods and the latest radar and
protective gear. Relevant means we're part of the F/A-22, Space, C-17,
ISR, and information operations. It means we are an important part of
our nations defense, and right now, we are.
This is our biggest challenge.
As the War on Terrorism continues, as does operations in other
critical regions of the world, the Air National Guard will be there. We
will continue the militia heritage of defending freedom as we did over
366 years ago. Our citizen-airmen will respond to the nations call to
put on their uniforms to fight for our nation's interests. While they
answer our call, we must answer theirs as we provide them with the
tools to accomplish the mission. We must give them what they need to be
Ready, Reliable, Relevant. Air National Guard. Now More Than Ever!
Air National Guard Infrastructure
The Air National Guard Infrastructure provides the Department of
Defense enhanced operational capacity with its presence at 176
locations throughout the country. As a recurring problem, the Air
National Guard has experienced significant difficulties in absorbing
new mission projects without adversely affecting restoration and
modernization efforts to support current weapon systems.
Air National Guard facilities continue to deteriorate due to
inadequate funding levels. Many facilities are in ``forced use''
condition, which requires unit personnel to endure substandard
facilities. Lack of safe, efficient and modern facilities is impacting
Air National Guard ``Quality of Life'', recruiting and retention. The
condition of the facilities directly impacts how effectively units are
able to respond to training, staffing, and other wartime needs.
With respect to homeland defense, we are concerned about the
attention to the operational needs of alert aircraft at Andrews Air
Force Base, Maryland; Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado; Truax Field,
Wisconsin; and other sites either standing alert with fighters and
tankers. After September 11, 2001, interim facilities were quickly
provided, however little progress has been made since the initial surge
to address permanent facilities alert missions at existing and
potential sites. The Air National Guard is also concerned about the
level of anti-terrorism and force protection funding to protect our
personnel and equipment. Terrorism in the homeland has forced us to
rethink and reprioritize how we secure our bases and sites.
Our fiscal year 2004 funding request allows us to achieve a
recapitalization rate of 170 years, meaning that we renovate or replace
our facilities an average of every 170 years. Our goal remains a 67-
year recapitalization rate, and our current program would achieve that
level in 2000?. Between now and then we plan to follow a smooth glide
path down to that level.
Readiness (Full-Time Manning)
As an integral partner in the Total Force, fully imbedded into a
formalized Air Expeditionary Force construct, the Air National Guard
will routinely provide force structure for day-to-day operations,
contingencies and the Global War on Terrorism. Historically, as a
``force in reserve'' the Air National Guard was funded with limited
full-time manpower to operate and maintain facilities, repair aircraft
and equipment, and train the drilling force. Today's operational tempo,
combined with aging aircraft, weapon systems and ever increasing
support requirements, the Air National Guard must be adequately
resourced to ensure these weapon systems are available for training and
deployment.
We recently accomplished a complete review of both our full-time
and traditional manpower requirements. Our review identified areas
where we need to realign our manpower and validated increased
requirements. Our fiscal year 2004 budget supports and reflects our
realignment and provides some increased full-time funding and end
strength. This is just the first step in getting our manpower resources
right. Emerging homeland security tasking and mission readiness needs
will drive additional manpower requirements and further realignments.
As demonstrated in Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom, the
Air Force could not go to war without the Air National Guard and the
Air Force Reserve. Additionally, the Air Force would be severely
hampered in conducting peacetime operations without its reserve
components.
The National Guard and Reserve Operations Tempo currently provide
25 percent of the aviation and almost 30 percent of the combat support
elements for steady, peacetime deployments of the Air and Space
Expeditionary Forces. They also provide more than 65 percent of the Air
Force's tactical airlift capability, 35 percent of the strategic
airlift, 60 percent of the air refueling, 38 percent of the fighters,
20 percent of combat rescue and make significant contributions to
bomber, and combat support missions.
Information Operations and Management
The Air National Guard is fully involved in the defensive elements
of information supporting the nation's homeland security efforts. The
civilian sector is heavily dependent on the national information
infrastructure, and the military relies upon the Air National Guard to
carry out its missions at home and overseas.
In addition to preparing for conventional combat, the Air National
Guard must now provide the most up-to-date protection against what has
become known as information or cyberspace' wars. Participation in this
mission area requires an investment in infrastructure to allow for the
Air National Guard to connect with classified network systems that have
sufficient bandwidth and capacity to store, process, and transmit
unprecedented amounts of data.
By using advanced technology information weapons systems, the Air
National Guard directly supports the Department of Defense's vision of
transformation. A new age of warfare includes information that consists
of a wide variety of operations and activities, such as psychological
operations, electronic warfare, military deception, physical attack,
computer network attack, defense, and exploitation, public affairs
operations, counter deception, counterintelligence, and
counterpropaganda operations.
Annual Dental Examinations Program
Currently, the Air National Guard is required to accomplish a
dental examination every five years. The Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs has mandated that this exam be
accomplished annually beginning February 2004. Air National Guard
Medical Squadrons are only authorized two dentists and two dental
technicians; however, many units may only have one or no dentists
assigned to accomplish these dental requirements. Air National Guard
Medical Squadrons are struggling to accomplish the current 400-500
dental exam requirements along with their mandated training. This
mandate will increase their workload to 1,100-1,300 dental exams each
year.
Mobilization
In today's Air Force, the Air National Guard is central to the
Total Force, and plays an ever-increasing role as a partner in the
Global War on Terrorism. Now, more than ever, the Guard is needed by
the nation to perform the mission they have been trained to do. Most
Air National Guard members have served in support of Operations Noble
Eagle and Enduring Freedom, and many more will continue to deploy to
fill Air and Space Expeditionary Force steady state requirements around
the globe. Their service is not without sacrifice and their sacrifice
is not without meaning.
Numerous personnel issues have surfaced around the disparity of
benefits associated with different status of service following
mobilization. Of notable importance, protection under the Soldiers' and
Sailors' Civil Relief Act applies only to a member mobilized under the
provisions of Title 10 U.S.C., and was not afforded to our citizen-
airmen serving in airport security.
Current policies and laws are now under scrutiny to alleviate
issues of disparity such as per diem limitations, down-time
restrictions, Basic Allowance for Housing I vs. II, income pay
protection, leave issues, and a myriad of entitlements and benefits
that are affected by either status or length of active duty tours. The
Air National Guard, as a full partner in the Total Force, will continue
its advocacy for parity in pay, entitlements and benefits. In its role
as a force provider, the Air National Guard will honor the commitment
to provide the right person, at the right place, at the right time.
Chemical Warfare Defense Equipment Program
The Air National Guard's Chemical Warfare Defense Equipment program
plans to be strategically positioned to provide individual equipment
protection, including individual chemical suits, gas masks, filter
canisters, hoods, boots, and gloves, to protect each member against
chemical or biological attack.
The Air National Guard identified a $66.8 million Chemical Weapons
Defense Ensemble Mobility Bag requirement to provide initial protection
for all members and to fund the replacement of Mobility Bag shelf-life
assets.
Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance
The Air National Guard's Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance
Account pays for depot level maintenance of all aircraft, aircraft
engines, special purpose vehicles, and other major items of equipment
(e.g., ground radar/radio sets). The major goal of the program is to
decrease the levels of deferred depot maintenance.
The Air National Guard is concerned about the spiraling costs for
organic and contract programmed depot maintenance and the impact on our
aging aircraft fleet. Increasing costs and under funded budget
requirements have resulted in an Air National Guard's Depot Purchased
Equipment Maintenance program that approximates an 80 percent funded
level.
Based on fiscal year 2003 projected budgets, funding shortfalls may
result in eight KC-135, three F-15 and one C-5 aircraft not being
inducted into the Depot Maintenance Program at the appropriately
scheduled time frame. We are concerned about what impact this
continuing annual funding shortfall has upon the current and future
readiness of the Air National Guard.
Vehicle Priority Buy Program
The Air National Guard Vehicle Priority Buy program is struggling
to keep pace with mission requirements associated with homeland
security, new Alert sites, Security Force protection, medical
evacuation teams and new aircraft conversions.
At the present time, 43 percent of the Air National Guard vehicle
fleet is due for replacement, at a cost of approximately $315 million.
Our budget includes $40 million, or roughly 13 percent of this
requirement, to replace vehicles in the inventory in fiscal year 2004.
The Air National Guard vehicle fleet will continue to age and
become more costly to maintain. This underscores the need to replace
vehicles. While we plan to replace the rest of the aging vehicles over
time, the rate at which we are currently replacing them, coupled with
additional requirements to support newly emerging homeland security
needs, could severely impact our near-term vehicle readiness.
Nationwide Information Technology Network
The Air National Guard is in the process of modernizing its
nationwide information technology network that serves a vital role in
homeland security and national defense. Reliable, available and secure
information technology is essential to Air National Guard, Air Force,
Department of Defense, and state authorities in their ability to
exercise control and command of information resources impacting their
various constituencies.
The Air National Guard Information Technology Network is critical
to the successful transmission of information within a unit, between
units, and among the various states. Without a healthy and robust
Information Technology network most other Air National Guard missions
will not be able to function. No Air National Guard function can stand
alone without interface and interaction with several other functions
and the network is the link that provides the medium to share
information at all levels.
The Air National Guard has made significant progress in procuring
network hardware and personal computer and server software that
decreases complexity and increases network communication with Air Force
and Department of Defense partners. Striving to accomplish a nationwide
reduction of network servers by consolidating core network services to
regional operations centers, the Air National Guard must first upgrade
its own communications and network infrastructure, technologies, and
facilities.
Continuing to fund the Air National Guard Enterprise Network at
last decades level will continue to give us last decade's capabilities.
The rapidly changing hardware and software requirements of our
warfighting and combat support functions come with a significant cost
to upgrade and maintain a fully capable Information Technology network.
The Air National Guard network is funded and maintained at the same
level it was during the 1990's. Without a significant infusion of new
technology, all other Air National Guard mission areas will be less
than fully capable of prosecuting their missions. One time cost
estimates to bring the Air National Guard Enterprise Network up to a
fully capable and robust condition are approximately $80 million,
coupled with a significant increase in sustainment and refreshment
funding to maintain and upgrade the Information Technology Enterprise
to fully support all other mission areas in the continuing war on
terrorism and homeland security. This modernization initiative will
certainly enhance the Air National Guard's interoperability with other
federal and state agencies.
Capabilities Based Military Force
The Air National Guard is a solid partner with the Air Force, the
Air Force Reserve, and all collective units of the Department of
Defense designed to protect national security and maintain
international peace. The Defense Department priority is Transformation
and therefore the priority of the active services and the reserve
components.
Transformation as ``relevancy'' is dependent on the Air National
Guard readiness, in both state and federal missions, being able to
support service apportioned and Joint Chiefs validated Combatant
Commander required ``capabilities.'' Becoming a ``capabilities based''
military force translates into the Air National Guard's need to acquire
new technology and equipment to maintain a state of readiness and
relevancy now and in the future. The Air National Guard must embrace
the process of transformation and intelligent risk-taking to provide a
fully trained, equipped and ready force to defend the nation at home
and overseas.
The Air Force is pursuing innovative organizational constructs and
personnel policies to meld the various components into a single,
unified force. Future Total Force integration will create efficiencies,
cut costs, ensure stability, retain invaluable human capital, and,
above all, increase our combat capabilities. Another transformation
effort is to ``blend,'' where sensible, units from two or more
components into a single wing with a single commander. Active, Guard,
and Reserve personnel share the same facilities and equipment, and
together, execute the same mission. This is a level of integration
unprecedented in any of the Services.
Potential future missions might include Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
and their training programs, combining the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
squadrons with their manned fighter counterparts; integrated fighter
squadrons realizing the benefits of highly trained personnel flying
legacy systems during the transition period to newer fighter aircraft
like the Joint Strike Fighter. The Air National Guard has been steadily
increasing its participation in space operations over the years and
already plays a vital role in missile warning, satellite command and
control, and launch operations. These contributions will be key during
conflicts envisioned in the future.
These changes confirm and continue the trend in which air and space
forces carry a heavier share of the burden in the nation's wars. The
new strategy and force-sizing standard point to an increase, not a
decrease, in aerospace power.
Since September 11, 2001, Air Force components have flown most of
the subsequent air defense sorties in Operation Noble Eagle, with the
Air National Guard flying 74 percent of the total missions. The Air
National Guard must be resourced in order to sustain our nation's fight
against the war on terrorism in defense of the homeland. This new
theatre of operations paves the way to transform the experience of the
Air National Guard to effectively respond to homeland security missions
in an expeditionary role.
The Air National Guard will continue on its Total Force journey
hand-in-hand with the Air Force, the Air Force Reserve and, indeed, all
of the Department of Defense away from a threat based force toward the
``capabilities based'' force that will be required into the future. The
Air National Guard will always provide a ready, reliable, and relevant
force that America can count on now, and, through Transformation,
solidly into the future.
Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance
As a strong defense, Air National Guard eyes in the skies' approach
to surveillance and reconnaissance provides the nation with protection
from hostile air or land attacks. To increase its intelligence
surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, the Air National Guard
seeks to expand our capabilities to intelligence imagery with
deployable commercial imagery downlink and exploitation system (Eagle
Vision), and modernize and increase the capability of the Air National
Guard's signals intelligence. This system will be very beneficial to
homeland security missions across the broad spectrum from natural
disasters to terrorism assessments.
In much the same way that National Guard assets have been
effectively employed in the war on drugs, the mission of the global war
on terrorism plays a large role in how the Air National Guard is
directing its focus and personnel. New intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capabilities will be particularly useful in conducting
domestic missions dealing with natural disasters in which the Air
National Guard can assist states with relief efforts caused by
tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes.
Air National Guard Space Operations Program
For the Air National Guard, Space Operations provide a critical
communications link to communities throughout the nation in the form of
satellite support for everyday uses (television, computers, wireless
phones), but also serve as an important military deterrence from
external threats. Recently, two Air National Guard units in Wyoming and
California have come out of conversion to provide operational command
control support to Northern Command and to provide round-the-clock
support to the Milstar satellite constellation.
Additionally, the 114th Range Flight in Florida is partnered with
an active Air Force unit performing the Launch Range safety mission.
There are future plans by the Air Force to transition additional space
program assets to Air National Guard control.
Logistics Information Technology Program
The National Guard Logistics Information Technology Modernization
programs will enable the Air National Guard to operate seamlessly with
active and reserve counterparts in support of combat operations or
other contingencies in all operational theaters.
This Air National Guard initiative ensures that the organization
maintains interoperability with common worldwide contingency systems.
This involves plans to modernize logistical information technology
systems, including Digital Technical Data, Joint Computer-Aided
Acquisition and Logistics Support, Wireless Local Area Network, Tool
Accountability Systems, and Integrated Maintenance Data Systems. The
Air National Guard effort to sustain these modernization programs and
initiatives has been estimated to cost $314 million.
Expeditionary Medical Support (EMEDS) Transformation
The Air National Guard's Expeditionary Medical Support response
platform is a comprehensive medical system that is designed to provide
for homeland security consistent with meeting the requirements of major
theater warfare or peacetime disaster response support. Like an
airborne portable hospital, this is truly the lightest, leanest, and
most capable deployable medical platform available to the Air National
Guard today.
The Air National Guard Air Surgeon's Office has established
personnel packages that will be able to support 15 Expeditionary
Medical Support packages (two on-call) for each Aerospace Expeditionary
Force deployment and 13 available for homeland security if deployed
through state-to-state compacts or the national-level Emergency
Management Assistance Compact. The personnel packages were placed in
each Air National Guard unit, effective with the publication of the
unit manpower and planning documents. Once the equipment sets have been
acquired, they will be strategically pre-positioned throughout the
continental United States and will provide the flexibility of
responding to any disaster within several hours from activation. The
equipment and personnel packages will be positioned to provide both a
distinct wartime capability and military support to civil authorities
in each Federal Emergency Management Agency region. Each region will
have an Expeditionary Medical Support +25 or Expeditionary Medical
Support +50 capability, with the ability to provide multiple medical
response teams configured for support of the first responders. Our
objective is to obtain two Expeditionary Medical Support equipment
sets, one to be placed on each coast.
With Operation Iraqi Freedom, our transformed ANG Medical Service
deployed for the first time ever these revolutionary medical wartime
platforms. In several cases, our ANG medical personnel were deploying
with this new capability at the same time many active duty units
deployed. A remarkable point to be made is that this capability, added
to the Guard in January 2003, is currently being deployed to serve our
fighting forces in Iraq. Though we are currently recruiting to fill
full teams, we have identified 39 teams of critical care physicians,
nurses, and technicians, across the ANG, volunteering to go forward.
The Air Mobility Command Surgeon General, who is responsible, as the
force provider, for these critical care teams, could not have
accomplished this mission without the critical day-to-day clinical
expertise of our guard members. We are clearly postured medically for
the future.
Modernization
The Air National Guard Modernization program is a comprehensive
effort to leverage programs from the Air Force with appropriated
funding to keep the Air National Guard ready, reliable and relevant for
today and tomorrow's operational theaters. The Modernization Program is
segmented into three time frames: short-term (the current and next
year's Defense budget), medium-term (out to 2010), and long-term (out
to 2015).
The Air National Guard Modernization Program directly supports the
Global War on Terrorism by providing weapon systems engaged in combat
operations overseas, domestic surveillance and combat air patrols. As
upgrades are made to the various systems, it is incumbent on the Air
National Guard to provide reliable systems, as well as effective
training, to ensure the highest state of readiness for forces
participating in the on-going combat operations. The arrival of the
Block 25/30/32 F-16s into the Afghan theater, with their Litening II
precision targeting pods, provided the Special Forces engaging Taliban
and Al Qaeda forces on the ground with a unique, laser-spot-tracking
capability. With our forces closely engaged with a tenacious enemy in
very rough terrain, the Block 25/30/32 F-16s were the number one choice
of the ground troops when requesting close air support. Air National
Guard forces were an integral part of Operation Enduring Freedom from
the beginning to the end because the Modernization Program that
provided a ready, reliable and relevant force.
The Air National Guard Modernization Program directly supports
homeland security, most obviously through the combat air patrols flown
during Operation Noble Eagle. Well versed in the air sovereignty
mission, the Air National Guard responded within minutes to the attack
on the World Trade Center, and were immediately patrolling the airspace
across the United States. Many American citizens expressed comfort at
seeing armed fighter aircraft flying above them while unanimously
stating they never thought they would live to see the day American
military air power would be used in combat operations so close to home.
These continuing operations since September 11th, 2001 highlight the
atrophy of the command and control systems associated with our Air
Defense network due to decades of neglect. As Northern Command
clarifies the air sovereignty mission, this modernization program will
be crucial to ensuring the evolving mission needs correspond with the
capability of the assigned forces and that any required improvements
are adequately resourced.
Besides Operation Noble Eagle, the enhanced defense of the airspace
above the United States, the Air National Guard supports Operation
Enduring Freedom, the global counter-terrorism campaign. We also
continue to support other on-going operations through the Air and Space
Expeditionary Force commitments. These commitments include regular
deployments to Operation Southern Watch, Operation Northern Watch, and
the air defense alert commitment in Iceland. The domestic missions
include continued counter-drug flights, fire fighting missions,
disaster relief airlifts, and civilian rescue missions.
The key to transforming Air National Guard assets to the future
force structure is ensuring that systems are ready, reliable, and
relevant. This program begins with a national conference of war
fighters from all of the major weapon systems. Given the missions they
expect to fight over the next ten years, the war fighters then outline
what is needed to keep their platforms relevant. From these requests,
the Air National Guard reviews the Air Force modernization program,
calculates any resulting shortages, and finds a way to obtain at least
an equivalent capability so the Air National Guard can bring a relevant
capability to the mission. As OPSTEMPO increases and contingencies
multiply, there is an increasing focus on short-term capabilities,
restricting funding available for long-term investment. The
Modernization Program is a comprehensive effort affecting all aspects
of the Air National Guard.
One of the premier accomplishments in the past year is the very
short-term identification, development and fielding of the Transparent
Multi-Platform Gateway integrated into the Joint Range Extension
gateway providing interoperability and connectivity between the
Situation Awareness Data Link and Enhanced Position Reporting System
network and Link 16. The Modernization Program funded the groundwork
required for this capability. By leveraging the on-going Air Force
Joint Ranger Extension program, the Block 25/30/32 F-16s were
successfully networked into the command centers, providing a major
increase in theater-wide situational awareness. One system is already
in operation overseas while follow-on systems are now being acquired to
ensure increased flexibility. Additionally, the North American Air
Defense Contingency Suite was fielded giving North American Air Defense
Command the ability to track targets within the United States and
integrate the Federal Aviation Administration tracks into the military
transponder network in support of Operation Noble Eagle.
The A-10 continued its role as the venerable attack aircraft
supporting operations from both Kuwait and Bagram AB, Afghanistan. The
key modernization program for this aircraft is called Precision
Engagement. Precision Engagement will ensure the A-10's continued
relevance on tomorrow's battlefields. This cost-efficient program will
transform the current A-10 cockpit into a 21st century cockpit, greatly
reducing pilot workload and providing additional combat capability in
the form of precision guided munitions. Associated with Precision
Engagement was a watershed decision to install the new Joint Tactical
Radio System on the A-10 making it the first aircraft to be equipped
with this future data link and communication suite. During the past
year, the A-10 experienced an aircraft modification to improve the
personal locator system and consolidate countermeasures equipment.
Other modernization efforts include further research into an adequate,
engine replacement, an AN/ALR 69 Radar Warning Receiver antenna
replacement, and continued COMET infrared countermeasures pod testing.
During the last year, the Air National Guard F-16's provided
crucial combat capabilities in both Operation Noble Eagle and Operation
Enduring Freedom using Litening targeting pods for precision-guided
munitions funded by the Modernization Program. The Commercial Central
Interface Unit, and the AN/ALR-69 Radar Warning Receiver Antenna
Optimization kits, are all part of our modernization effort over the
past year. Initial funding for the Advanced Identify/Friend/Foe upgrade
was secured along with funding for 25 more engine upgrade kits for our
F-16 Block 42 aircraft. The Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System
continued its spiral development and Night Vision Imaging System
lighting for the A and B models to support Operation Noble Eagle was
installed.
The HC-130 began installation of the Forward Looking Infrared
system. Also, installation of aircraft night vision imaging systems and
acquisition of rapid onload/offload ``canary ramps'' for austere
locations increase our capability to provide critical combat support
day or night.
The HH-60 program started integration of the new M3M .50 caliber
defensive weapon, installed an improved insertion extraction system for
deploying personnel and bought skis for the Alaska aircraft to
facilitate Arctic operations. The Pararescue/Special Tactics program
replaced personal equipment for the pararescue jumpers and combat
controllers with state-of-the-art weapons and technologies.
The Operational Support Aircraft Modernization Program leased two
737 Boeing Business Jet aircraft and secured funding for a C-40C in
fiscal year 2004. The existing Boeing Business Jets will also get
upgraded to the C-40C configuration as part of the lease program.
Three new C-130 Js will be delivered in fiscal year 2004. These
aircraft will be a welcome addition to our tactical airlift inventory
as we move toward an Initial Operational Capability milestone.
The modernization of the Air National Guard training and simulation
systems includes partial fielding of the Full Combat Mission Trainer
for our A-10 units. Half of these units have received the advanced
trainer system and additional funds are required to complete the
beddown at the remaining units. The F-16 Block 30 distributed mission
training capable flight simulators are in engineering development while
funding was secured for two F-15 advanced flight simulators at our
flying training unit at Kingsley Field, Oregon. The Iowa Air National
Guard's 132nd Fighter Wing has been officially designated as the site
of the ANG's Distributed Training Operations Center making it a major
hub of Air Force-wide distributed training. The ANG's four Combat
Readiness Training Centers and fourteen Ranges are ideal assets for the
Joint National Training Capability. The increased use of Precision
Guided and Stand Off weapons will drive changes in the airspace and
range requirements to properly and safely train. Evolving training
requirements, such as ``lights out'' operations in special use
airspace, create unique challenges for operating in the National
Airspace System. The potential contentiousness and length of time it
can take to establish new or modified airspace makes it essential to
identify requirements as early as possible.
The modernization of the F-15 included the initial acquisition of
the BOL Infrared countermeasures improvements system, continued
installation of the Multi-functional Information Distribution System
Fighter Data Link, and the purchase of the first 25 engine upgrade
kits.
The C-130 modernization program purchased more aircraft armor; and
continued acquisition of the AN/APN-241 Low Power Color Radar, the
installation of the Night Vision Imaging System, the Air National
Guard-driven development of Scathe View to include various
technological spin-offs having application in a myriad of civilian and
military efforts; and supported Air Force's development of the AN/AAQ-
24 (V) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures system. We also
completed final design review and testing of the new advanced Airborne
Fire Fighting System to bolster the fire and protection capabilities
nationwide. The Air National Guard is supporting a Joint Program, along
with the Navy and Marine Corps, to test and qualify an Electronic
Propeller Control System for the C-130.
The Air National Guard fully supports the Air Force plan to acquire
the new 767 tanker aircraft and the plan to move more KC-135Rs to the
Air National Guard.
Modernization of complex weapons systems is a continuous process,
not a goal. Traditionally the Air National Guard gets legacy systems
through the equipment that is trickled-down from the active duty
forces. With the exception of the Block 50 F-16s and the C-17, these
legacy systems do not have the funding to upgrade their capabilities to
make them equivalent to the active Air Force. The Air National Guard
requires an aggressive program to meet the combat capabilities required
for the missions assigned to the Air and Space Expeditionary Forces
built, in part, with Air National Guard forces. To keep the
Modernization Program focused and to maximize combat capability per
dollar, we use the Combat Quadrangle to summate the fundamental combat
capabilities required to meet assigned missions. The Combat Quadrangle,
derived from the Air Force's core competencies, consists of enhanced
survivability, 24-hour operations, combat identification, and precision
strike. The Air National Guard includes all aircraft, ground command
and control systems, training and simulation systems in the
modernization effort. The requirements definitions required to focus
this effort must be grounded in clearly defined combat capabilities and
missions. The foundation of future efforts is relevance with
reliability and readiness. It is increasingly difficult to keep the Air
National Guard legacy systems relevant given the transformation of the
Air Force to better, more effective technologies. Systems funding will
be a continuous and serious challenge since funding levels continue to
fall short of mission requirements. Over the foreseeable future, the
military services, specifically the Air Force, will be stretched to
simultaneously fund current operations, modernization and future
Research and Development projects.
The Air National Guard Modernization Program is the key to fielding
and supporting a relevant combat capability to meet any emerging
challenges for the next 10-15 years. We must sustain an open and honest
dialogue from the warfighter through to the President and the Congress
in order to maximize the investment of precious tax dollars. The
Modernization Program works as seen in the examples above. The Air
National Guard Modernization Program will continue to provide success
stories as the United States Air Force transforms to meet the future.
We in the Air National Guard are proud to serve this great nation
as Citizen-Airmen. Building the strongest possible Air National Guard
is our most important objective. Our people, readiness modernization
programs and infrastructure supported through your Congressional
actions are necessary to help maintain the Air National Guard as the
best reserve force. With your continued support, we are confident that
the men and women of the Air National Guard will meet the challenges
set before us.
Joint Programs
National Guard State Partnership Program
The National Guard State Partnership program is constituted to
encourage and build long-standing institutional affiliations and
interpersonal relationships with those nations that are striving to
establish democratic military organizations. Our citizen-soldiers
provide military leaders in partner nations an opportunity to witness
our highly trained and capable soldiers at work. National Guard members
who serve as role models become a compelling argument for the ideals of
democracy, professionalism, and deference to civilian authority. Our
personnel gain valuable experience interfacing with people of diverse
cultures, as they will encounter when activated and deployed overseas
during a federal mission. This also provides the United States with the
opportunity to demonstrate the necessity and economy of reserve
component personnel who are trained and equipped to respond immediately
to civil or military emergency. The program also supports homeland
security by helping to develop dependable and collaborative partners
for the United States. It supports Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's New
Concepts of Global Engagement and has the capacity to link states with
partner nations for the purpose of improving bilateral relations.
The National Guard State's Partnership Program supports missions in
which troops prepare to depart their partnership countries for
cooperative events, mobilization skills are refined, and National Guard
personnel interface with diverse cultures, helping to prepare them for
active deployment overseas during potentially hostile activities. The
State partners actively participate in a host of engagement activities
ranging from bilateral familiarization and training events, exercises,
fellowship-style internships, and civic leader visits.
National Guard Family Programs
As the role of the National Guard becomes focused on the dual
missions of Global War on Terrorism and homeland security, units will
continue to maintain a high level of readiness for overseas and
homeland operations. An integral part of service member readiness is
family readiness. The National Guard Family Program Office was
established to provide policy, guidance, and resources for developing
the Family Program quality of life and family readiness infrastructure
to the Adjutants General of all 54 States and Territories, the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau, and the Directors of the Army and Air
National Guard.
The National Guard Family Program office implements Department of
Defense directive to ensure service members and their families are
provided a quality of life that reflects the high standards and pride
of the Nation they defend, and that this policy be achieved by working
in partnership with Department of Defense personnel and their families,
recognizing their role in the readiness of the Total Force.
If family members are not prepared for deployments, a service
member's readiness, morale, and eventually retention are affected.
Family programs are currently in place to assist families during the
challenging stages of deployment: pre-mobilization, mobilization, and
reunion. The Family Program office provides support to the family
program coordinators through information, training, volunteer
management, workshops, newsletters, family events, youth development
programs, and other such programs. The primary challenge lies in
awareness and communication. Consistent feedback indicates many family
members are unaware of the various resources available to them. The
goal is to increase the level of awareness and participation in
existing family resources to improve overall mission readiness and
retention.
National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program
The award-winning National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program is a
community-based program that leads, trains and mentors at-risk youth at
31 sites to become productive citizens in America's future. As the
second largest mentoring program in the nation, the ChalleNGe program
is coeducational and consists of a five-month ``quasi-military''
residential phase and a one-year post-residential phase. Corps members
must be volunteers, between 16 and 18 years of age, not in trouble with
the law, drug free, unemployed, and high school dropouts.
As a national model, since its inception, the 31 National Guard
Youth ChalleNGe program sites have graduated over 42,000 young men and
women who leave the program equipped with the values, skills, education
and self-discipline necessary to succeed as adults in society.
Significantly, although many ChalleNGe candidates are from at-risk
populations, over two-thirds of ChalleNGe graduates have attained
either a General Equivalency Diploma or high school diploma.
Furthermore, approximately 30 percent of all graduates choose to enter
military service upon graduation. Although the program graduation rate
is above 90 percent, and the general equivalency diploma attainment is
over 66 percent, the National Guard seeks to increase output in both of
these areas.
The National Guard is ``Hometown America'' with deep roots in every
community. Its strong community ties makes the National Guard a highly
visible and effective entity in many towns and communities across the
United States. Involved are men and women who, in their civilian lives,
are influential across the spectrum of business, education, and
government. National Guard units across the country have traditionally
been involved in youth programs designed to help young people become
positive and productive members of their community.
Homeland Security
As we begin the 21st century, homeland security is the most
important issue facing the United States. For the first time in almost
200 years, the continental United States was attacked with the
prospects of future attacks high. To better defend the United States,
the government has mobilized its resources and has undertaken a major
reorganization to more effectively meet the challenge. While the
National Guard performed superbly in response to the attacks of
September 11th, 2001, we have begun to make changes to better respond
to future attacks.
The National Guard has a significant role in homeland security.
Just as the active force is the first to deploy in support of U.S.
operations abroad, the National Guard is the first military force to
deploy in support of most homeland security requirements. The National
Guard is a unique dual status, citizen-soldier force that can be
activated by the Governor in support of state emergencies and also can
be federalized to support national contingency requirements. The
Governor can employ the National Guard under state active duty (state
commanded, state financed) and Title 32 (state commanded, federally
financed), or the National Guard can be federalized under the
provisions of Title 10 (federally commanded, federally financed). Its
dual state-federal status makes the National Guard a cost effective,
flexible force that can be deployed in a variety of circumstances. Like
the Guard units in the states, the National Guard Bureau (a Title 10
entity) has dual roles. We communicate policy, requirements and
situational awareness information in both directions through the
federal-to-state channel. Further, because most of the state Adjutants
General are also the emergency manager for their state, and because
many are also their state's Homeland Security Director, we are involved
in intergovernmental issues, as well as federal military and
interagency ones. This dual-mission multi-faceted capability of the
Guard was demonstrated in the aftermath of September 11th.
Immediately after the attack on September 11th, the National Guard
responded. National Guard air assets took to the skies to secure our
airspace and other forces were quickly sent to the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon to assist with security and recovery efforts. Soon
after, the President asked the Governors to secure critical U.S.
airports and they responded by deploying Guardsmen in Title 32 status
at airports in a matter of hours. In addition, many of the states'
governors ordered their Guardsmen, in State Active Duty Status, to
secure critical infrastructure facilities, such as bridges, nuclear
power plants, and federal buildings, throughout their states and many
of those missions continue today. Other National Guard units and
personnel were activated under Title 10 to augment security at the U.S.
borders. Their mission was to support the Department of Justice and the
Department of Treasury in ensuring that commerce continued to flow
while our vital interests were protected. These homeland security
missions and others were conducted, and some have continued to be
conducted, while Army and Air National Guard forces have been deployed
for peacekeeping and stabilization actions in the Balkans and
elsewhere, and as a critical part of the war in Southwest Asia. The
Guard has also been mobilized to perform force protection missions in
the United States in support of our war efforts. As expected, the
National Guard has conducted and continues to conduct all missions in
an exceptional manner.
As we move forward, it is apparent that the National Guard will be
increasingly involved in all aspects of the homeland security mission.
The areas we focus on include:
--Combating terrorism
--Military Assistance to Civilian Authorities
--Responding to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-
yield explosives incidents
--Missile Defense
--Critical Infrastructure Protection
--Information Operations
--Force Protection
--Protecting the Nation's Sovereignty.
In addition to these mission areas, the National Guard Bureau's
recently-established Office of Homeland Defense will facilitate
military support to civil authorities by the Army and Air National
Guard. Military support to civil authorities includes domestic disaster
relief operations that occur during fires, hurricanes, floods, and
earthquakes. Our support also includes counter-drug operations and
incident management assistance, such as would occur after a terrorist
event employing a weapon of mass destruction. The National Guard
Bureau, in addition to our statutory role as the channel of
communication between the Army and the Air Force and the National Guard
of the several states, has coordinated with the Combatant Commander of
U.S. Northern Command to perform that same role. As part of this, the
National Guard Bureau provides situational awareness on state-commanded
National Guard operations to the Commander of U.S. Northern Command to
augment his ability to effectively plan for and manage the overall role
of his command.
The fight against terrorism and the protection of our homeland is
expected to be a protracted endeavor much like the Cold War. To that
end, many policy experts, reports, and studies have advocated an
expanded role for the National Guard in homeland security. While some
have suggested that the National Guard should be reoriented, re-
equipped, and retrained for the homeland security mission, the reality
is that the National Guard is an integral part of the Army and Air
Force Total Force mission capability and that role is vital to the
survival of the nation. In the past the resources, personnel, equipment
and training provided for the war-time mission was sufficient to allow
the National Guard to also fulfill its local and state support role by
responding to local disasters and military support to civilian
authorities. Times have changed, however. The threat posed by well-
financed, sophisticated and determined international terrorist groups
has raised the bar as to what the National Guard must be able to do.
While the National Guard will continue to maintain a high state of
readiness for overseas operations, it must also better prepare itself
to respond to the homeland security mission within the United States,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. possessions and
territories. To that end, we are working hard to find ways to meet the
increased demands of the homeland security mission while still
maintaining our ability to execute our Total Force requirements.
The increased threat and global proliferation of ballistic missiles
poses a significant threat to the United States, our deployed forces,
and our allies. In response to this threat, in December 2002 the
Department of Defense directed the deployment of an effective missile
defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States
against limited ballistic missile attack. The Army National Guard
accepted the mission to man the Army portion of the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, including both operational and security
force elements. The GMD segment is the cornerstone of the Ballistic
Missile Defense System Test Bed, and will have an Initial Defensive
Operations (ID)) capability by September 2004. This high-visibility
program, which will provide protection against limited ballistic
missile attack, is an example of the evolving role of the National
Guard in Homeland Defense.
Over the next year, and as much longer as it takes, the National
Guard Bureau will take the lead in improving the posture of the
National Guard for its homeland security mission. The National Guard
Bureau will work with the States as they perform a mission area
analysis to determine what additional capabilities are needed to
accomplish the homeland security mission and will utilize a systematic
programmed approach designed to build our homeland security posture for
the future. These are the features of that program:
--Consolidate the National Guard homeland security requirements of
the 50 States, territories and the District of Columbia.
(States know the actual operational requirements better than
anyone.)
--Validate these requirements at the National Guard Bureau level and
craft them into packages for submission to the appropriate
Combatant Commanders, to the Army and Air Force as requirements
that can be built into programs for funding, and to the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security.
--Use our developed requirements to advise and educate agencies,
offices, commands, and leaders that have an interest in
supporting homeland security.
--From valid requirements we will build funded programs that ensure
the success of homeland security by using a systematic long-
term approach. We believe that a long-term approach is needed
to ensure a sustained, comprehensive protective posture for our
nation.
The road ahead also includes a transformation of National Guard
Counter Drug efforts into an integrated Counter Narcotics/Homeland
Defense Counter Terrorism program. These mission areas employ many of
the same tactics, techniques and procedures, as well as equipment,
training and skills. Therefore, a great deal of cross-skill transfer
will begin immediately once the change is effected, and a quick,
effective, seamless transition between and across mission sets will
allow Guard troops to readily take their places on the front lines of
the war against terrorism at home and abroad.
Our government has initiated a massive reorganization to better
respond to the homeland security challenge. Northern Command has been
activated, the new Department of Homeland Security is in the process of
being organized, and the Department of Defense has created a position
of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense. The National
Guard Bureau will work with the Assistant Secretary for Homeland
Defense and Northern Command to insure that National Guard missions and
capabilities are fully integrated into the overall plan for homeland
security. Specifically, it will assist Northern Command as that command
moves from an initial operating capability to a full operating
capability by:
--Providing situational awareness of activities within the 50 states
and territories.
--Integrating and synchronizing existing plans.
--Coordinating National Guard resource and training requirements.
--Facilitating communication between Northern Command and the State
Area Commands.
Northern Command will undergo a critical year as it transitions
from an initial operating capability to a full operating capability by
October 2003. During the coming year, the National Guard will be
providing personnel to Northern Command in order to fill critical
personnel requirements. Additionally, the National Guard is working to
develop situational awareness for Northern Command as to the activities
that affect homeland security within the 50 states and territories.
Although most activities of incident management at the federal level
will fall under the control of the Department of Homeland Security, a
constant monitoring of state-level activities and interests is needed
by Northern Command in order to support the lead federal agency when
needed. The National Guard, through the National Guard Bureau, is the
natural conduit for DOD elements to the states and territories on
military-related matters. The majority of the states use the Adjutant
General of that state as the state emergency manager. The National
Guard is intimately involved in all activities of homeland security at
the state level. The National Guard Bureau is actively pursuing
discussions and several initiatives within the Department of Defense
which will likely result in better exploitation by all segments of the
Department of Defense of the Bureau's capability as a two-way channel
of communication to the National Guard of the several states. We are
excited about assisting Northern Command in its emerging role and look
forward to facilitating federally funded support of state activities.
In addition, the National Guard Bureau will work, through the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, with the new
Department of Homeland Security to ensure that the National Guard's
capabilities and requirements are fully integrated in the overall
homeland security plan. The new Department of Homeland Security will be
greatly assisted by the National Guard plans that are already in effect
in all of the states and territories. Since the vast majority of
homeland security activities come under state and municipal or other
local control, the National Guard planning and activities under State
Active Duty (state controlled and funded) and under Title 32 (state
controlled, federally funded) will be an integral part of the processes
being crafted by the new Department. National Guard Training Centers
are existing assets that can be economically expanded to support
realistic training and exercises with first responders, law enforcement
agencies, and all levels of government integrating National Guard
capabilities in homeland security roles. Several states have initiated
pilot programs for this effort with federal support at the request of
Congress. The National Guard is taking an open supportive approach to
intradepartmental, interagency and intergovernmental cooperation for
the defense of our Homeland. We each must succeed for all to succeed.
The Army National Guard and the Air National Guard bring several
inherent strengths to the homeland security environment. Aside from a
capable, trained and organized force, there is also an in-place
information technology infrastructure that has the potential to provide
an efficient, reliable, interoperable, and user-friendly channel of
communications for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Northern
Command through the National Guard Bureau to the Army and Air Guard.
The present information technology infrastructure provides a robust
reach-down capability to Army and Air Guard units in the states.
However, to meet the emerging needs of homeland security missions,
enhancements in network reliability and security will have to be
incorporated. Additionally, the new requirements pose new challenges in
areas such as wireless technology that will allow direct command,
control and communications with on-site responders. The National Guard
Bureau is uniquely positioned to provide this coordinated, controlled
capability, consistent with the statutory requirements of Title 10.
The National Guard supports any overseas fight primarily by
supporting Army and Air Force initiatives. Most programmatic and force
structure actions, therefore, are Service specific, supporting either
the Air War or the Ground War through the respective Services. Examples
of initiatives underway in this area include the Army National Guard
Restructuring Initiative, an initiative to replace a portion of the
existing heavy and light combat structure with Mobile Light Brigades
prepared for full spectrum operations in support of the new defense
strategy This will meet the Army's evolving needs for expeditionary
warfare, as well as giving us more Guard forces well-suited to homeland
security tasks in support of U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Pacific
Command. In the Air National Guard, a Transformation Initiative will
result in capabilities-based forces with improved Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance, Information Technology, Medical
Service and operational aircraft with the ability to make strong
contributions to both aspects of the Guard's dual federal-state
mission. As we render homeland security support to the Lead Federal
Agencies, however, we must change our approach and support them as a
Joint Force--not two separate Services. The lead agencies need and want
to deal with a single entity within the National Guard and this year we
are prepared to provide that in a seamless manner. A Joint Staff
approach out of the National Guard Bureau will present a single flow of
information and will strive for a single funding line to support
operations. In addition, the State Area Command will become a true
joint state headquarters with enhanced capabilities. In this way, our
team is coming together to support our communities and homeland
institutions with expanded capabilities and improved linkages to
national command and control mechanisms. In addition, the National
Guard will continue to participate in the planning and execution of
interagency exercises with local, state and federal agencies thereby
building relationships that may prove useful during future contingency
operations.
The ability of the National Guard Bureau to maintain awareness,
conduct coordination, provide guidance and resources to the National
Guard must be strong to meet the growing needs of homeland security. To
that end, the National Guard Bureau's Office of Homeland Defense has
evolved as the focal point for that effort. It has assumed
responsibility for these initiatives. To further ensure continuity and
centralized management of all homeland security activities, our Office
of Homeland Defense recently incorporated the civil support function
under its control. The NGB Office of Homeland Defense will work with
the States to determine their requirements to accomplish the homeland
security mission. It will be this entity within the National Guard
Bureau that will coordinate with the States, The Joint Staff, U.S.
Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and, through the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, with other federal government agencies to manage
all homeland security efforts.
For the past two years the National Guard has had a very tangible
asset to offer in support of the civilian and emergency first responder
communities in the area of homeland security--its Civil Support Teams.
The Guard has continued to strengthen the Civil Support Program, under
which these teams fall. The teams provide rapid support to local, state
and federal authorities in dealing with the consequences of chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear or high yield explosive events. Of
the 32 Civil Support Teams that have been established, the Secretary of
Defense has operationally certified all 32 teams. An additional 23
teams have been authorized by the Congress, and DOD is developing a
plan to field them as expeditiously as possible.
Several of the certified teams were integrally involved in response
efforts to the September 11th terrorist attack and to the anthrax
attacks and hoaxes that were perpetrated throughout the nation in the
ensuing months. The Civil Support Teams have been increasingly
integrated into the planning, training and operations at every level of
emergency response ever since. In fact, during the year following the
September 11th attacks, the 27 certified teams collectively performed
nearly 800 missions at the request of the agencies they support.
These teams provide state and local authorities specialized
expertise and technical assistance to the incident commander to:
--Identify chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high yield
explosive substances or agents.
--Assess the situation; determine the type of weapon used and the
likely consequences.
--Advise the incident commander on potential courses of action.
--Assist the local incident commander's response strategy with
cutting edge technology and expertise.
Operationally, these teams are under the command and control of the
governors through their respective Adjutants General in a USC Title 32
status. Should it be required, a team can be federalized and called to
serve in a USC Title 10 capacity. The National Guard Bureau provides
logistical support, standardized operational procedures and operational
coordination to facilitate the employment of these teams and to provide
depth and backup capability to states currently without a full-time
Civil Support Team.
In order to be the best resource possible to those entities they
assist, it is crucial that the teams continue to be interoperable with
all of the federal, state and local organizations with whom they work.
This means that they must continue to be equipped with and trained on
the state of the art technologies, requiring that they remain a high
priority for resourcing at all levels within the Department of Defense.
Issues of importance that are being addressed at many levels in
support of improving this program include the following: coordination
with Transportation Command and other commands to formalize the
processes of requesting airlift for these units. This is required to
minimize response times to remote and/or hard to access incident sites
and thereby optimizing their utility to incident commanders. Intensive
recruiting, special pay and acquisition issues are being worked by
staff at the National Guard Bureau's Homeland Defense Office to address
some of the more challenging issues the program faces in remaining a
value-added capability to their civilian counterparts.
Our adversaries will not rest--``the clock is ticking''--so our
preparation must be immediate, exact and effective. The National Guard
gives this nation a tremendous capability in that its members live,
work and play within the communities they defend. Many of them are
first responders--the Guardsmen know their home turf. The people trust
their National Guard and always feel comforted by their presence during
a crisis. During the next year, we will take that trust and solid
experience to build the National Guard into a proactive,
technologically superior team that is trained and ready to deal with
any and all threats to our homeland. To further that end, the National
Guard will continue to cooperate with all local, state and federal
agencies in an effort to improve response capabilities. In its dual
State and Federal roles, the National Guard will continue to support
other government agencies when asked, and will take the lead, when
appropriate, in the defense of our homeland.
The National Guard Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug
Activities
The National Guard Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities
provides airborne support to the domestic counterdrug effort through
the Counterdrug Reconnaissance and Interdiction Detachment Program and
the Counterdrug Program. These special programs employ specially
modified helicopters and C-26 aircraft to detect and track counterdrug
targets identified by local, state or federal drug law enforcement
agencies. Currently eleven states have counterdrug C-26 units and 37
states have the interdiction units.
The National Guard supports counterdrug operations by providing
support that helps law enforcement to stop illegal drugs from being
imported, manufactured or distributed; and by supporting community-
based drug demand reduction programs. There are six general counterdrug
mission categories under current program regulations: program
management; technical support; general support; counterdrug-related
training; reconnaissance/observation; and demand reduction support.
The National Guard is a partner in a variety of demand reduction
activities ranging from educational programs in schools, summer camps
and with community anti-drug coalitions. The National Guard operates
four counterdrug training academies across the country that specialize
in supply and demand reduction curriculum. The courses are available to
civilian and military personnel at no cost.
Information Technology Infrastructure
The National Guard has a dual role, the National Guard of the
United States (federal mission) and the National Guard of the Several
States (state mission). Under Title 10 of the United States Code, the
purpose of the National Guard Bureau is to be the channel of
communications on all matters pertaining to the National Guard, the
Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of
the United States and the Departments of the Army and Air Force. This
is a core competency of the Bureau, and its success is dependent on a
strong information technology infrastructure under the management of
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. With the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security, there is a potential requirement for
the National Guard to integrate its communication network with that
agency. The National Guard must be empowered to plan, program, and
budget its information management program. Additionally, it should
control, manage, and operate an information technology infrastructure
that meets the requirements of both the federal mission of the National
Guard of the United States, and the state missions that include
homeland security.
The National Guard network should provide an efficient, reliable,
interoperable, and user-friendly information technology channel of
communications for the Department of the Army, Department of the Air
Force, U.S. Northern Command, Department of Homeland Security, and
others. There is also a need for a channel of communications to be
established by the states through the National Guard Bureau with the
Department of Homeland Security. This is a proper role for the Bureau,
and the Bureau's mission should be expanded to include that it serve as
a channel of communications to the Department of Homeland Security. In
this new role, the Chief Information Office would manage the
information technology requirements for the homeland security mission.
The Chief Information Office would also provide leadership for
establishing National Guard information technology strategy, policy,
standards, and infrastructure to support National Guard forces
performing their federal and state missions. In addition to federal
funds for information technology to support the National Guard of the
United States, the National Guard Bureau Chief would plan and
administer federal funds that are appropriated for information
technology support for states under the homeland security mission. The
Chief Information Office would work with the Army, Air Force, U.S.
Northern Command, and Department of Homeland Security Chief Information
Offices to assure that our information technology network is integrated
and standardized with each other as well as other partners.
Senator Stevens. General, if I may, before hearing from
General Schultz and General James I'd like to yield to Senator
Inouye for any questions he might have. He's going to leave
here at 10:45 to go to an important meeting, and I thought
perhaps he might have some comments or questions to make before
he left. Sir.
Senator Inouye. General Blum, the strain on Reserve forces
may also depend on the skills needed for duty in Iraq compared
to the number of active duty forces with these skills. What are
the top skill groups for those who have been mobilized to Iraq
thus far?
FORCE PROTECTION
And the other question I have is that I understand that the
Guard will be providing personnel to help the Air Force
increase force protection; while in the fiscal year 2004
budget, the Army itself will be experiencing a 53 percent
increase in force protection requirements. Do you have enough
to take care of your force protection, in addition to the Air
Force?
General Blum. Sir, let me answer those questions in turn if
I may. General Schultz, you can come in there any time, and
General James, you can come in any time you think it would be
helpful.
Sir, the skill sets, if I understood the question
correctly, you wanted to know what skill sets were required in
Iraq. It is across the full spectrum, everything from special
operations, the kind of innovation that you just saw up on the
ninth floor and the unconventional approach to dealing with the
combat in Iraq. We have significant special operations forces
over there, both in Special Forces psychological operations as
the United States Army Reserve and Civil Affairs, but in
addition, we have infantry on the ground over there, combat
support units and combat service supports of every stripe and
color, so there's nothing specific. It is full spectrum across-
the-board combat formations that were called upon by the
combatant commander that we provided from the National Guard.
Back here at home, it's a little bit different. They've
mostly been security forces for critical infrastructure
protection, and the amazing work that the civil support teams
were able to provide almost on a daily basis to keep the
populations calm, that we were not under an attack by any
chemical or biological agent from a foreign nation.
The very fact that they were able to test and sample and
verify that these samplings were not something lethal or
threatening to our population has helped, a very calming
influence, and I think the soldiers and airmen that we have had
doing our critical infrastructure protection in nearly every
State in this Nation has served as a significant deterrent, and
have probably prevented any disruption of our mobilization
process, our ability to project forces abroad, and to attack
our citizenry or our ability to provide good Government here at
home.
I hope that addresses your question. If not, please press
me a bit. Roger.
General Schultz. Senator, if I could help with a piece of
that answer from the Army Guard point of view. We have 24,000
soldiers from the Army Guard in Central Command duty today.
Primary duty is going to be, obviously, in support-related
fields, military police (MP), perhaps chemical, perhaps
medical, perhaps engineer. That's kind of the skills that are
going to be required more so, even now, as the mission changes
in theater.
We're working today with the leadership in the Central
Command land component command to figure out what kind of
units, how long they need to stay, and do we have the right
mix.
Now, specifically to your point, we're short military
police in the Army, in the Guard, and we're going through the
acquisition process of acquiring more. We can use more military
police here in the homeland as well, so today in the homeland
we have over 16,000 soldiers securing critical facilities;
8,100 of those members are securing Air Force bases, and the
money, in the case of the Army Guard, is coming by way of the
Air Force, so that's an Air Force budget line item. We think
that will be a 2-year mission, so we're in the first year of
that mission, standing by for a second.
So security police in the Air Force, military police in the
Army. We're short those kinds of forces today.
Senator Inouye. What are you doing about that?
General Schultz. We're actually going through the process
of finding units, turning in units, buying more military police
units, if I could explain it that way. We're going through the
acquisition process right now, today, acquiring more MP units
in the Guard.
Senator Inouye. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. General Schultz.
General Schultz. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, the distinguished
committee members. We say thanks for allowing us to be here
today, and for your ongoing support for our first priority, our
soldiers.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, to introduce Command Sergeant
Major Frank Lever. He's senior enlisted soldier in the Army
National Guard. He's the person, with me, that has the honor of
looking after our members across this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, our members have met and satisfied every
mission asked, from the homeland through the deployed theaters,
and it's an accomplishment that we are most proud of. If you
think about the Guard today, we have over 78,000 soldiers
deployed, and obviously we talk about the strength of who we
are, our first priority would be the members in our formations.
Now, today in a special way that also means our families.
And then as you think about our mission since September 11,
2001, just a couple of years ago, we obviously have had
tremendous support from our employers, and it's that team that
makes what we're doing today possible.
Mr. Chairman, we say to you, for your ongoing support,
thanks.
Senator Stevens. General James.
General James. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I
also would like to add my thanks, as my colleagues have, for
the support of this committee and the opportunity to speak to
you today on behalf of our Air National Guard.
Like our Army counterparts, our Air National Guard has been
very, very busy around the world and here at home. We have
approximately 22,000 airmen mobilized at this time, with
another 1,100 volunteers added to that figure. Some have been
mobilized for almost 2 years. Currently, 55 percent of the Air
National Guard is performing some type of full-time duty when
you add in the full-time force.
OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE
In Operation Noble Eagle which is the defense of the
homeland, an air sovereignty mission was applying 75 percent of
the fighter force, and half of the tanker sorties this past
fiscal year.
OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM
As you have noted, though, the Air National Guard is not a
stay-at-home force. We, too, have been deployed around the
globe. As of the end of March, we flew 64 percent of the
fighter sorties supporting the Aerospace Expeditionary Force
(AEF), 48 percent of the airlift sorties, and during that same
time we flew almost one-quarter of both fighter and tanker
sorties for Operation Enduring Freedom.
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
We've had significant contributions to Operation Iraqi
Freedom, and to answer part of your question from the air side,
Senator Inouye, we experienced some high frequency/low density
specialties in firefighters and also in security forces, but we
are in fact total force partners with our great reserve
counterparts and our active duty. The National Guard flew 43
percent of the fighter sorties, and an amazing 86 percent of
the tanker sorties in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
This committee is directly responsible for our ability to
participate in these operations and do our mission, because you
have provided the resources for us in areas like targeting pods
and funds for our miscellaneous National Guard and Reserve
Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) account. You've helped make us
a part, a very relevant and important part of the total force,
and Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we're very
grateful for that support.
In closing, I would just like to say that in the future we
too are looking to transform. I've developed a concept called
Vanguard that will enable us to transform the Air National
Guard into a force of the future. We also are looking forward
to participating in new weapons systems such as the C-17 and
the F/A-22, the joint strike fighter, and hopefully the KC-767.
We do strongly support the lease of this aircraft. It will
allow us to replace our aging K-135E models with R models, and
maybe even participate in KC-767 aircraft in some selected
Guard units.
Again, thank you for the opportunity.
MERGING GUARD AND RESERVE ACCOUNTS
Senator Stevens. General, we're grateful to you for those
statements and, as you've said, each of you, this committee has
been very supportive, but we're getting questions at home now,
and I wonder if we're getting to the point where we're burning
the candle at both ends.
Before we went into Iraq, we already had 50,000 reservists
called up and mobilized for the global war on terrorism. We
mobilized more during the war and, as you said, General James,
some of them have been mobilized for the best part of 2 years
now. That gets beyond the role of citizen soldier that's there
in the event of emergency, and I'd like to have your comments
on where we're going. You add that to the Department's request
that we merge your accounts into a single account now, and we
wonder what's happening as far as the future of the identity of
the Army Guard, the Air Force Guard, and the Reserves as
separate entities.
Would you comment on those situations, General Blum?
General Blum. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
First, on the identities, the Constitution will guarantee--
unless we change the Constitution we will not lose the identity
of the National Guard of the United States because of their
dual mission status, unique among the other reserve components.
As far as the operational tempo and the overuse of our
National Guard citizen soldiers, I think it's a little too
early to tell just yet on what those trends will bring in the
long term. Certainly, there are anecdotal episodes or evidences
that all of us can quote where it is less than a desirable
condition, where there are great hardships on families and
significant interruptions, particularly the small businesses,
when you pull key people out, or key people in a community that
are responsible for either law enforcement or emergency
services, but what we have done is set up procedures whereby
the Adjutants General of each State can make corrections and
modifications and substitutions so that we don't do something
that does not pass the common sense test when it's closely
examined the next day on mobilizing guardsmen.
The information so far that we've received is relatively
positive. In spite of this increased use, the propensity to
serve in these young men and women is extraordinary. Remember,
they volunteered to serve their Nation. They volunteered to be
members of the Army and Air National Guard, and they are proud
to respond when their Nation needs them.
I think what we need to do now is pay very close attention
to the process that we follow when we demobilize these young
men and women and return them back to their civilian jobs and
their families. That will play an important part. How they do
that will be very important to whether they make a decision to
stay with us long term.
LIMITS ON DEPLOYMENT
Senator Stevens. Well, should Congress consider putting a
limitation on the amount of time that a guardsman, a person in
the Guard or Reserve can be compelled to serve in any 1 year?
We have situations where we have all been contacted--I'm
certain I have--by small business people, by persons who ran
support facilities for clinics in terms of medical supply
units, and they have been called up and, as you say, they're
ready to serve, and they did volunteer, but I'm not sure they
volunteered to become a regular member of the service to be--
they are compelled to stay, once they're called up, for as long
as the Commander-in-Chief wants them to stay, and I think there
ought to be some sort of a contract with these citizen soldiers
that they will not be called up more than a certain amount of
time in any 1 year unless there's a declaration of war.
And we've gone through a series of situations now in the
last 20 years where we've had these problems, more than 20
years, really, without a declaration of war, all the way back
to Korea, and when you think of the number of people that have
been called up and their lives have just been completely
changed, I think it's time for us to take a look at it. It may
not be this committee.
But we do have before us, however, the thing that bothers
me, and that is this concept of the consolidation of personnel
accounts into a single active personnel appropriations for each
service. In other words, you won't be getting money for the
Guard directly. You'll be getting money as part of the Army's
appropriation and the Air Force appropriation, and eventually
that will lead to less control for the Commanding General of
the National Guard.
I don't think I'm going to embarrass you by asking you what
you think of that, because you're in uniform and you must
respond to the direction of the civilian authorities and your
Departments, but this direction worries me as a Senator, and I
don't know about others, what they think, but I believe we
should do everything we can to encourage an enormous number of
young men and women to join the Guard and Reserve, particularly
those who have had any service before, and they're Ready
Reserve. They're really a magnificent force in the total force
concept, but I think we have offended against some of them now
and changed their lives and put some of them into bankruptcy,
and we've got a job to do to try and straighten that out, in my
opinion.
I don't know if you want to make any comments about it, as
I said. It's not right, General. It's not right that someone
joins the Guard and Reserve and thinks they'll be called up in
the event of real war, to be called up on a semi-permanent
basis.
Have you got any orders yet to release any of these people?
General Blum. Well, sir, Mr. Chairman, you've thrown a
couple of questions at me at once here.
Senator Stevens. Several, yes. I'm sorry about that.
General Blum. Let me try to sort these out. First, are we
abusing the soldiers in how often and how long they're called
up for? Again I say there are anecdotal evidences that each one
of your constituents can articulate where that was probably the
case.
What I would argue for here, or urge the committee to do,
is to give the leadership of the Guard the maximum flexibility
to manage the force. If we are given the flexibility, we have a
robust capability. Over 50 percent--even with all of the things
that we've talked about here today, we still have a pretty
robust capability remaining on the shelf that we can dip into
and substitute and plug in place, so to speak, capabilities and
special skill sets that are needed so that we don't have to
abuse the same citizen soldier over and over, but we must
retain that flexibility to do that, and I would urge this
committee to make sure that the leadership that's represented
here in all of the seven, reserve components have the authority
to have some flexibility in that process.
If we do that, I think we can mitigate much of what you're
talking about, but as I stated earlier, it is still too soon
for me to tell you definitively. We don't have any real trend
evidence that says that this is going to cause us a long-term
retention problem or a long-term recruiting problem, and so far
it's been quite the opposite in terms of satisfaction, and the
feeling that they did something worthwhile for their country
when they came back off of service, and in most cases they have
assimilated back into their civilian jobs and their families
quite well.
On the other issue about the consolidation of pay accounts,
you're quite right, I can't comment on that for really two
reasons. One is the Department of Defense (DOD) policy, and
that I would support the policy, but however, I can't even tell
you that today, because I have not seen the implementing
instructions for that consolidation, so as you well know, the
devil may well be in the details of that, and we have not seen
those yet, so I don't know enough about that consolidation
initiative to tell you whether that's a good thing or a bad
thing for us here today.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, could I just mention
something? Senator Bond and I are the co-chairs of the National
Guard Caucus, and we have sent a letter actually signed by a
number of members of this committee to Senator Warner, Senator
Levin and yourselves, Senator Inouye, expressing the same
concerns that you've just raised.
Senator Bond and I made sure it was a very bipartisan
letter, but it is coming your way and expresses the same
concerns you've just expressed.
Senator Stevens. Good. Thank you very much.
Senator Burns was first under the early bird rule. He went
upstairs, I understand, to see the exhibit, so we'll count that
as being present.
Senator Burns. I've already been up there. We're really
getting a little late down here.
I guess the chairman raised a very important question here,
and what we hear out in my State of Montana, not only are we
getting some pressure from the employers, but we're also
getting some pressure from the self-employed. If you take my
State, it has an agricultural base, you've got a young man
that's probably had previous active duty, wants to maintain his
edge, wants to serve, and also does it in a sort of a way that
he makes a little extra money on the side, and doesn't mind
that at all, and will spend the extra time in training, but
there also are times when the crop's got to go in and when it's
got to come out. He's also charged with paying for that farm,
and that's a tough enough thing nowadays all by itself, so I'm
going to follow this issue very closely.
And also we recruited some people into the Guard that had
some special talents, education, skills to fill some of our
needs, and I will tell you that all you had to do was go up to
902 and take a look at the new toys that we've got now that
have worked very well in the range of high tech. So the people
that we're recruiting are really highly skilled people in the
private sector, but there again they've got a responsibility
there, and I would say most of them want to stay trained.
General James, I thank you very much for the support of our
Air Guard in Montana. We're very proud of our Air Guard up
there. We've upgraded now to Block 30s, as you well know, and
they performed very well, and we're very proud of them, and we
appreciate your leadership, and all of you understanding these
problems, but as the chairman says, we've got to start
somewhere in coming up with a master plan on how we're going to
help these people either survive in the private sector and
still rely upon their skills and their talents in time of an
emergency.
I think when they joined the Guard they didn't mind a short
deployment to hone their skills, or to even go and be away
forever on a declared war in the defense of this country,
because they're motivated in that direction. They're highly
motivated people, we find, but nonetheless--and that's a
different circumstance, and we all understand that, but I am
going to follow this issue very closely, but I think somebody
has got to come up with a plan, a plan B so to speak, in the
event that we get into a situation as we face today.
And by the way, I want to iterate that in the Iraqi
operation our warriors, all kidding aside, were the best
ambassadors we had on the ground over there, and the way they
performed, not only in their skills but also in their mission,
but also that extra little bit it takes to establish a
relationship with the people of Iraq, and that was truly a very
sensitive area, and it was also noticed by a lot of folks in
this country as being gentlemen and gentleladies of a very
special force, so we appreciate that very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me say that I
agree with all of the expressions by the chairman. I may be
wrong, but I think there could be recruitment and retention
issues in the future unless we address this issue. The men and
women who serve don't complain, do so willingly, and are
enormously proud of doing so, but let me just give you an
example.
Part of the 142nd Engineers Battalion from Wahpeton, North
Dakota, was deployed to Kosovo in January 2000. They spent 7
months in Kosovo, came back for about 2 years, and now deployed
to Kuwait. In all, 700 members of the 142nd were alerted on
January 20, mobilized on the 24th, 4 days later, and 2 days
after that they began moving their trucks from North Dakota to
Fort Carson.
I know normally there's a 30- to 60-day warning before
deployment. That's what the Army would like to do, but in this
case it was just a matter of a couple of days, so I think these
issues are important, and as I say, these are not complainers,
they're proud to serve their country, but I think we should
address the issues the chairman mentioned.
I'd like to ask more specifically a question I don't think,
General Blum, you answered when the chairman asked it. Tell me
about demobilization. If there are not now specific plans for
beginning to demobilize, who will make those plans, and when
will they make them, and I ask that I think on behalf of the
families and employers and others. What do you expect with
respect to the demobilization of those units that have been
sent overseas at this point?
General Blum. Senator, there are, in fact, plans being
formulated as we speak for the demobilization of National Guard
soldiers and airmen that were called up for duty. I wish I
could give you a simple rule of thumb as to how they're doing
that, last in, last out, first in, first out. It unfortunately
doesn't work that way, as nice as we'd like, because they did
not follow the normal troop sequencing procedure in the way
they called up our units.
We are in an extraordinary time, as you are aware, 9/11,
and no one foresaw we were going to prosecute a war in
Afghanistan and then very quickly prosecute a war in Iraq. We
provide military capability when called upon, and we did not
make those plans. We respond to those plans.
The demobilization will--here are our concerns, that we get
people off of active duty as quickly as they are not absolutely
needed there. These people, these great Americans that you have
all talked about, do not mind for the most part interrupting
their lives to serve their Nation, but they want to do
something meaningful. There are many people right now that are
in various stages in the pipeline of going and coming out of
there, and we are trying to sort that out so that we don't
abuse this precious resource, our citizen soldiers, in that
process.
DEMOBILIZATION
Senator Dorgan. But how much notice might you give for
demobilization, and when can families and employees, employers
and others expect some basic notion of whether this unit will
continue to be mobilized for 6 months or 1 year, or whether
perhaps within 3 months that mobilization will be over?
General Blum. We are hoping to sort this out in short
order. As soon as we have that information we share that
immediately with the local commander, in this case the Adjutant
General of the State, and then it immediately goes to the
family support group and employers within a matter of hours and
days.
So we understand the angst that it causes. The uncertainty
really creates some frustration and some tensions in employer
support and with the family support piece. We are very
concerned about this. I hope you didn't take my answer to mean
that we are not concerned about the issues the chairman brought
up. We are watching this very carefully, and we are advocating
for the soldiers. Unfortunately, the General Officers
represented here today do not control that process.
COMMUNICATIONS
Senator Dorgan. Let me mention one other thing and then ask
General James a question. I met with a large group of families
recently. They had two big concerns. One is mail, and the
second is telephone contact. I'm sure you're working hard to
try to resolve those issues, but it is critical to the
families. To be able to communicate is just a critical
connection.
The families are very proud of their loved ones serving.
They weren't complaining to me. They were just asking for the
opportunity to have the Defense Department provide better
communications, better movement of mail, and I know in staging
areas sometimes that's very hard, but I just wanted to pass
that on to you. That was their concern.
AGING AIRCRAFT
General James, you know the Happy Hooligans, the Air
National Guard in Fargo, North Dakota have three times won the
William Tell Award, the award for the best fighter pilots in
the world. Yet they are flying the oldest fighters in the Air
Force, which is incongruous to me. You and I have talked about
this at great length. They fly the Block 15s. They're the only
operational unit in the country still flying them. This needs
to be remedied. Are we any closer to a solution to that?
General James. Not currently. The hold that was put on the
decision that I had to make about upgrading Fargo was generated
by the fact that on relook the active component who supplies us
with our equipment, our aircraft, are relooking the need for
any more offensive counterair or air sovereignty resources
going to the Guard in the F-15.
As you know, as we talked before, the F-15, one squadron
was identified. The Guard was approached about taking that
squadron, and that squadron was to be activated and put either
in Fresno or Fargo, so in either case it would have generated
an upgrade in your equipment.
The decision was put on hold. We're still looking at some
possible alternatives. I've asked my staff to look at even the
possibility of looking at other alternatives, and right now we
don't have anything. I cannot give you a positive answer on
that.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, on 9/11, when the Pentagon
was hit, the first jet fighters flying air cover over the
Nation's capital were the F-16s of the Happy Hooligans flying
out of Langley Air Force Base.
As I indicated, these are people who run drugstores and
family farms, and mechanics, and the fact is they've gone out
three times and won the William Tell Award against the best
pilots and the best equipment in the world, beating all of the
Air Force and everybody else, and the fact is, they've been
shortchanged here with respect to these planes. They're flying
F-16s that are out of time, and they do it, but the cost to
maintain them is incredibly high.
And I've heard the same answer about these issues for the
last 3 or 4 years, and General, we've got to try to resolve the
issue with these planes. You and I need to meet again, and I
guess we need to meet with the Air Force Chief of Staff as
well, but year after year after year we get the same answer
with respect to these old A-model aircraft.
I mean, we've a lot of wonderful people, a lot of missions,
a lot of great units around the country, but this one begs for
a solution and it hasn't been forthcoming, and I hope I can
count on you to do what we ought to do for one of the best
units in this country.
General James. We're trying to come up with some solution,
because it's unconscionable to have a unit that good flying
airplanes that old and still tout ourselves as an important
member of the total force, and this is one of my top
priorities, Senator, and we'll talk about it more.
I have an out-of-the-box kind of solution that I have had
my folks put their pencil to and try to see if it's feasible. I
don't know that it's going to be acceptable to the Air Force,
but we're going to look at something that's quite different in
the way of getting some new airplanes.
Senator Dorgan. General, I like out-of-the-box solutions.
As long as they're solutions, I like them.
General James. Okay.
Senator Dorgan. So this begs for a solution. I appreciate
your willingness to put it at the top of your list.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you,
members of our panel for being here today and helping us
understand the implications of the budget request that's being
submitted on behalf of the National Guard. We appreciate very
much, as I said in my opening statement, the leadership you
have provided in the mobilization as a part of Iraqi Freedom,
but it comes on the heels of other mobilizations for Noble
Eagle and Enduring Freedom. There's been a very heavy
concentration of activity in the National Guard units around
the country.
RETENTION
I was impressed with the comments of the Senator from North
Dakota about the fact that very little notice has been given
for some of these activations. Usually it was a 30-day notice.
That's been a tradition or a guideline. Do you worry, as I do,
that this may have implications of people not looking with
favor on reenlisting in the National Guard, or depletion of our
forces? Have you seen any evidence of that? I know it may be
anecdotal at this point. What is your reaction to the effect
that that may have on our ability to attract men and women to
serve in the National Guard in the future?
General Blum. Senator, I think you're right to highlight
that as an issue. All of the airmen and soldiers that this
leadership team have talked to over the last past year have
expressed their concern and desire for predictability, for
knowing in advance what is required of them as far as possible
for knowing when they will be needed and when they will be
released. Employers, families, and the service members seem to
do much better when we can give them a predictable time line of
when they'll be called, how long they'll serve, and when they
will return home.
This is not just a service member here. The National Guard
is a three-legged stool. The three legs are the airmen and the
soldiers, the citizen soldiers and airmen, but their families
are equally important, and their employers are as equal
partners with the citizen soldiers and airmen and their
families for the defense of this Nation. If either of those
three legs gets out of balance, we threaten the integrity of
the stool, so we are watching this very, very carefully, and
the predictability would be highly welcomed by the three
General Officers sitting before you today, and I'll let the
others speak when they come up here, but any reserve component
soldier really would love to have what you're suggesting.
Unfortunately, with some of the realities that have
happened, some of these campaigns, the global war on terrorism,
ongoing commitments around the world that we were already
supporting, the war in Afghanistan and then the follow-on war
in Iraq, and then what may follow on as our involvement in
phase 4 of Iraq has yet to be determined, so the predictability
puzzle has not yet been solved for all of those events.
Senator Cochran. General James, do you have any comments on
that issue?
General James. Yes, Senator. I agree predictability is the
key. The Air Force has realized this, and that's why they
established the AEF concept, the Aerospace Expeditionary Force,
to give predictability to the airmen and the families so that
they would know when they were eligible to be deployed, and
they used this concept in Iraq, in Iraqi Freedom. They actually
used the people that were due to rotate into theater, and they
also kept some people that were in theater because of the AEF.
Unfortunately, the predictability part for the reserve
component is not as good as it is for the active component. We
have to be part of our active team. We have to be engaged in
these AEFs and activities and contingencies around the world to
remain a relevant member of the team, so the predictability is
very important.
I would say also that these airmen are very proud to be a
part of that, and they're proud to serve, but we don't know
exactly what their breaking point is. When is it going to
impact on our retention, and one of the things we did in the
Air Guard is, we surveyed at the end of the first year and we
looked at the results, and I'm pleased to say that they really
were more positive than we thought. However, we're going to
have to do it again at the end of the second year, and we're
going to have to do it again another year or so down the road,
because our operations tempo will continue to maintain a pretty
high pace.
Normally we lose--we turn over, excuse me, 10 percent of
our force. The survey showed us that we'll probably turn over
13, at the very most 15 percent of our force, so it's not going
to be an issue that will beg--excuse me, would cause us much
concern right now, but again we'll have to relook that, but in
doing so we still do have those stress career fields in
security forces and in firefighters and in support personnel
and in red horses, we call them, people who build these bases.
The Chief of Staff said this morning the most stressed
career field in the Air Force right now is--the most limited
capability is tents, because we've built over 30 bases around
the world just in Operation Iraqi Freedom--not around the
world, but to support Iraqi Freedom, and as such we have some
stresses in areas we didn't anticipate in our standard Air
Force, so we're looking very carefully at that predictability
piece, at continuing to be part of the AEF and yet surveying
our people to find out what their needs are.
One of the things we do in the Air Guard is, we have
contracted family support representatives. My predecessor,
General Weaver, started this. We have at least one full-time
person at every Air National Guard installation and separated
unit for support of the families. Just as General Blum
mentioned, the support of the families is very important, and
if we can keep the family happy we'll keep the airman happy and
they'll stay with us.
EMPLOYER SUPPORT
The second part of that is the employers, the employers'
support. By and large, our employers don't have, quote,
anything for them. They don't have the predictability that we
talked about earlier. They don't have any type of a tax
incentive, anything, an incentive on the books that allows them
to feel good about, other than being patriotic about having
their folks be involved, so we need to get some way to give
something back to the employers, and we are working very hard
with our Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR)
people to keep them in the loop, to keep them in the
communication loop and feeling good about what they do. The
problems we've had have been really very small in terms of the
scope of the operation.
Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. General Schultz.
General Schultz. Senator Cochran, the issue is very serious
with us. Overly concerned, I would not describe it quite that
way, but we are most interested in the impacts of a schedule
that drastically changed in the case of an employer or a
soldier or a family on short notice as we put together the
plans for an ever-changing war concept.
But for the outstanding leadership across our States we
couldn't have pulled this off. But for the outstanding
soldiers, we couldn't have pulled this off, and some really
understanding employers here, so we took plans and greatly
moved the line to the left, as we say, and so instead of 30
days, many of our units were actually alerted and mobilized in
less than 7, some 1-, some 2-, some 3-day notices, and so I
don't know that we've begun to realize the full implication of
that activity set here, and of course our Nation's at war.
That's why we're, across this country, willing to respond the
way we do, and yet we understand there must be some discipline
in the schedule over time. I mean, today we have plans that
take our unit schedules out 3 and 4 years. You go to this
theater, you'll deploy for this period, here's your major
training event, and all of that turned upside down as we put
together the final plan for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and of
course the Guard units were involved in a number of those
changes, and we've responded to everybody's credit across this
country, but there are second and third order county
implications.
Now, what do we think long term? The Army Guard will meet
our end strength this year. We're off our program target just a
little bit. Retention is actually higher overall than we had
planned. The active component has a stop loss policy in place,
and about half of our members in the Army Guard come from
active duty, so that's 30,000 soldiers that come into our ranks
every year from active duty, so when the stop loss rules are
all in place, consider those candidates not available to join
the Guard, so we're off just a little bit in terms of our prior
service accessions.
Senator, we'll get through all of this, but the question
you ask we take very seriously, and that is long-term outcomes,
the implications, effect of how we handle this mission set, and
our soldiers without a doubt will respond to the way we treat
them.
Senator Cochran. I had a chance just recently to visit the
Mississippi National Guard Training Center. It's a regional,
counterdrug training facility. It's located on the property of
Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi, and I want to ask you
to answer for the record, if you could, questions about the
future possibilities for expanding the activities there to
include homeland security and other law enforcement challenges
that we have as a result of the war on terror and the threats
we have against our country.
C-17 FLEET AT JACKSON AIR NATIONAL GUARD FACILITY
And I also have a question for General James for the record
relating to the conversion to the C-17 fleet at the Jackson Air
National Guard facility. We've talked about that before, and it
would be good if you could bring us up to date and let us know
how those plans are proceeding, and when we can expect to see
that as a fully integrated part of the Air Force
responsibility.
General James. Senator, we have kept in touch with that. As
you know, I visited the unit. You had your staffers there. We
had briefings on the unit, and I'm pleased to tell you things
are going quite well. We're on track. We're a little behind on
one of the facilities in the construction, but I think there
are some work-arounds that are going to bring that up to
timetable pretty soon.
The actual aircraft delivery was 2004, I think January,
February 2004. It's been moved up 60 days. The first airplane
should arrive this fall, in December, and right now we did have
some discussion about the Block airplanes that you're getting.
You're still getting the Block 14 airplanes and the Block 15,
two other Block 15 airplanes later. There may be some dialogue
about making them all the same blocks. As long as they're
fairly new airplanes, and having the Air Force take the Block
15s and two more, as I said, low time or new Block 14s so you'd
have a homogenous fleet. That's the only thing that's come up
lately, and I'm talking with General Handy and General Lipscomb
to decide if that's what they want to do. Other than that, it's
really a good new story. Things are working, progressing very
well.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. We appreciate your leadership
on that issue. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Senator Domenici.
BORDER PATROL
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First,
by way of a matter that I have some criticism, there's a major
story in New Mexico today. It's styled, critics blast border
plan, and essentially, General Blum, what it's talking about is
that an area on our border, the National Guard provides some
valuable support to the Customs department and border
inspection operations, and hundreds of guardsmen around the
country have become experienced inspectors in inspecting cargo
at our borders, seaports, and mail facilities. As a result,
Customs inspectors are better able to focus on inspecting
terrorists, intercepting terrorists who try to infiltrate our
borders.
This work is very important to New Mexico on our border
with Mexico. In all, there are approximately 52 guardsmen along
the New Mexico border supporting a total of 90-plus Customs and
immigration and agricultural inspectors. In addition to these
inspections, the Guard is performing an effective
counternarcotics surveillance as well.
Recently, it has come to my attention that the Department
of Defense plans to divest the National Guard of its inspection
support duties. The rationale is that the inspection mission is
not, and I quote, militarily unique.
General, given the heightened state of alert that we have
assumed since the terrorist attacks on our country, do you
believe that now is an appropriate time to remove experienced
guardsmen from our borders, and how does the DOD plan to effect
the National Guard counternarcotics mission?
General Blum. Senator, I have an office call and a meeting
set up with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense that is
in charge of that particular operation, Andre Hollis. Mr.
Hollis and I have had discussions on this when I was in a
different job----
Senator Domenici. All right.
General Blum [continuing]. As the Chief of Staff of
Northern Command. There is a four-star Air Force General named
General Eberhardt who is deeply concerned about what moves
across the Mexican border, both ways.
Senator Domenici. Right.
General Blum. The immigration and the narcotics, once
viewed as a problem in itself, is an even greater problem when
you consider the counternarcoterrorist nexus that can be
connected to that, and the goodness in protecting our borders
from hostile people, or hostile weapons systems, chem, bio, or
nuclear, or high yield explosives coming across, or shoulder-
fired missiles----
Senator Domenici. Right.
General Blum [continuing]. That could be used against our
civilian aircraft coming across the border. We intend to engage
with Mr. Hollis and present the National Guard's position in
support of a combatant commander concern, so we do this in a
unified effort, to reexamine the counternarcotics and
immigration issue not as narcotics and immigration issues but
national security issues, which may change the way the
Department of Defense views that activity.
I am not sure they totally understand the full value and
the implications of what's being considered, but this is too
early to tell you how that's going to work out, but at least
you know what our concerns and interests are on that.
Senator Domenici. General, you know what my concerns are.
You've expressed it exactly right, and when the Attorney
General and U.S. Attorney there expressed their concerns saying
that they're not quite sure we're going to be able to handle it
without this component, it does send signals to me that I have
to get in touch with people like you and ask you how come this
will happen.
Now, on the positive side I want to say that New Mexico has
a number, like other States we have a number of areas where
weapons of mass destruction civil support teams have been put
together. These teams have been trained and certified to
respond to biological, chemical and nuclear incidents on key
military installations and national laboratories.
General, I applaud the quick action of the Guard, recognize
the importance of the national laboratories, recognizing those
in a proactive way. You have that going on in our State at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, White Sands Missile Range, and the
Air Force Research Laboratory installation right in the middle
of Albuquerque. We compliment you on that and thank you for it.
Mr. Chairman, for the record, as part of the discussion
that has just taken place for the last hour with reference to
how are we going to react in the future and what have we
learned with reference to the Reserve and National Guard in
this last couple of years, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that
this is an opportune time for us to get information from our
Reserve and National Guard units precisely as to how, how we
can help them by changing rules and regulations on our end so
that the Reserves and National Guard can serve us, as a people,
better.
It's obvious to me that we can't treat them in a willy-
nilly way, that they just respond and if they're needed,
they're needed, and if they're not needed, they're not needed.
I think we have to have more objective standards and rules and
regulations, because at the heightened time of everybody being
excited about being in a war and wanting to serve, that's one
thing, but the aftermath, when that's all settled down, then
you have to measure what's really happened, what's happening to
the attitude of the workers, the employers, and the parents,
the families, and I would hope that you would be expressing
concern in behalf of those that you represent so that you are
not just used by the rest of the military to fill in and say,
whatever's needed you all are going to have to do, regardless
of the ramifications, and we'll take care of it later. I think
that would be bad.
And secondly, we have had to change what we pay to our
military people and what we do in terms of helping their
families during this war, during this war effort. I hope that
if there are things we should be doing, whether--where we are
paying more, remunerating better, offering better compensation
and the like, and even some tax relief if necessary, I hope you
are looking for those to recommend to us with reference to the
Guard and the Reserve, because we have been surely looking for
instances where we could be more fair, more equitable in that
regard.
REDUCING SIZE OF GUARD AND RESERVE
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator, thank you for the comments. I'll
have some comments later, but I think the Department's answer
so far that we've seen, I'll send you the issues study, is that
we should enlarge the strength of the active units and reduce
the size of the Guard and Reserve. I think a few Governors are
going to have some comments about that, and besides that, I
wonder--if you don't mind, Pat, if I just ask one question--
what are we doing at the time of all these tornadoes? Every one
of those States, the first responders should have been the
National Guard, and many of those units are in Iraq or off on
terrorism duty. Have you got any complaints yet about that?
General Blum. Sir, we have not received any complaints
about that because General Schultz and General James, to the
degree that they were allowed, were very, very careful to not
strip any Governor of their total capability to do State
mission and anticipate the typical bad weather patterns and the
normal Mother Nature-type catastrophes that happen, or leave
them a response force in the State if they were to be attacked,
particularly during the prosecution of the war in Iraq, by some
agents or surrogates of the Iraqi, or sympathizer of the Iraqi
people, so we were very careful to leave in every State and
territory as much of a robust capability to respond as
possible.
Incidentally, in Missouri with the latest tragic events,
the unit that responded to that tornado had been activated for
war in Southwest Asia. They were at Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri, at the mobilization station. The unit heard its home
town had been hit and devastated, and the unit marched back to
their home town and responded to their own neighbors and
families and friends. Even though they were on active duty,
ready to go to war, they interrupted that process to come home
to take care of the homeland, and then when that's done they'll
go back to Fort Leonard Wood and prepare to go, so the short
answer to your question is, we are watching that
extraordinarily close.
We want to make sure no Governor is left uncovered, no
community is left without a National Guard, and as you may or
may not know, the States have interstate agreements where they
can mutually support one another now, which they did not have
in years past.
Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the last
Congress I commissioned a General Accounting Office (GAO) study
and asked them to look at health insurance requirements of the
Guard and Reserve. The report found over 20 percent of our
reservists, people who were ready to be deployed across the
globe at a moment's notice, currently don't possess adequate
health insurance. The report shows that this not only threatens
readiness but it certainly raises questions on recruiting, and
definite questions on retention. I've introduced S. 852, the
National Guard and Reserve Comprehensive Health Insurance Act.
It makes reservists eligible for TRICARE on a cost-share basis.
The bill would open up TRICARE to help alleviate some of the
problems on both readiness and retention.
General Blum. Senator, any help in that area would be
greatly appreciated. We at this table do not view that as an
entitlements program. We view that as a readiness issue. The
health and dental care of our soldiers and airmen is absolutely
vital for them to be able to perform their mission when called
upon. If you extend those kinds of benefits to our citizen
soldiers and airmen, it also makes them very attractive for
employers if they have health care, as you well know, because
that gives them an advantage when they're competing for a job,
and it may help mitigate some of the downside that an employer
may view of hiring a citizen soldier or a reservist.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. General James, General Schultz,
do you agree with that?
General Schultz. I agree with that, Senator.
General James. Yes, sir.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
CALL-UPS OF GUARD FORCES
Now, the National Guard has always been America's homeland
security force, and the events of September 11, the war in
Iraq, demonstrated the Guard's ready to deploy abroad or at
home to defend the country. The Green Mountain Boys from
Vermont were flying their aged F-16s over New York City almost
immediately after the tragedy there.
Actually, I was pretty impressed. I went there and watched
some of the operations and you see these mechanics working
literally around the clock to keep the planes flying and then
the pilots doing the same thing. They weren't carrying dummy
missiles, obviously, at that time.
When the Guard is carrying out missions at home, it's
usually most effective when it serves under the command and
control of the Nation's Governors. They know their communities,
and if there's a question of the Guard cooperating with local
law enforcement or State law enforcement they know best how to
do it. I'm concerned that the Department of Defense has not
sufficiently supported callups under the title 32 status. How
do you feel, General Blum? Do you support call-ups of Guard
forces under the title 32?
General Blum. Senator, yes, I do. It goes back to the issue
of flexibility and responsiveness. To me, you should leave in
the hands of whoever is responsible for responding to an event
the most flexibility to respond to that event as possible. The
unique dual status of the National Guard should not be
discarded, it should be embraced. It actually is value-added in
most instances.
Senator Leahy. General James, do you agree with that?
General James. I do agree with that. I think he's right on
the mark on that, and as a former the Adjutant General (TAG) I
will tell you that it's very important that the Governor and
the Adjutant General of that State have the flexibility to
utilize and maintain command and control of those forces under
title 32 status as opposed to title 10. There are some cases
where title 10 status has its benefits, but overall I believe
title 32 would be the first choice of the Governor and the
Adjutant General.
Senator Leahy. And General Schultz?
General Schultz. I agree with that, Senator, and if title
32 would bring along a certain set of definitions, meaning it's
a training status, perhaps it's time for another status that
gets at the realities of post-September 11 attacks on this
Nation, where a Governor still would control those first
responses in a status, and then maybe the Federal force, the
title 10 forces follow on at some logical point in an emergency
mission, so I think we've got some work on this, but I do
support what's been outlined by our chief here.
Senator Leahy. As you all know, this committee has, or
subcommittee has made the Guard and Reserve equipment account a
high priority over the past several years, not that any
parochial questions ever arise from this committee, but I----
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT
You have gotten out of me my comments about the F-16s and
the 158th Fighter Wing, the oldest such equipment. They fly
more hours than any other F-16s in the Air Force inventory, and
are doing it well. How do we keep the Guard's equipment as
modern as possible? We've got the Guard and Reserve equipment
account, but should we be doing more? I mean, how do we do
this, and if that's not an open-ended softball you're never
going to get one in your life.
General Blum. Senator, let me thank this committee for what
they've done in providing for us in the past in the most
generous fashion. The bottom line of that National Guard
Reserve equipment account is that it allows the local
commander, those charged with responsibility for ensuring
readiness, the flexibility they need to manage our readiness,
and I think the results are proven. This is a very, very good
program, and it's much appreciated by us. Not to be open-ended,
but since we are using this equipment at a much-increased rate
than we projected even a year and a half ago, the wear-out rate
would tend to lean toward, we would like to see this program
continued, and if you wish to expand it, that would be most
welcome.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, the reason I raise that, as we
all know, we have to come up with a lot of money for the
Department of Defense. We all understand that. Just replacing
the munitions expended in Iraq will be very considerable, but
it's been a strain on all the equipment, all the way through,
but I just don't want anybody to forget the Guard's equipment
was strained, too.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. Gentlemen,
it's good to see all of you, and thank you.
General James. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your
support of the LITENING. If it had not been for the LITENING
pods and the monies that were spent from the National Guard
equipment account, we would not have been able to participate
in the last contingency, very simple. LITENING gave us the
precision-guided munitions capability that we needed, it kept
us relevant, it put us in the fight. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Well, General, you made it very clear to me
how important those were and I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Hutchison.
OVERUSE OF GUARD AND RESERVE
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
first that the Easter of 2000 was probably the best Easter I've
ever spent. It was with General James in Bosnia with our Guard
unit. He was the head of the Texas Guard at the time, and we
went over there. It was the first time we had a Guard unit in
command and control. It was kind of the test case, and our
Texans did so well that many have followed since, and it was a
wonderful opportunity to go to that sunrise service and visit
with our troops.
I won't belabor it, because my staff tells me that others
before me have made the same comments and questions about
overusing the Guard and Reserves, and I have great concerns in
this area as well. I talked to a lot of those young men and
women in Bosnia, and have since, about the strains that occur
when they are deployed so much, and talked with Senator Stevens
on a trip that we took to Saudi Arabia, where we had Air Guard
units that had been over there three times over a 2-year
period, and they were pretty worn out, so I am concerned about
that, and I just will look forward to working with the
Department of Defense on the issues that relate to what is our
troop strength in active duty, and what can we realistically
expect from the Guard, and do we have the right troop strength
there as well, but I won't ask the question because I
understand you have thoroughly gone through that.
There is, though, one question that I do have, and it was
in the base tour that I took 2 weeks ago, and I found a woman
near Diaz and Goodfellow whose husband had gone out with a
Guard unit out of Collin, out of Fort Hood, and she was having
trouble getting the access that we know our families of
deployed have, and it turns out that we don't have a clear
mechanism for deployed Guard and Reserve units to be able to go
to the nearest base to their home if it's not close to where
they're actually deployed from, so I am working on legislation
right now that would require that contact to be made to the
nearest base for a deployed reserve personnel, and that that
person, the next of kin would have the contact at the base,
that there would be someone at the base who would be in charge
of dealing with the reserve families who are left behind, but
I'm going to just ask you if you are aware of this, and if it's
something that you could work on before I hopefully pass my
bill.
General Blum. I think that would be most welcome. As you
know, the active duty bases are not really ideally located
against population centers. Our membership mostly comes from
population centers, so anything you could do to make that
easier on families and make their access more eased would be
most appreciated. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I will introduce the bill and then
either get it in the authorization bill or offered as an
amendment, and I don't think there'll be a problem with it, but
I don't even think it should be a big problem for you. I think
it's just having that little communication mechanism so that--I
mean, these people are under a lot of stress, because they're
not active duty, so in many instances they don't have the same
family support and infrastructure, so I want to give them that
to the greatest extent possible.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Stevens. We want to thank you very much, gentlemen,
for your testimony. We look forward to working with you on
these difficult issues. The subjects that we discussed may
primarily be in the province of the Armed Services Committee,
although several of them are in the budget transmittal to us,
which would require us to act on them, too, so we will be back
in touch on some of those issues before we're through. Thank
you very much.
General Blum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
SEAMLESS ENVIRONMENT
Question. What measures are you taking to ensure National Guard
soldiers and airmen can operate seamlessly in the Joint Environment and
Combined Environment?
Answer. The National Guard is increasingly being called upon to
participate in joint and combined operations. The peacekeeping task
force in Bosnia is just one of those examples. At the same time, we are
undertaking several measures to ensure that Guardsmen can more
effectively operate in the full spectrum of operations. These formal
and informal opportunities will be evolving as the National Guard's
transformation process takes shape over the coming months.
The National Guard is rapidly moving toward a joint configuration
and joint operations. The National Guard Bureau is being reorganized
into a true joint organization with an effective date of July 1, 2003.
Headquarters in the 50 states, 3 territories and the District of
Columbia are being reorganized into Joint Force Headquarters effective
October 1, 2003. Once formed, these headquarters will better align and
mirror our Combative Commands, Joint Staff, and Reserve Component
forces within each state.
The transformation of the Guard will be a dynamic and ongoing
process. The National Guard Bureau and the National Guard of the
Several States will operate in a joint environment on a day-to-day
basis. We will undertake joint professional military training for our
officers and enlisted personnel; train and groom our future leaders for
joint operations; seek joint and combined assignment opportunities for
our best leaders; and continue to embrace and expand upon our
successful current joint operations, such as Bosnia, Sinai, Iraq,
Afghanistan and the numerous National Guard State Partnership programs.
Our soldiers and airmen are being actively encouraged to take
advantage of increasing opportunities to serve on Joint Staffs. We have
aggressively provided National Guardsmen to serve at U.S. Northern
Command. Another set of opportunities will soon exist as U.S. Northern
Command stands up its National Guard Augmentation Unit. We continue to
monitor with interest the efforts at Joint Forces Command to launch
Joint Professional Military Education for Reserve Component members.
The best preparation is experience. WMD Civil Support Team (CST)
operations and counter-drug operations involve Army and Air National
Guard assets working together. As we stand-up more CSTs, this
experience base will expand. Our successful airport security mission
involved both Army and Air National Guard members. By virtue of these
and other experiences, as well as the planned changes, current and
future generations of Guardsmen will be able to operate seamlessly and
successfully in all types of joint and combined operations they will be
called upon to support at home and abroad.
IMPROVED WMD RESPONSE CAPABILITY
Question. How is the National Guard preparing to improve the
capability to better respond to WMD events?
Answer. The National Guard Bureau and the National Guard are
engaged in a myriad of initiatives designed to enhance the scope and
timeliness of a National Guard response to a WMD incident.
Congress authorized and resourced the current 32 WMD Civil Support
Teams (CST) and the National Guard fielded those units on or ahead of
schedule. The CSTs have made major contributions to our national
readiness and they are responding to civilian authorities on a daily
basis. The National Guard Bureau is constantly monitoring new
technology that might enhance their capabilities in the future and uses
every opportunity to expand and strengthen the skills of CST members as
well.
The National Guard Bureau, with Congressional support, developed
the Comprehensive Review and Report of September 11th outlining actions
taken throughout the emergency management and response communities in
the minutes and days following the 9/11 incident. The report's purpose
was to make available to the civilian and military communities an
overview of actions taken, so that all could be aware of the challenges
faced, areas of need and opportunities to further refine response and
support capabilities.
The report led to the Automated Exercise and Assessment System
(AEAS), funded by the Congress and initially fielded in April 2003. The
AEAS' primary objective was to create a fully automated and integrated
electronic tabletop exercise tool that allows Emergency Responders and
Emergency Managers to prepare and assess their communities' readiness
to respond to incidents concerning WMD. AEAS thoroughly exercises the
emergency response community and assists the National Guard in
identifying potential mission support requirements by individual
jurisdiction.
Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) training for the Guard
was funded by the Congress and conducted during the past year. The
National Guard trained 500 personnel as Certified CISM trainers,
doubling the number of internationally certified and recognized
trainers in the world. These CISM-qualified personnel are available to
assist communities as well as their military organizations in time of
need.
We have been in close coordination with the Department of Defense
to prepare an effective fielding plan to stand up the additional 23 WMD
Civil Support Teams per Section 1403 of the fiscal year 2003 National
Defense Authorization Act.
I announced as part of my ``Transforming the Guard'' initiative,
that the National Guard would organize itself as a truly joint
organization beginning at the National Guard Bureau on July 1, 2003 and
in the various states on October 1, 2003. It is the right thing to do
for America and it is critical for the National Guard to ensure that we
are fully capable of operating across the full spectrum--from the
combat war fight, through Homeland Defense and Security, to responding
to the governors in times of natural disaster or civil disturbance.
Furthermore, this initiative will allow the National Guard to quickly
and efficiently respond to the requirements of U.S. Northern Command
either as the force provider and/or as the Joint Force Headquarters
coordinating a follow-on federal military response.
The second element of the transformation initiative is to leverage
our existing war fight capabilities. We must leverage our existing
structure and capabilities to ensure our forces are never late to need.
We will task-organize 10 National Guard Chemical, Biological Incident
Response Forces (NGCBIRF). The task forces will consist of a National
Guard CST, an enhanced division medical company with 150 person per
hour decontamination/treatment capability, an enhanced engineer company
with specialized search and rescue equipment, and task-trained combat
units capable of supporting law enforcement. These task forces will
meet a previously identified NORTHCOM request for capabilities that are
currently limited.
We will expand National Guard involvement in Ground-based Mid-
course Missile Defense by including both the Army and Air Guard. We
will build on the Nike Hercules Guard model and intend to include
Traditional Guard members and M-day units. We will create National
Guard Reaction Forces through dual missioning and training existing
units. These units will be immediately available to state and federal
governments, and for Homeland Security purposes are already forwarded
deployed throughout the United States. The units will retain full war
fight and homeland security capabilities. These forces will also meet a
previously identified NORTHCOM request for available forces.
IMPROVED EFFICIENCIES AT NGB
Question. What effort, if any, are you making to improve
efficiencies at the National Guard Bureau to reduce redundancies and
improve the response time in routine and crisis operations between
State National Guard HQ's, OSD, Northern Command, and civil
authorities?
Answer. The transformation of the National Guard Bureau and the
headquarters of each State National Guard to joint configuration is the
first step to increasing efficiencies and reducing response times to
the full spectrum of National Guard response requirements.
The National Guard Bureau is currently increasing its ability to
communicate directly with the Department of Defense, U.S. Northern
Command, the State National Guard Headquarters, and the civil
authorities at all levels.
This is being achieved in two ways. We are reorganizing our
communication and information systems to provide more timely, relevant
information to those officials who have an immediate ``need to know''.
This can range from the on-scene incident commanders to regional
combatant commanders. Critical to the information flow is the soon to
be formed Joint Force Headquarters-State, which will be able to rapidly
facilitate information passing to and from first responders and other
civil authorities within their states. This is a top priority at the
National Guard Bureau and will be implemented in the coming months.
Joint Forces Headquarters at the state level will provide NORTHCOM
and other federal entities with capabilities that are currently not
available. The Joint Force Headquarters will provide a seamless
transition and escalation from the almost immediate response by
National Guard forces to the later arrival of federal forces. This will
provide for continuity of operations and full integration of federal
military support in response to, and in support of, the emergency
management, emergency response, and elected officials communities.
CHAIN OF COMMAND
Question. Are you satisfied with the current reporting chain of
command that requires you to report through the Air Force and Army
Service Chiefs when raising an issue that requires the attention of the
Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?
Answer. The present Channel of Communications is an efficient and
effective means of dealing with Service-specific issues. This has
effectively produced a highly ready Army and Air National Guard force
that has proven itself over and over again. However, since September
11, 2001, the various National Guard in the states have become
increasingly engaged in homeland security operations under the command
and control of state governors. At the National Guard Bureau, we
monitor these operations and facilitate access to equipment within and
between states.
The Commander U.S. Northern Command has expressed interest in being
situationally aware of state operations and capabilities. The National
Guard Bureau is working to help provide NORTHCOM with that awareness
and to serve as a communication channel to the states as needed. Our
on-going re-organization to a more fully joint staff reflects the
National Guard's requirement to more effectively operate in the joint
environment.
There may be merit in studying the possible expansion of the
National Guard Bureau's purpose by adding service as the Channel of
Communications between the states and the Department of Defense and the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. This would enhance the National Guard's
capability to effectively work in this joint operational environment
and capitalize on our on going transformation. Strengthening links with
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security, and the
commanders of U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S.
Southern Command, would provide mutual benefits to those organizations
as well as the states.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMS
Question. What are your key Transformation programs in the 2004
budget request?
Answer. The key Army National Guard (ARNG) transformational
programs contained in this year's budget request include the fiscal
year 2004 portion of Aviation Transformation and conversion of the
Pennsylvania ARNG's 56th Brigade to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team
(SBCT). The fiscal year 2004 portion of SBCT conversion is fully funded
in the request, but Aviation Transformation is not. The 56th Brigade
SBCT is programmed for Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in fiscal
year 2010. The ARNG is looking at options to accelerate IOC to fiscal
year 2008.
There are several key Air National Guard (ANG) transformational
programs funded in the fiscal year 2004 budget request: the ``blended'
active Air Force/Air National Guard (ANG) JSTARS wing at Robins AFB,
Georgia; the ANG support squadron to the Rivet Joint wing at Offutt
AFB, Nebraska (it was formed from the Nebraska ANG's air refueling
wing); and ongoing funding for the Washington ANG's 162nd Information
Warfare Squadron at Bellingham, Washington, which was re-missioned from
a ``sunset'' combat communications role.
TRICARE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
Question. What are your thoughts on extending TRICARE health care
coverage to members and families of the National Guard on a cost-share
basis? Would this provide a needed service to our Guardsmen? Would
employers view it as an incentive to hire Guardsmen?
Answer. In general, the National Guard supports extending health
care coverage under TRICARE for Reserve Component members and families
to improve medical readiness, recruitment, and retention. We believe it
would be appropriate to extend this benefit to National Guard members
as part of a more equitable compensation package that has become more
compelling in light of increasing military commitments and operational
tempo shared with the active component.
Compared to the untenable costs of citizen-soldiers and citizen-
airmen being unfit to deploy, extending TRICARE coverage to all of our
members would provide a cost-effective means of ensuring medical
readiness. Providing health care coverage to those Reserve Component
members who do not have private health insurance because it is not
affordable would not be an entitlement as much as it would be a
readiness issue. Furthermore, employers would definitely view this as
an incentive to hire Reserve Component members, as it would provide a
direct cost benefit.
SOLDIERS AND SAILORS RELIEF ACT
Question. How well has the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Act
supported your members and are there any improvements to the act you
can suggest?
Answer. In the past, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act
(SSCRA) did not support the National Guard as well as it could because
the SSCRA only applied to National Guard members in Title 10 status. As
a result, Guardsmen who provided security to the nation's airports
following the events of September 11, 2001 were not eligible for SSCRA
benefits because although requested by the President, they conducted
operations under section 502(f) of Title 32. Last year's addition to
the SSCRA to include members of the National Guard called to Active
Duty at the Request of the President was a tremendous and appreciated
improvement. It has helped many members of the National Guard who have
been called to active duty.
Additional considerations the Congress may wish to take up include:
increasing rent protections for high cost areas; the ability to
terminate car leases; protecting tuition and class standing for members
who are college students; and lowering home mortgage interest rates to
the prime, but no greater than 6 percent.
H.R. 100, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, introduced in the
House, proposes to revise the SSCRA and provides a new definition of
servicemember, which is the term used to trigger many protections. If
H.R. 100 moves forward, the definition of ``servicemember'' should be
modified to include Army and Air National Guard members when acting
under section 502(f) of Title 32, or the trigger for servicemember
protections should be tied solely to the proposed definition of
``military service''.
EMPLOYER SUPPORT OF THE GUARD AND RESERVE
Question. How can you recommend we better support the employers of
our National Guard members?
Answer. With the increased utilization of reserve component
personnel, employers are being impacted more than ever. As a result,
programs such as the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR)
are key to our efforts in gaining and maintaining the support of our
civilian employers. ESGR greatly assists civilian employers with their
Guard and Reserve employees by providing information, rewarding them
for their sacrifices, and if necessary, resolving disputes.
Accordingly, Congress should support the continued resourcing of this
important program.
We conduct numerous employer symposiums during the course of the
year and we hear from employers about their concerns. One way we can
make a significant difference with the employers of our soldiers and
airmen is by providing them advance notification (at least 30 days or
more, if possible) of any mobilizations, and we are continuously
working with the Services to allow sufficient prior planning. Small
businesses are especially hard hit by mobilizations so more
predictability would be very beneficial to them.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
COUNTERDRUG SCHOOLS
Question. This year the Iowa National Guard received $3.5 million
to set up the fifth National Guard Counterdrug School (Mid-West
Counterdrug Training Center) for training of law enforcement officers
and community based personnel at Camp Dodge, Iowa. Utilizing existing
facilities and National Guard personnel to administer the program, the
Iowa Guard has begun to provide training by certified law enforcement
personnel to thousands of officers in over ten states throughout the
Midwest. In fiscal year 2004, MCTC needs $3.0 million to continue the
training of thousands of law enforcement and community leaders, who
currently have no training available in their areas. Could you describe
the assistance and training the MCTC is providing to regional law
enforcement to reduce drug trafficking in the Midwest, and the number
of people being trained?
Answer. The Midwest Counterdrug Training Center (MCTC) facilitates
law enforcement and community-based organization training, with a drug
nexus, by setting the conditions for training at Camp Dodge, Iowa, and
through the use of mobile training teams as requested by the host state
law enforcement agency. The yearly training calendar is established
based on training requirements set by county sheriffs, police chiefs,
and state patrol commanders primarily in the fifteen-state Northwest
Counterdrug Region.
In its first year, the MCTC has planned for thirty-three courses
and nine training seminars. Our goal in the first year is to facilitate
the training of 900 personnel. Indications are that MCTC will exceed
the ``number trained'' goal by 600-700 personnel. MCTC's students
represent thirty-three states and territories. Classes range from
highway interdiction techniques and procedures to street-wise Spanish.
MCTC facilitates Intelligence Analysts training with threat assessment
instruction, ``follow-the-money'' techniques, and computer evidence
recovery. Other courses include clandestine laboratory certification,
highway drug investigations, and drug nexus interview and interrogation
techniques.
COUNTERDRUG SCHOOLS
Question. By utilizing existing facilities and manpower at Camp
Dodge to support the community and law enforcement personnel, does this
cause any decrease in the combat capability or readiness of any
National Guard soldiers or airmen?
Answer. No. In fact, we believe that it enhances readiness. There
is no decrease in combat capability, readiness or availability as
National Guard soldiers and airmen remain assigned to their units and
are deployable as members of those units. Facilitating training for law
enforcement through training centers, such as the Midwest Counterdrug
Training Center (MCTC), does not affect any unit's deployable status or
readiness posture. Soldiers and airmen who support MCTC are better
prepared because they have already been medically screened to
deployment standards, and are already in the Army's medical data banks.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 56TH STRYKER BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM
Question. General Schultz, I have been informed that the Secretary
of Defense has reconsidered the planned transformation of the
Pennsylvania Army National Guard's 56th Brigade to a Stryker Brigade
Combat Team, a unit which is currently ahead of schedule and doing
well. Failure to continue the transformation, a process already well
under way, will have great consequences and would be detrimental to the
Army, the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, and to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. With this in mind, do you not believe that implementing
the Secretary of Defense's plan to scrap the first transformational
Army unit in the National Guard would degrade the modernization of the
Guard and Reserve Components by not including them in the early phases
of the SBCT program?
Answer. The 56th Brigade conversion to become a Stryker Brigade
Combat Team is on schedule. It has been our intent from the beginning
to transform Army National Guard units. Plans are on schedule to field
the brigade in its new design. The Army Guard is fully capable and
prepared to modernize units across our formations. The 56th Brigade is
leading the way in our efforts to modernize Guard units. The Army's
efforts to modernize include the Guard. Any delays to the current
schedule will degrade our ability to accomplish the emerging mission we
are currently assigned. It has been my recommendation to proceed with
fielding the Stryker Brigade Combat Team in the 28th Infantry Division.
Question. Is it possible that transformation of the Guard and
Reserve may produce different results than transformation of active
units?
Answer. No. The 56th Brigade will provide the Army with the same
organization, structure and capability as an AC SBCT. It will provide a
modernized combat brigade that is quickly deployable, lethal,
survivable and have the ability to operate in a joint environment.
Question. What impact will exclusion of the transformation of the
Guard's 56th Brigade have on readiness?
Answer. In the short term, readiness will remain status quo in the
56th Brigade and the Army National Guard. However, the lack of modern
equipment and systems that are programmed to accompany a SBCT would
mean that the Army National Guard would not receive some of the newest
systems and the new equipment training associated with the fielding of
these systems. The 56th Brigade, and the other divisional maneuver
brigades are not equipped with the same modern systems found the active
army, and are short major equipment such as tactical wheeled vehicles.
The SBCT is programmed to be fielded with the latest equipment and be
filled to 100 percent of the authorized amount.
FUTURE FIXED WING AVIATION REQUIREMENTS
Question. I understand that the Army National Guard forwarded a
study in July 2001 to the Committee on Appropriations that identified
future fixed wing aviation requirements to support and sustain planned
missions such as weapons of mass destruction and national missile
defense.
Answer. To develop the 2001 response, and answer the Appropriations
Committee's inquiry on fixed wing requirements to support weapons of
mass destruction and national missile defense, the Army National Guard
thoroughly reviewed the minimum fixed wing cargo capabilities required
by the approved Fixed Wing Investment Strategy (FWIS) dated August
1993. The FWIS's minimum required FW cargo aircraft capabilities were
compared to those necessary to adequately support weapons of mass
destruction and national missile defense efforts. The overall finding
of the Congressional response demonstrated the Army National Guard
requires an improved fixed wing cargo aircraft, with the minimum
required capabilities defined in the Army's FWIS in order to support
both weapons of mass destruction and national missile defense mission
requirements. The Army has developed a new FW requirements document
called The Fixed Wing Operational and Organizational Plan. This TRADOC
and G3 approved document maintains the same minimum FW cargo aircraft
requirements that were defined in the in the FWIS with some additional
mandates.
C-23 SHERPA CARGO AIRCRAFT
Question. Have you determined whether the C-23 Sherpa cargo
aircraft currently operated by the Army National Guard can perform the
missions identified in the Army National Guard Fixed Wing Study?
Answer. The C-23 Sherpa does not meet any of the minimum required
capabilities defined in the Army's Fixed Wing Operational and
Organizational Plan. The C-23 does not adequately support mission
requirements for weapons of mass destruction or national missile
defense.
Question. If you have determined that the C-23's performance
limitations necessitate the procurement of a future aircraft capable of
meeting projected mission requirements, please indicate whether you
have identified such an aircraft.
Answer. There are a few commercial off the shelf (COTS) fixed wing
cargo aircraft available which are able to fully meet the Army's stated
minimum performance requirements as well as meeting those critical
mission requirements in support of homeland security and national
missile defense. The Army National Guard does not have a research and
development staff to specifically identify or provide the name of an
aircraft that meets both the Army's mission demands and homeland
security.
Question. If you have, in fact, identified an aircraft that can
better support the projected mission requirements identified in the
July 2001 study, please state the funding level that would be required
to support its initial procurement in fiscal year 2004.
Answer. Shortly after the completion of the Congressional response,
the National Guard general staff received an unsolicited bid for 44
cargo aircraft that fully met all of the Army's minimum required cargo
aircraft performance parameters. The unsolicited bid was for
approximately $3.0 billion. As indicated in the bid, this cost included
the complete life cycle funding, flying hours and maintenance for the
44 aircraft over a 25 year period. It is not known if the bid and the
offer are still valid or accurate for today's dollars.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
C-23 SHERPA CARGO AIRCRAFT
Question. The C-23 Sherpa, the Army's medium cargo fixed wing
aircraft, experienced some shortfalls during operations in Iraq,
including limitations for flight into icy conditions, lack of short
takeoff and landing capability, and poor performance in high/hot
conditions, lack of short takeoff and landing capability, and poor
performance in high/hot locations. Does the Army National Guard have
any plans to modernize or replace the C-23s?
Answer. The C-23 was originally designed as a short distance
commuter aircraft. As the Army's only tactical fixed wing cargo
aircraft it has all of the performance limitations mentioned and more.
The C-23 does not meet any of the Army's minimum cargo aircraft
performance parameters as defined in the Fixed Wing Operational and
Organizational Plan. The modernization of the Army National Guard C-23
fixed wing aircraft is tied to Army modernization and funding.
Currently, the Army has a small amount of money identified in the
fiscal year 2009 time frame to look at a possible replacement FW cargo
aircraft.
C-27J SPARTAN TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
Question. Would the C-27J Spartan tactical lift aircraft provide a
more capable alternative?
Answer. The C-27J Spartan was designed and built as a tactical
support aircraft. From what I understand, its capabilities meet all of
the Army's stated minimum performance requirements and would greatly
increase the Army National Guard's ability to perform its Federal and
State missions including homeland security and national missile
defense.
Reserves
STATEMENTS OF:
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES R. HELMLY, CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE
VICE ADMIRAL JOHN B. TOTUSHEK, CHIEF, NAVAL RESERVE
LIEUTENANT GENERAL DENNIS M. McCARTHY, CHIEF, MARINE FORCES
RESERVE
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES E. SHERRARD III, CHIEF, AIR FORCE
RESERVE
Senator Stevens. We'll now call for the commanders of the
Reserve forces to join us today. We have with us today
Lieutenant General James Helmly, Chief of the Army Reserve,
Vice Admiral John Totushek, Chief of the Naval Reserve,
Lieutenant General Dennis McCarthy, Chief of the Marine Force
Reserve, Lieutenant General Sherrard, Chief of the Air Force
Reserve.
I'm told that it would be proper for me to extend to you,
Admiral, a bravo zulu. Well done. We understand this is your
last appearance before us. We certainly wish you well in all
your endeavors, and thank you for your service to our country.
I assume the best way to proceed would be just in the order
that I read the names, if that's agreeable, so we'll start with
General Helmly, Chief of the Army Reserve.
General Helmly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of this
distinguished subcommittee. I thank you again for the
opportunity and the privilege to testify on behalf of the
205,000 soldiers, 11,000 civilian employees, and their family
members, all members of the United States Army Reserve.
Today, as we speak, over 68,000 Army Reserve soldiers are
mobilized throughout the world in America's global war on
terrorism. They serve alongside their Army National Guard and
active component counterparts courageously, skillfully, and
proudly. These modern-day patriots have willingly answered the
call to duty to perform the missions they've trained for and to
honor their commitment as an indispensable component of the
world's finest ground force, the United States Army.
This committee, through its dedicated support of the
soldiers in the Army Reserve has played a major and integral
part in increasing the relevance and, indeed, strengthening the
readiness of today's Army Reserve. Your concern, witnessed here
today, for our people, our most precious resource, who dedicate
a significant part of their lives to defending our Nation, in
addition to honoring commitments to employers and families, as
well as their communities, is evidenced by your invitation to
review the present state of the Army Reserve. Thank you for
that.
One of our units, the 459th Multirole Bridge Company, based
in Bridgeport, West Virginia, is a unit so honoring their
commitment. This unit of 172 soldiers supported fact, the First
Marine Expeditionary Force and similar to traveled first with
the Marine Recon Battalion so that they could bridge the
various rivers en route to Baghdad. This unit fought as
infantry in a Marines firefight in al-Nasariya. One of the
soldiers, a noncommissioned officer, Sergeant Paul Abernathy,
remarked upon leaving al-Nasariya, we all signed up knowing
that we might have to go do this. Now that we're here, you have
to keep in mind this is our job as soldiers. We came to fight
and win.
I might add that they were proud to serve with the United
States Marine Corps in this operation. It shows that we fight
not only intracomponent, but also jointly amongst all the
components, and with combined forces. But excelling in current
missions is not sufficient by itself. It is also necessary that
we concurrently confront today's challenges while preparing for
tomorrow's.
The Army must at all times maintain its nonnegotiable
contract to fight and win the Nation's wars as we concurrently
transform to become more strategically responsive and dominant
across the spectrum of military operations. The concurrence of
these dual challenges, transforming our force while fighting,
winning, and preparing for today's wars, is the crux of our
challenge today, transforming while concurrently at war.
Today's war has mobilized 35.4 percent of the United States
Army Reserve. That is far higher than the 27 percent of the
Army Reserve mobilized for Operation Desert Shield/Desert
Storm. Since 1996, we have averaged 9,265 Army Reserve soldiers
mobilized annually. On December 31, 2002, we had approximately
9,900 Army Reserve soldiers mobilized. Three months later we
had over 69,000 mobilized. That is a vertical spike of
unprecedented proportions in terms of the speed. You have
alluded to that this morning.
Since September 11, 2001, our world has changed
drastically. The very nature of this global war on terrorism,
long duration, very fluid and volatile at various places and
times around the world, dictates that in fact major changes are
required to practices, procedures, and policies related to how
we organize, man, train, compensate, and mobilize for use the
soldiers of the Army Reserve.
What was once a force in Reserve has now become a full
partner, indeed almost an auxiliary force, of the Army across
the spectrum of operations needed to satisfy the demand and
need for highly skilled, specialized soldiers and units. Our
ability to remain relevant and responsive depends on the
interoperability and condition of our equipment but principally
and foremost on the training, readiness, and support welfare of
our soldiers.
We're grateful to the Congress and the Nation for
supporting the Army Reserve and the centerpiece of our
formations, our soldiers, the sons and daughters of America. I
cannot in words express how very proud I am of our soldiers, as
well as their families. They are in the hearts and prayers of a
grateful Nation, and they will stay there until the job that we
have come to finish is at hand.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you again, sir, for the opportunity to appear before
you and the distinguished members of this subcommittee this
morning, and I look forward to addressing any questions that
you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General James R. Helmly
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, members of this distinguished subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity and the privilege to testify on behalf of the
205,000 soldiers, 11,150 civilian employees, and their family members
of the United States Army Reserve.
Today, over 69,000 Army Reserve soldiers are mobilized in America's
Global War on Terrorism, serving courageously and proudly around the
world. These modern day patriots have willingly answered the call to
duty to perform the missions they have trained for and to honor their
commitment as part of a responsive and relevant force, an indispensable
component of the world's finest ground force, the United States Army.
This committee, through its dedicated support of the soldiers in
the Army Reserve, has played a major part in increasing the relevance
and strengthening the readiness of the Army Reserve. Your concern for
the reserve soldier and employee who dedicates a significant part of
his or her life to defending our nation, in addition to honoring
commitments to employers and families, is evidenced by your invitation
to review the present state of the United States Army Reserve. I am
honored by that opportunity.
The occasion to testify before this subcommittee comes at a time of
profound importance and immense change in our nation's security
environment, as well as dynamic change in the international political
landscape and unprecedented improvements in technology that add
significantly to both friendly and enemy military capabilities. We are
engaged with a wily, determined enemy, intent on destroying our very
way of life; confronting regional powers and potential use of weapons
of mass destruction at home and abroad; and struggling with the
challenges of how to secure our homeland while preserving our precious
rights and freedoms. It is within this very challenging environment
that the Army Reserve serves with excellence today.
Excelling in current missions is not sufficient by itself. It is
necessary that we concurrently confront today's challenges while
preparing for tomorrow's. The Army must maintain its non-negotiable
contract to fight and win the nation's wars as we concurrently
transform to become more strategically responsive and dominant at every
point on the spectrum of military operations. The concurrence of these
dual challenges, transforming our force while fighting, winning, and
preparing for other wars, is the crux of our challenge today--
transforming while at war.
This is my first opportunity to address this subcommittee as the
Chief, Army Reserve. I am humbled and sobered by the responsibility
bestowed to me. The Army Reserve is an organization that demonstrates
its ability to be a full and equal partner, along with the Active
Component of the Army and the Army National Guard, in being the most
responsive dominant ground force the world has seen.
The strength and goodness we bring to that partnership is drawn
from the people who serve in our formations. The Army Reserve is the
most ethnically and gender diverse force of all the armed services.
Overall, ninety-two percent of our force holds high school diplomas.
Our force consists of individuals who are community and industry
leaders, highly trained and educated professionals, experts in their
chosen field who give of their time and expertise to serve our nation.
The Army Reserve has been in a continuous state of mobilization
since December of 1995. Prior to that, our contributions to Desert
Shield/Desert Storm numbered over 84,000 soldiers. The Army Reserve
also mobilized over 2,000 soldiers in support of Operation Uphold
Democracy in Haiti. Since 1996, the average number of soldiers
mobilized has been 9,265 soldiers per year. Our soldiers are part of
the rotational forces that are keeping the peace in Eastern Europe.
Military police, medical and public affairs soldiers provide ongoing
capabilities in Operation Joint Endeavor and Operation Joint Guardian
in Bosnia and Kosovo. The depth of the current mobilization reflects a
higher percentage of the force since Desert Shield/Desert Storm and
still our soldiers are raising their hands to re-enlist in the Army
Reserve, making our enlisted troop retention rates the best they have
been since 1992.
The attacks of September 11th intensified the pace of operations.
Within hours of those attacks, the Army Reserve deployed a mortuary
affairs company from Puerto Rico--a company that ten years earlier
performed its mission with distinction in Desert Shield/Desert Storm--
to deploy to the Pentagon to assist with searching and recovering the
remains of the victims of the attack. They proved to be so invaluable
to the recovery efforts that they did not return to their homes until
September of 2002, after cataloging not only all of the personal
effects of the dead but items from the Pentagon as well. It is worth
noting that we prepared and deployed the unit in advance of a
Presidential declaration of mobilization on Army Reserve training
orders. To those who question the Army Reserve's ability to respond
rapidly and completely to dynamic short notice missions, we are pleased
to provide the 311th Mortuary Affairs Company's responsiveness as a
case study. There are numerous other, similar examples as well.
In downtown Manhattan, Army Reserve soldiers were also assisting
with the recovery efforts after the attack on the World Trade Center.
Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers were on site shortly after the
attack to assist with rescue and later, recovery efforts. Army Reserve
units provided equipment, Army Reserve center space and other
logistical support throughout the days and months that followed.
Similarly, these responses were in advance of formal mobilization.
This Global War on Terrorism is unique for Americans because its
battlefronts include not only far-off places like Afghanistan and the
Philippines but our own homeland. What was once a ``force in reserve''
has become a full partner across the spectrum of operations to satisfy
the demand and need for Army Reserve soldiers and units around the
world. Wherever the Army committed forces in the world--Afghanistan,
Uzbekistan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Kuwait, Iraq and here at home--
Army Reserve soldiers are an integral part, providing critical
specialized capabilities and augmentation.
In the time that has followed those days, our military has been
engaged in fighting the Global War on Terrorism around the world.
Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan seriously impaired Al Qaeda's ability
to continue to spread terror and ousted the Taliban. Civil Affairs
units consisting of Army Reserve soldiers who possess civilian acquired
and sustained skills in the fields of engineering, city planning, and
education were deployed to the region to lead in establishing a free,
functioning society. Numerous new schools were built and medical aid
offered to the people of Afghanistan. These soldiers represent the
goodwill and interests of the American people with every classroom they
build and every skill they teach, every functioning society capability
they help create, and every contact they make with the native
population. And they are doing an incredible job.
But despite the clear relevance and strength demonstrated by the
aforementioned examples, we are, as an institution not without our
challenges. It is necessary that we not only transform the institution,
but we must also resource our requirements and transform the
institution to even higher levels of readiness, responsiveness and
capabilities. These resourcing requirements include recruiting and
retention, family programs, information technology, anti-terrorism and
force protection, equipment procurement and modernization, and facility
revitalization.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Recruiting and retention is an area of the highest importance to
the Army Reserve and a volunteer force. Our responsibilities require
the best soldiers America can provide. In this regard, we are most
appreciative of the help your subcommittee has provided us. We would be
remiss if we did not thank you for the attention you have paid to our
recruiting needs in recent legislation. With your help we have met our
recruiting mission for three straight years from 2000 to 2002. In
fiscal year 2003, however, we are 213 accessions short of expected
year-to-date mission. While cause for concern, I am not alarmed over
this because we are at 102 percent strength.
Although generally successful in overall mission numbers, we
continue to experience difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified
individuals in certain critical wartime specialties, particularly
within the Army Medical Department. Your continued support on behalf of
recruiting and retention incentives, allowing for innovative readiness
training and the funding of continuing health and educational
opportunities will help us with this difficult task.
The Army Reserve, in partnership with the United States Army
Accessions Command, conducted a thorough review of Army Reserve
recruiting. This review has helped us forge a stronger relationship
with the Accessions Command and has streamlined our processes to
support the symbiotic relationship between recruiting and retention. To
that end, we will seek to ensure that all Army Reserve soldiers are
involved in recruiting and retention activities--we all are a part of
the Army's accessions efforts. We are removing mission distracters
allowing the Accessions Command to focus on their core competency of
recruiting non-prior service applicants; we are focusing on life cycle
personnel management for all categories of Army Reserve soldiers and
our retention program seeks to reduce attrition, thereby improving
readiness and reducing recruiting missions.
During 2003, the responsibility for the entire prior service
mission will transfer from the Accessions Command to the Army Reserve.
Tenets of this transfer include: establishment of career crosswalk
opportunities between recruiters and retention transition NCOs;
localized recruiting, retention and transition support at Army Reserve
units and increased commander awareness and involvement in recruiting
and retention efforts.
To support recruiting and retention, the Army Reserve relies on
non-prior service and prior service enlistment bonuses, the Montgomery
GI Bill Kicker and the Student Loan Repayment Program in combinations
that attract soldiers to fill critical MOS and priority unit shortages.
The Army Reserve must be able to provide a variety of enlistment and
retention incentives, for both officer and enlisted personnel, in order
to attract and retain quality soldiers. Fully funded incentive programs
must be available to ensure success in attaining recruiting goals and
maintaining critical shortages and skills.
Our retention program is a success. Faced with an enlisted
attrition rate of 37.5 percent at the end of fiscal year 1997, we
adopted a corporate approach to retaining quality soldiers. Retention
management was an internal staff responsibility before fiscal year
1998. In a mostly mechanical approach to personnel management, strength
managers simply calculated gains and losses and maintained volumes of
statistical data. Unfortunately, this approach did nothing to focus
commanders on their responsibility of retaining their most precious
resource--our soldiers.
The Army Reserve developed the Commander's Retention Program to
correct this shortcoming. A crucial tenet of this program places
responsibility and accountability for retention with commanders at
every level of the organization. Commanders now have a direct mission
to retain their soldiers and must develop annual retention plans.
Additionally, first line leaders must ensure all soldiers are
sponsored, receive delivery on promises made to them, and are provided
quality training. In this way, the Commander's Retention Program
ensures accountability because it establishes methods and standards and
provides a means to measure and evaluate every commander's performance.
Since the introduction of the Commander's Retention Program, the Army
Reserve has reduced enlisted Troop Program Unit attrition by nearly
nine percentage points. The enlisted attrition rate in fiscal year 2002
was 27 percent. Current projection for fiscal year 2003 is an increase
of 28.6 percent, due to projected demobilization, the Commander's
Retention Program, and increased retirements.
The Army Reserve is experiencing a 4,200 company grade officer
shortfall. Retention goals focus commanders and first line leaders on
junior officers. The establishment of a sound leader development
program is a cornerstone of Army Reserve Transformation. Providing
young leaders the opportunity for school training and practiced
leadership will retain these officers. A transformed assignment policy
will enhance promotion and leader development. Increased Army Reserve
involvement in transitioning officers from active duty directly into
Army Reserve units will keep young officers interested in continuing
their Army career. Allowing managed flexibility during their transition
to civilian life will be a win for the Army and the officer.
Overall, the Army Reserve successfully accomplished the fiscal year
2002 recruiting mission while achieving the Department of the Army and
Department of Defense quality marks. This year our enlisted recruiting
mission will stabilize at approximately 20,000 non-prior service due to
the success of our retention efforts. The accomplishment of the
recruiting mission will demand a large investment in time on the part
of our commander's, our retention NCOs, and our recruiters as they are
personally involved in attracting the young people in their communities
to their units.
However, the same environmental pressures that make non-prior
service recruiting and retention difficult affect prior service
accessions. With the defense drawdown we have seen a corresponding
decrease in the available prior service market in the Individual Ready
Reserve. This impacts Army training costs, due to the increased
reliance on the non-prior service market, and an overall loss of
knowledge and experience when soldiers are not transitioned to the Army
Reserve. Consequently, the Army Reserve's future ability to recruit and
retain quality soldiers will continue to be critically dependent on
maintaining competitive compensation and benefits.
Special attention needs to be placed on the recruiting budget, for
advertising, to meet our requirements in the next several years. Young
people of today need to be made aware of the unique opportunities
available in the different military components. The best way to get
this message out is to advertise through the mass media. Funding our
critical advertising needs is imperative if we are to be honestly
expected to meet our recruiting goals. Your continued support of our
efforts to recruit and retain quality soldiers is essential if we are
to be successful.
Family Programs
Family programs provide invaluable family assistance during
peacetime and mobilization, to include training for family program
directors and volunteers in support of family readiness activities.
These volunteers and contract employees provide information referral
and outreach to family members and deployed soldiers. Within this
system are twenty-five contractors serving in Family Program Director
positions whose duties include aiding in promoting families' awareness
of benefits and entitlements, orienting family members to Army Reserve
systems, programs, and way of life. These directors also assist in the
deployment of unit Family Readiness Groups during peacetime and
deployment.
In preparation for mobilization deployment, these volunteers and
service members provide an extensive briefing for both families as well
as members. These family services include briefings by members of the
Chaplains Corps who explain what happens to spouses or families upon
separation. We also provide briefings when the service member returns
and coach the family members to expect changes upon the soldier's
return to home.
During Desert Shield/Desert Storm Army Reserve family readiness
programs were sparse. Today, these programs are extensive, and they are
working to provide refuge and support network for our families. We have
been able to meet the needs of our deployed soldiers of which about
4,000 Army Reserve soldiers are on a second consecutive year of
mobilization. We are anticipating challenges in the future.
Information Technology
Network Service/Data Center
The Army Reserve is redesigning its information technology
infrastructure to support the Global War on Terrorism and greatly
increase the survivability of our information technology infrastructure
in the event of a cyber or physical attack. This redesigned
infrastructure will establish a network service/data center which
supports the Continental United States. A robust provision of network
defense for protection at the consolidated and interconnected sites
will be integral to the redesign and creation of the network service/
data centers.
Our plan to establish a Reserve component network and data center
would give the Army Reserve the capability to manage dissemination of
information supporting command and control concerning mobilization,
training and overall data exchange as well as Joint and Army wide
information technology systems.
Secure Communications
Secure communications ensures the protection and sustainment of the
Army Reserve's information and information systems during peacetime,
war and national emergencies. The geographic dispersion of the Army
Reserve makes telecommunication services the primary means of
conducting command and control, mobilization timelines, training data
exchange, and ``reach back'' capabilities in support of the combatant
commands. The Army Reserve is challenged to expand applications and
service demands, increased security requirements and increased network
capability to ensure throughput and reliable connectivity.
With this redesign, the Army Reserve would have the technological
capability to sustain existing Army systems or field any new Army
systems to meet readiness requirements, manage timely dissemination of
information supporting command and control in the areas of
mobilization, training, and overall data exchange.
Antiterrorism and Force Protection
Security and preparedness to meet the known and unknown threats
facing Army Reserve installation and facilities worldwide are an
integrated set of three distinct programs: Antiterrorism, Force
Protection, and Installation Preparedness.
Antiterrorism is the foundation of the overall Force Protection
program within the Army Reserve. It assesses vulnerabilities at stand
alone facilities and Army Reserve installations.
Force Protection programs correct, upgrade, and repair facilities
in accordance with Department of Defense Antiterrorism and Force
Protection construction standards. This program also determines the
level of access to installations and facilities within the Army
Reserve.
Installation Preparedness concentrates on training and equipment
for first responders such as fire, police and emergency services to
weapons of mass destruction incidents near or at Army Reserve
installations and facilities.
The Army Reserve is challenged with its existing military and
civilian manpower structure as well with its capability to adequately
plan, execute and assess this real world critical program at all
levels. Therefore, we must expand contract requirements for
antiterrorism vulnerability assessments, exercise planning, and
training for the entire Army Reserve.
Currently, the Army Reserve is able to restrict access to its
installations, but sustainment of access control combined with
additional security requirements since the Global War on Terror has
become a challenge. Funding of these programs will allow the Army
Reserve to meet security and preparedness for threats facing Army
Reserve installation and facilities worldwide.
Equipment procurement and modernization
Increasing demands placed on the Army Reserve highlight the
importance of equipment that is mission-essential. In addition, the
increased use of Reserve forces in operational missions and the Global
War on Terrorism has highlighted the importance of having compatible
and modern equipment. In order for our soldiers to be able to
seamlessly integrate on the battlefield, our equipment must be
operationally and technically compatible. Without complete
interoperability, the ability of the Army Reserve to accomplish its
Combat Support and Combat Service Support missions would be diminished.
Combat support and combat service support transformation is a vital
link to the Army Transformation Plan. The Army Reserve is the main
provider of this capability for the Army and the Army must continue to
modernize the Reserve components along a timeline that ensures the
Reserve components remain interoperable and compatible with the Active
component.
Equipment modernization of the Army Reserve is indispensable in
meeting the goals of the Army's Transformation Campaign Plan. Full
integration into the Army's modernization plan to implement force
interoperability enables our units to deliver required Combat Service
and Combat Service Support ensuring our Army's operational success.
In the Army's Combat Service and Combat Service Support
Transformation Plan, key enablers are identified to meet the deployment
vision outlined by the CSA. These enablers help to reduce the Army's
Combat Service and Combat Service Support Demand on Lift and Logistical
Footprint requirements while increasing strategic responsiveness. To
reduce the Combat Service and Combat Service Support Demand on Lift and
Footprint, investments are required in the appropriate Army Reserve
Combat Service and Combat Service Support Enablers.
The Army Reserve has 20 percent of Combat Support and 47 percent of
the Combat Service Support requirements in the Army. We must have these
enablers on hand to support the Army's Combat Service and Combat
Service Support Transformation Strategy.
Facility revitalization
The Army Reserve installation community proudly sustains two of the
Army's major installations and 12 Regional Support Commands. These
regional commands function as ``virtual installations'' with facilities
in 1,300 communities across all 50 states, most United States
territories, and in Europe.
Our primary facilities, Army Reserve centers, are prominent symbols
of The Army on ``Main Street America''. They often create the very
first impressions of the entire Army and present a permanent
``billboard'' for all Americans to see. Unfortunately, most Army
Reserve facilities consist of 1950's era structures that remain
virtually the same as when they were constructed. They are sorely in
need of modernization or, as in most cases, replacement.
Army Reserve soldiers train in widely dispersed reserve centers and
support facilities worldwide that use 45 million square feet. This
equates to more square footage than Forts Hood, Sill and Belvoir
combined. Our facilities experience the same type of challenges active
Army posts do. The impacts of poor facility conditions are even more
acute for our soldiers. Overcrowded, inadequate and poorly maintained
facilities seriously degrade our ability to train and sustain units as
well as decay soldier morale and esprit de corps.
Transformation
Clearly, our priorities and the way we approach national security
changed. We must and will win the war on Terrorism. But the nature of
this war dictates that major changes are required to practices,
procedures and policies relating to use of our force. The processes and
policies in place were designed for a different time and a different
type of war than we are engaged in today. As a result, some have
challenged our ability to respond early in a contingency operation, and
to sustain continuous mobilization while continuing to attract and
retain quality young men and women such as the ones who currently
populate our force. I challenge this assertion.
The Army Reserve is preparing changes to training, readiness and
policies, practices and procedures. We are restructuring how we train
and grow leaders within the Army Reserve by establishing a Trainee,
Transient, Holdee, and Student Account, much like the Active Army, to
manage our force more effectively. We are preparing implementation
plans for the continuum of service concept recently proposed by the
Office of the Secretary of Defense that would allow ease of movement
between Army components as dictated not only by the needs of the Army
but also by what is best for the soldier developmentally and
educationally. We are excited by the potential of such proposals.
A challenge to realizing the capabilities and potential of our
highly skilled, loyal and sacrificing soldiers is a antiquated Cold-War
era mobilization process. The nation's existing mobilization process is
designed to support a linear, gradual build-up of large numbers of
forces and equipment and expansion of the industrial base over time. It
follows a construct of war plans for various threat-based scenarios. It
was designed for a world that no longer exists. Today, multiple,
operational requirements, unclear, uncertain, and dynamic alliances and
the need for agile, swift, and decisive combat power, forward presence
in more responsive ways, and smaller-scale contingency operations,
demand a fundamentally different approach to the design, use, and
rotation of the Army Reserve. Rather than a ``force in reserve'', it
has become and serves more as a force of discreet specialized, skill
rich capabilities and a building block for teams and units of
capabilities, all essential to force generation and sustainment. The
process to access and employ these forces must be streamlined,
flexible, and responsive to the President and Nation's needs yet
considerate and supportive of the soldier, family and civilian
employer.
There is an ongoing debate concerning the wisdom of reliance on the
nation's Reserve components both for operations of a smaller scale
nature, such as the Balkans rotations and early reliance in the opening
phases of a contingency operation. Only thirty-three percent of the
Army Reserve troop strength is currently mobilized. But raw troop
strength numbers are not an accurate indication. Often, Army Reserve
capabilities in Civil Affairs and Medical support are cited as but two
of many examples of over reliance on the reserve components. There are
specific types of units that have been used more than others. The
demand for certain type units to meet the mission requirements of the
Global War on Terrorism is higher in some more than others. Military
Police, Civil Affairs, Military Intelligence, Transportation and
Biological Detection and Surveillance capabilities are the highest in
utilization. As an example, the Biological Detection and Surveillance
units consist of one Active component unit and one Army Reserve unit.
The Army Reserve unit has mobilized five times since 1997 and is
currently in their second year of mobilization. A second Army Reserve
unit will be organized this month and is prepared to mobilize by the
fall of this year. There are future plans for additional such units in
both the Army Reserve and the active component. This is but one example
of a high demand, low density unit. Currently, 313 Standard Requirement
Codes (types of units) are exclusively in the Army Reserve. The Army
Reserve has been able to meet the challenges to date with this
structure but clearly the structure requires change to meet the
continuing demand for these skill rich capabilities which are more
practical to sustain in a reserve component force.
The Army Reserve has been transforming its force since 1993 when it
reorganized to produce a smaller, more efficient and effective
structure. Our overall strength was reduced by 114,000 soldiers, or
thirty-six percent, leaving us with a 205,000 soldier end strength
today. In our transformation from a Legacy Force Army Reserve (or a
Cold War Force) to an Interim Force, we are poised to put changes in
place that will keep us moving on the path of transformation to the
Objective Force. In the 1990s, we cut the number of our Army Reserve
Commands by more than half and re-invested that structure into
capabilities such as medical and garrison support units as well as
Joint Reserve Units. We reduced the number of our training formations
by 41 percent and streamlined our training divisions to better meet the
needs of the Army and its soldiers. Our transformation journey actually
began ten years ago and is accelerating rapidly today.
Changing the way we mobilize starts with changing the way we
prepare for mobilization. The current process is to alert a unit for
mobilization, conduct the administrative readiness portion at home
station and then send the unit to the mobilization station for further
administrative and logistical preparedness and to train for deployment.
This process, alert-mobilize-train-deploy, while successful in Desert
Shield/Desert Storm, today inhibits responsiveness. By changing to
train-alert-deploy, and performing the administrative and logistical
requirements prior to mobilization, we will reduce the time needed to
bring a unit to a campaign quality level needed for operations.
The Army Reserve is the nation's repository of experience,
expertise and vision regarding soldier and unit mobilization. We do
have forces capable of mobilizing in twenty-four hours and moving to
the mobilization station within forty-eight hours, as we did in
response to September 11th. This demonstration of quick and precise
mobilization ability will become institutionalized in the processes and
systems of the future and give our forces the ability to mobilize
rapidly and smoothly. We will overcome challenges posed by units manned
with untrained soldiers through initiatives that strengthen soldier
readiness and leader development.
While changing industrial age mobilization and personnel training
and development policies is necessary, restructuring our force so that
we can implement predictable and sustainable rotations based upon depth
in capability is also necessary. Predictable and sustainable
utilization is a key factor in soldier, family, and civilian employer
support. One of the goals of transforming our force is to change
policies that are harmful to soldiers and families. Predictable
rotation schedules will allow the Army Reserve to continue to be a
value-added source of skill rich capabilities for small-scale
contingency conflicts and follow-on operations. It will provide our
units with operational experience; provide a sense of fulfillment for
our soldiers; impart a sense of predictability for our soldiers and
evens out the work load across the force. We must begin now to
implement new strategies to build a force with rotational capabilities.
Individual Augmentee Program
Under the current Army posture, there is a growing need to
establish a capability-based pool of individual soldiers across a range
of specialties who are readily available, organized, and trained for
mobilization and deployment as Individual Augmentees. In spite of
numerous force structure initiatives designed to man early deploying
Active Army and Reserve component units at the highest possible levels,
a requirement remains for individual specialists for unforeseen,
unplanned-for-contingencies, operations, and exercises. Therefore, I
have directed the establishment of an Individual Augmentee Program
within the Selected Reserve to meet these needs.
The purpose of the Individual Augmentee Program is to meet real-
world combatant commander requirements as validated in the Worldwide
Individual Augmentation System (WIAS). Additionally, this program will
preclude the deployment of individual capabilities from active or
reserve component units adversely impacting their readiness, cohesion,
and future employment possibilities. It will allow soldiers to
participate at several levels of commitment and supports the Office of
the Secretary of Defense proposal for a continuum of service.
Continuum of service offers the Army flexibility in accessing and
managing personnel. Soldiers can serve through a lifetime in different
ways from active duty to troop program unit to individual augmentee to
retiree. The ability to move seamlessly through components and statuses
can only benefit the Army and the soldier. Matching the right soldier
in the right status at the right time makes sense. The Army Reserve
will lead the way in making a reality of the phrase ``Once a Soldier,
Always a Soldier''.
Our initiatives concerning the management of individuals in the
Army Reserve are the catalyst of Army Reserve Transformation--The
Federal Reserve Restructuring Initiative. In order for the Army Reserve
to continue to transform, six imperatives must be implemented. These
imperatives are: re-engineer the mobilization process; transform Army
Reserve command and control; remove unready units; implement human
resources life cycle management, build a rotational base in our force;
and re-engineer individual capabilities.
The Chief of Staff, Army has stated that the engine of
transformation is our people. Our Army Reserve transformation plan
attacks directly those outdated, unresponsive policies, practices, and
procedures that inhibit our people's ability to transform. Your
awareness and Congressional support of our efforts is invaluable.
SUMMARY
In our current military environment, the Army Reserve has many
challenges that we accept without hesitation. These challenges are
embedded in the current wisdom of early reliance on the reserve
component in early contingency operations and the wisdom of the use of
the reserve components in scheduled operational rotations such as
Bosnia and Kosovo. Historically our nation has placed great reliance on
the reserve components of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, to
expand the armed forces for operations during time of war. The nature
of warfare has changed drastically and we must also change. This Global
War on Terrorism, as our President has described, is a long-term
campaign of inestimable duration, fought in many different places
around the world. The issues we have brought to you today--changing how
we recruit, prepare, maintain, and resource our force recognizes the
Commander-in-Chief's intent, to prepare for future wars of unknown
duration, in places we have yet to fight, and against enemies who
threaten our freedoms and security.
We are grateful to the Congress and the Nation for supporting the
Army Reserve and our most precious resource, our soldiers--the sons and
daughters of America.
I cannot adequately express how proud I am of our soldiers. They
are in the hearts and prayers of a grateful nation and will continue to
stay there until we finish the job at hand.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, General. Admiral.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL JOHN B. TOTUSHEK
Admiral Totushek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you on
a personal note for the kind words about my service to the
country. I'm just humbled and proud to be representing the
88,000 men and women of the Naval Reserve Force, and I would
tell you that they have once again stood forth, just as the
other component members have, when the Nation needed them.
I'd like to talk a little bit about the Naval Reserve Force
as a whole, just talk about a couple of things you've already
brought up. The first is the overuse issue. It seems to me that
perhaps, rather than changing the numbers in the active
component and reserve component mix, perhaps we need to be
looking at the mission areas so that we don't recall people
year after year after year.
In the Naval Reserve we've done a pretty good job of doing
that, and the data that we have, which is current as of the end
of AEF--OEF, I'm sorry--shows that the people that have been
mobilized actually have a higher retention rate than those
people that have not been mobilized, so at least for the Naval
Reserve Force, as of current, after the Afghanistan operation,
we have not seen, and the data reflects about a 50 percent
better attrition rate, if you will, than the people that are
just doing their time, if you will, drilling. I think that
shows us that the men and women of the Naval Reserve Force at
least, and I would expect the other components as well, are
willing to serve and, in fact, are expecting to serve a little
bit more differently than they have in the past, and I would
just ask that as we think about the way we're going to try to
structure the military of the future, that we don't try to put
a one-size-fits all, or put too many constraints on us that
prevents us from doing our mission, or allowing our people to
serve.
The second thing is that we've heard some talk about the
fact that it's not a good idea to have 100 percent of any
capability in the reserve component, because that would also
suggest that we would be overusing them. The Naval Reserve has
several capabilities that we do the entire mission for the
Navy. One of the good examples is our intratheater airlift. All
the transport airplanes that we have, if you see an airplane
that says Navy on the side, it's either carrying people or
cargo, that's a Naval Reserve airplane.
Once again, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, we did
wonderfully well there, bolstering the support to the theater
by about 300 percent, and we did much of it without
mobilization. Much of it was on a volunteer and a detachment
type of basis, so I think we have proven over and over again
that we can do that mission for the Navy cheaper, better, and
with more expediency than even trying to outsource this would
be able to do, and I would just ask us to keep that in mind as
well, that there are certain missions that are perfect for the
reserve components.
Lastly, I'd like to talk about the length of time it takes
to mobilize. We all expect and would like to give our members
as much notice as we can, but in these times when we are at
war, I think everybody understands that if it is a quick
mobilization, that there are some instances where that is
necessary, and our people are willing to sign up for that as
long as it isn't the usual case. If we can plan, as the other
commanders have pointed out, on a regular basis, and then
perhaps understand that once in a while it's going to be now,
people will understand that.
I, too, would tell you that just like the other component
commanders, the employers and the families of our people have
been very, very important to us. We've taken steps in both
cases to make sure that those equities are recognized, and I
would tell you that by and large all of those families are
standing up and doing a wonderful job, just as our people have.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you very much for our continued support. I look
forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral John B. Totushek
It has been a remarkably challenging and successful past year for
the Naval Reserve. We are continuing at an unprecedented pace in
support of the war on terrorism, while at the same time navigating the
Naval Reserve through the complex process of Transformation. Today,
Navy's ability to surge rapidly and decisively to new crisis points
rests primarily on active force capabilities with some Naval Reserve
augmentation. Yet, any new crisis could potentially strain Navy's
ability to sustain existing commitments, thus increasing the value of
maintaining--and using, when needed--flexible operational capabilities
resident in the Naval Reserve.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Naval Reserve provides Navy with necessary operational and
organizational agility
--Operational readiness
--Parallel capability--reinforcing/sustaining/optimizing for crisis
--Incubating new capabilities
--Stand alone missions
----------------------------------------------------------------
We ask a lot from our individual Reservists. And they have
responded heroically. As Operations Noble Eagle and Iraqi Freedom
demonstrate, mobilized Naval Reserve capabilities are often required to
meet the risks associated with surge, and to sustain Navy commitments.
Despite various opinions to the contrary, my Reserve Force has not been
overtasked during the continuing Global War on Terrorism. We've
recalled nearly 19,000 Naval Reservists to-date, or approximately 25
percent of our force. We've recalled entire commissioned units as well
as individuals with unique skills. While attrition across my force has
been averaging in the high 20 percentile, our Career Decision Surveys
targeted to those personnel demobilizing indicate that their attrition
is holding at a mere 12 percent. We are confident that we have policies
in place to manage and mitigate the strains we place on our Sailors and
their employers. The bottom line is that Naval Reserve personnel are
staying Navy, and we were able to reduce our enlisted recruiting goal
by 2,000 endstrength this year.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Naval Reserve: a proven source of Navy flexibility
--Mobilization for war or contingency
--Relieving stress on active PERSTEMPO
--War fighting and support capability at reduced cost
----------------------------------------------------------------
Observing the work performed by our Naval Reservists over the past
year, I have concluded that heroes are just ordinary people who do
extraordinary things.
Among the Naval Reserve heroes who represent the extraordinary
sacrifices made by all of our members in support of Operations Enduring
Freedom, Noble Eagle and Iraqi Freedom are people such as these:
--Commander Neal Bundo, from Crofton, Maryland, and members of Navy
Command Center Unit 106 at the Pentagon mobilized and drilled
around-the-clock to maintain the watch in the aftermath of the
destruction of the center and the murder of fellow Sailors.
--Utilityman Second Class Marianne Johnson, who lives in San Diego
and is a single parent of two daughters and an accounts
receivable clerk for Pepsi. She was mobilized to Pearl Harbor
with Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit 303 to provide
security support for Commander, Navy Region Hawaii. Although
she could have waived her commitment, she arranged for a friend
to take her apartment and temporary custody of her children for
a whole year.
And there are Naval Reserve heroes among the spouses of our
reservists.
--The husband of Susan Van Cleve was also recalled with Construction
Battalion Maintenance Unit 303. Without any formal Ombudsman
training, Mrs. Van Cleve took on the task of representing the
dependents and relatives of more than 180 mobilized Seabees.
What's remarkable is that the Van Cleves, from Lake Elsinore,
California, have five children at home under age five.
Ordinary people. Summoned to do extraordinary things. I call them
heroes. Anyone associated with the Reserve Components of this nation
could go on and on with such stories because there are thousands of
them. They are the people whose dedication we honor and must support.
We are at the height of the mobilization in support of Operations
Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom, with more than 12,000
sailors providing support around the world today. A perfect example of
this is Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 201, based at Naval Air Station
Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, Texas, which was ordered to active duty
by President George W. Bush, as a unit of Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 8
embarked aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). Reports indicate
that the ``Hunters'' of VFA 201 are leading the Air Wing in every
measurable category.
The majority of Naval Reservists that have been mobilized are
individuals with unique specialties. They included significant numbers
of law enforcement officers and security specialists. Medical, supply,
intelligence and other specialties continue to be heavily tasked.
Entire units of the Naval Coastal Warfare commands were activated.
Naval Reserve fighter pilots flew combat air patrol over our great
cities. P-3C Orion pilots and crews are still flying surveillance
missions. Logistics aircraft crews maintain a continuous presence in
Bahrain and their operations tempo has increased by 25 percent, most of
which is being done without mobilization.
Top Five Priorities.--And while our deckplate sailors continue
training to support combatant commanders, at the headquarters level we
are still adhering to our Top Five priorities for the Naval Reserve.
Let me briefly review highlights of these goals to illustrate how we
are making progress.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fiscal Year 2003 Top Five Priorities for the Naval Reserve
--Manpower
--Training
--Equipment & Information Technology Compatibility
--Force Shaping
--Fleet Support
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower.--Our recruiting numbers look good, and we are meeting
goal. A continuing challenge is to fill targeted rates. While we
initially saw that the percentage of prior service Navy entering the
Naval Reserve bottomed out after 9/11, it quickly rebounded, and we
finished the year over end strength. Our attrition rate hovers near 25
percent, sharply down from a few years ago but short of our goal of 22
percent. One major improvement is that we are consolidating our
recruiting efforts with the active Navy and expect that benefits will
accrue to both.
Training.--Our training emphasis is on supporting the Chief of
Naval Operation's Task Force Excel and Commander, Naval Education and
Training, through integration of Naval Reserve personnel at all levels
in the Navy Training Organization. This integration will enable the
Naval Reserve to be in a position to take advantage of training
initiatives underway throughout the Navy. We are also providing Joint
Professional Military Education and ultimately building a cadre of
Reserve Officers with joint experience and designated as Fully Joint
Qualified. This will involve working closely with joint gaining
commands to identify billets requiring joint experience to be filled by
Reserve Officers, an opportunity that has previously been non-existent.
Additionally, in order to take advantage of current and future training
available through Distance Learning, we have been working hard to
develop and implement a policy to provide drill pay to those personnel
completing Distance Learning courseware at the direction of their
Commanding Officer.
Equipment and Information Technology Compatibility.--In fiscal year
2004 we see a continuation of the decline in procurement of equipment
for the Naval Reserve. Total Naval Reserve equipment procurement
steadily decreased from $229 million in fiscal year 1997 to about $91
million in fiscal year 2003.
Among the few bright spots in the fiscal year 2004 equipment budget
is funding for the acquisition of one new C-40A logistics aircraft.
These aircraft are of vital importance to fleet logistics since the
Naval Reserve provides 100 percent of the Navy's organic lift
capability and direct logistics support for combatant commanders in all
operating theaters. In addition, the fiscal year 2004 budget calls for
the procurement of another C-40A aircraft.
Other programs slated to receive procurement funding in the fiscal
year 2004 budget include: the C-130T Aviation Modernization Program
that will make 18 logistics aircraft compliant to fly worldwide;
surveillance equipment upgrades and small boats for Naval Coastal
Warfare forces; and ground and communication equipment for the Naval
Construction Force.
Despite these welcome Reserve modernization efforts, essential F/A-
18 modifications, P-3C upgrades, and SH-60B helicopters still require
substantial investments. Currently one squadron of Reserve F/A-18A
aircraft lack the capability to deliver precision-guided munitions and
need ECP-560 upgrades to avionics, software and accessories. Under the
Navy-Marine Corps TACAIR integration plan, a Naval Reserve squadron is
slated for disestablishment in fiscal year 2004.
P-3C aircraft used by the Naval Reserve constitute approximately 40
percent of the Navy's capability. Currently, these aircraft provide
only limited support to operational commanders because they lack the
Aircraft Improvement Program (AIP) upgrade. Active component AIP
aircraft were used extensively in Afghanistan due to their improved
communication and surveillance capabilities. To enable our P-3C
squadrons to fully participate and integrate with the active component
in support of operational requirements, an investment needs to be made
to upgrade our 42 P-3C aircraft in the Naval Reserve's seven P-3C
squadrons. Improving Reserve squadron integration with active forces
will reduce active component's operational tempo and increase overall
Navy mission capability. Spending to achieve equipment compatibility
and equivalent capability between active and Reserve components is
always a wise investment. Finally, the Littoral Surveillance System
(LSS) provides timely assured receipt of all-weather, day/night
maritime and littoral intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
data. For fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated funds for a second
LSS to support Naval Coastal Warfare. I'm encouraged that the emerging
Homeland Security requirement to secure land and sea borders from
potential terrorist attack is an emerging mission to which LSS
capability can contribute. It is joint, transformational, and is
consistent with Naval Reserve capabilities. I look forward to working
with our Coast Guard friends in assisting them in protecting our
coastal waters and ports.
In the Information Technology area, we have implemented the New
Order Writing System (NOWS) online, and it is up and running smoothly.
Within budget constraints, we continue with implementation of the Navy
Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). By the end of 2003, 100 percent of the
Naval Reserve Force will be on the NMCI. Our goal is a seamless
information and communication systems integration between the active
Navy and the Naval Reserve. To meet our primary mission of delivering
sailors, equipment and units to combatant commanders requires
information technology improvements in the manpower, personnel,
communications, training and financial management areas.
Force Shaping.--On July 20, 2002, the Naval Reserve stood up the
Naval Reserve Forces Command. In doing so, it eliminated the old title
of Commander Naval Surface Reserve Force and merged separate Naval
Reserve air and surface chains of command. This ongoing alignment,
which is examining every facet of Naval Reserve operations--is making
the Naval Reserve more flexible and responsive, improving its systems
and focusing on customer service. The alignment of the New Orleans
headquarters staff allows one-stop shopping for the active duty Navy to
reach the Naval Reserve Force and has provided additional full time
support to the fleet.
Fleet Support.--Earlier I mentioned the direct support we have been
providing to combatant commanders, and we are prepared to do more.
While we continue monitoring potential risks of sustained and repeated
recalls, to date we have seen improved retention rates of recallees
measured against the rest of the force. Every one of our 86,000 Naval
Reservists wants to participate in winning the war on terrorism. We
must ensure that they have the tools to do their jobs and integrate
smoothly into the Fleet.
Transformation.--Within the think tanks of Washington and in the
Pentagon E-Ring hallways, there is much talk about how the Navy will
participate in the DOD-wide Transformation process. And though the
Naval Reserve's traditional mission of reinforcing active forces and
sustaining capabilities has always been valid, there are additional
ways in which we can support Transformation.
The Naval Reserve is the ``flex'' Navy needs to navigate, and even
accelerate its passage through a challenging and uncertain future. As
it did throughout the Cold War, Post-Desert Storm and Post 9/11
periods, the Navy will continue to depend on its Reserve as a
mobilization asset, affordably extending Navy's operational
availability. At the same time, the Navy will continue to rely on Naval
Reserve units and individuals to provide day-to-day peacetime'
operational capabilities and to reduce the stress on active personnel
tempo. The extensive operational warfighting and service support
experience resident in the Naval Reserve will be crucial to assisting
Navy in achieving its Sea Strike, Sea Shield and Sea Basing
capabilities.
Some of our terminology will change as we transform. We no longer
talk about CINCs; we talk about combatant commanders. We don't talk
about TARs; we talk about Full Time Support personnel. We're not using
the phrase Total Force, but we are talking about a transformational
force that is simply one Navy.
The Navy is shaping itself in the 21st century in an environment of
competitive resources, fluid planning assumptions, and operational
uncertainty. As it begins the transformation, the Navy is also fighting
the war on terrorism and maintaining a challenging global forward
presence. Juggling such priorities involves risk.
The Naval Reserve's traditional function as a reservoir of
capabilities that are not needed continuously in peacetime, but are
needed in crisis, is crucial to mitigate such risks.
As one example, Naval Coastal Warfare forces have been called upon
to provide a security framework on the home front as well as overseas.
The mission--protection of strategic shipping, shallow water intrusion
detection, traffic control, and harbor defense--has resided exclusively
in the Naval Reserve for more than 10 years. Today, this force
protection presence is made up of 100 percent Naval Reservists, who
conduct fully integrated command, control, communications, surveillance
and harbor defense missions around the globe. Because these are ongoing
requirements in this mission area, we will be integrating an active
Mobile Security Force with existing Naval Reserve Coastal Warfare
forces.
Another example is also tied to the aftermath of 9/11: the
immediate requirement for Master-at-Arms and law enforcement specialist
to provide force protection to the Navy. This was a very small mission
area for the Navy that, when the need arose, they were unable to fill
with active duty Sailors. The Naval Reserve took care of the
requirement until the Navy could implement long-term measures.
However, the Naval Reserve can do more. Our agility can spread
across a spectrum of other challenging areas: manpower, operations,
planning, force structure and mix. We can be a great reservoir for
experimentation and innovation. In these and many other ways, the Naval
Reserve can mirror and complement the Chief of Naval Operation's
visions in Sea Power 21: to project power, protect U.S. interests, and
enhance and support joint force operations.
Myths.--Before I close, since this is probably the last opportunity
I will have to appear before this committee, I would like to take this
opportunity to briefly comment on several myths about the Naval Reserve
that I have encountered during my tour as the Chief of Naval Reserve.
The first myth is the popular opinion of many that Reserve Forces
have been overused during the GWOT. As I mentioned in the beginning, I
can assure you that the Naval Reserve has not been overused and is
ready and able to do more to support the Navy. I know this not only
because of the conversations that I have had with Naval Reservists on a
daily basis, but also because of some very interesting statistics that
have come out of our 9/11 mobilizations, such as the one measure that
indicates our current attrition rate for those mobilized for the GWOT
is approximately 12 percent, which is considerably lower than our
historical attrition rate. I'm a firm believer that the Naval Reserve
Force needs to be used to be relevant.
The second myth is that it is unwise to place 100 percent of a
mission within the Reserve. I firmly believe that certain missions are
designed perfectly for the Reserve and are very cost effective. A
perfect example is the 14 Naval Reserve squadrons of our Fleet
Logistics Support Wing which have very successfully provided 100
percent of the Navy's worldwide intra-theatre airlift support on a
continuous basis for over a decade. There are currently 14 Naval
Reserve logistics aircraft deployed outside the continental United
States, which is a 230 percent increase since 9/11, yet we have done
this while only mobilizing one airlift squadron.
You may have heard discussions about changing the mix of active
component versus Reserve component. The Naval Reserve is working
closely with the Navy to address High Demand/Low Density type units.
Through innovative sharing of assets and essential skill sets, Reserve
personnel have been used to train new Active Component crews as well as
carry some of the load of the deployment rotation. VAQ 209, flying EA-
6B electronic warfare jets based at NAF Washington, deployed overseas
for 45 days this past summer flying combat patrols in support of
Operation Northern Watch, their fifth such deployment in the last seven
years. Yet when they were here at home, they provided personnel and
aircraft to the Fleet to support multi-week flight training
detachments. By doing this they maximize the value of the dollars Navy
has already spent to train and equip them while sustaining and
exercising their warfighting skills. The renewed demand for Naval
Coastal Warfare units, as mentioned before, has caused Navy to
reevaluate the requirement and to create Active Component units. Naval
Reserve, in this case, has served to provide the storehouse of skills
so that as the demands of warfighting changed Navy was able to quickly
meet the new challenge. These are just two examples of how your Naval
Reserve Force provides the organizational flexibility needed to
navigate the rapid changes of a transforming world.
A myth that certainly has to be dispelled is that Naval Reservists
cost more than their active duty counterparts. A cost comparison done
for a seven year period from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2009
shows that a Selected Reservist, not mobilized at any time during that
period, costs approximately 21 percent of the cost of an active member.
The cost of a Selected Reservist mobilized for a two year period during
the 7 year time frame still reflects a considerable savings--less than
half of that of an active member. In 2002, Navy estimated that it costs
$1.26 million to train an F-18 pilot, taking that ``nugget'' pilot from
``street to fleet.'' By the time that same pilot will become a member
of the Reserve Force, Navy will have invested many more millions of
dollars to hone his or her skills. When that pilot joins a Naval
Reserve squadron we will have recaptured every one of those training
dollars. My point is that the cost of a valuable mobilization asset
should not be looked at only in the limited context of the period
during mobilization, but, rather in the larger context; that of an
amazingly cost effective force multiplier available both during periods
when the nation's active forces are able to handle the PERSTEMPO and
OPTEMPO without Reserve augmentation and during those periods of crisis
that require Citizen-Sailors to leave their civilian lives and jobs and
be mobilized.
An additional myth is that the Naval Reserve should only be
employed for full mobilization scenarios. Much like VAQ 209, which I
mentioned earlier, our Naval Special Warfare units and Naval Special
Warfare helicopter squadrons, either by providing personnel or by
providing deploying units, have participated in smaller scale
contingency operations such as Uphold Democracy in Haiti. Our Naval
Reserve intelligence community is contributing daily to the processing
and evaluation of intelligence information. Our maritime patrol
squadrons and Naval Reserve Force frigates are continuously employed in
the war on drugs. These scenarios do not involve full mobilization,
they involve ad hoc contributions that keep our Naval Reservists
engaged in something that is important to them--the safety, security
and preservation of our country. If we want to continue the capable
reserve force we have today, we must utilize their talents or they will
not stay.
And the last myth is that it takes too long for us to mobilize and
be ready. Fortunately, I have a timely example to use to dispel this
myth. On October 4th, 2002, a mobilization order was issued to VFA-201.
Within 72 hours 100 percent of squadron personnel had completed the
mobilization process, and within 90 days, all refresher training had
been completed and the squadron was deployed on board the U.S.S.
Theodore Roosevelt. Every aviator has cruise experience, over 1,000
flight hours, and many have 2,000 hours in aircraft type. Squadron
aviators provided leadership to the air wing in strike planning, flight
execution, and carrier operations. Their experience in operations
around the world and in adversary tactics continue to aid increased air
wing readiness. Since mobilization, the Hunters of VFA-201 have flown
more than several thousand Sorties, have flown over 300 hours in combat
and have dropped over 60,000 lbs. of precision-guided munitions. Not
only were we ready to respond to the call quickly, but, I am please to
report that VFA-201 pilots had the highest qualification grades in the
Air Wing and were awarded the Squadron ``Top Hook'' award. I am also
pleased to report that VFA-201's twelve F-18A+ aircraft are equivalent
to F-18C aircraft primarily because of funding for equipment upgrades
provided by Congress via the NG&RE appropriation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Running Myths about the Naval Reserve
--Naval Reserve forces are being overused
--It is unwise to place a mission entirely in the Naval Reserve
--The active/reserve force mix for High Demand/Low Density units
should be changed
--The Naval Reserve should be used only for full mobilization
scenarios
--It takes too long for the Naval Reserve to mobilize and get ready
----------------------------------------------------------------
Summary.--The Naval Reserve is meeting big challenges with a Force
that is remarkably fit and ready to continue doing the heavy lifting
for the Navy Marine Corps Team. If we are successful at procuring the
compatible equipment we need, we can become even more effective at
world-class service to the Fleet. We look forward to meeting the
challenges ahead, both within the Naval Reserve and in support of the
Navy's strategic vision.
As I review the state of our Naval Reserve Force over the past
year, I take pride in what the Naval Reserve has accomplished. All
things considered, it has been a remarkable year.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I think the committee
would be very interested in the number of volunteers that came
forth in each one of your branches. I've got to tell you, I've
had more calls from people who were irritated that they weren't
called up than I got for those who called up who were
irritated, so there's a balance there somewhere.
General McCarthy.
General McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
with my colleagues I thank you for the opportunity to appear
and to talk briefly about the Marine Corps Reserve. Most
importantly, I would like to say that as an advocate for the
Marine Corps Reserve I want to thank the Congress and this
committee in particular for the support that you have provided
over the years, and I think it's clear that the investments
that the Congress and this committee have made in the Marine
Corps Reserve have been well used, and have borne fruit in this
most recent period of combat for our country.
As you pointed out, Senator Stevens, it is truly a totally
integrated force. The Marines and their units in the Marine
Corps Reserve are indistinguishable from their active units.
They are part of those units. Their units are combined, and it
truly is, I believe, a validation of the concept of a total
force.
Over 50 percent of the marines and sailors who serve with
us in Marine Reserve units have been mobilized, and the vast
majority, I think over 75 percent of those mobilized right now,
were mobilized for service in the U.S. Central Command's area
of responsibility. They have been directly engaged with the
enemies of our Nation. They have suffered their share of
casualties. They've served across the full spectrum of Marine
operations, infantry, aviation, tanks, light armored
reconnaissance, reconnaissance units, engineers, combat service
support, ANGLICO units serving with Special Operations Command
and with the first United Kingdom forces in Southern Iraq. In
short, in every aspect of Marine operations in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, Marine Reserves and their units have been an integral
part.
We are now focused at my headquarters on bringing these
units home, on demobilizing them and refitting them and getting
them ready for whatever challenges may lie ahead. That
demobilization process is our number one focus of effort, and
as soon as that process is complete, we will begin to focus on
reconstituting and rebuilding the capabilities of the Marine
Corps Reserve, and that is going to be a challenging task, but
it is one that I believe we can accomplish.
It's clear that as we bring units home there will still be
units remaining in the area of operations. Some of the last
units to leave Iraq, I believe, will be Marine Corps Reserve
units, Civil Affairs units, a couple of infantry battalions,
and light-armored reconnaissance come immediately to mind, but
I just left the theater on Sunday night, and I talked to I
think hundreds, maybe thousands of Marines while I was there, I
visited with the senior marine commanders, and I come away
convinced that your Marine Corps Reserve has done a tremendous
job, and that it will continue to do so. It will come out in
good order, and we will begin the process of getting ready for
whatever challenges lie ahead. We will work in close
coordination with the Congress, and again I would state my
appreciation for your support.
Thank you, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Dennis M. McCarthy
introduction
Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and distinguished members of the
Committee, it is my privilege to report on the status and the future
direction of your Marine Corps Reserve as a contributor to the Total
Force. On behalf of Marines and their families, I want to thank the
Committee for its continued support. Your efforts reveal not only a
commitment for ensuring the common defense, but also a genuine concern
for the welfare of our Marines and their families.
YOUR MARINE CORPS RESERVE TODAY
Today's Marine Reserves are ready, willing and able to support the
Active component and to serve our communities in peace or war. During
the Global War on Terrorism, Reserve units have filled critical roles
in our nation's defense--whether deployed to Afghanistan, Djibouti or
the Persian Gulf or on standby to respond to Homeland Security crises.
As of April 21, approximately 21,100 Marines were activated as part
of units or individual augmentees in support of Operations Noble Eagle,
Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. This represents approximately 52.8
percent of the Selected Marine Corps Reserve and 4.7 percent of the
Individual Ready Reserve. Roughly 75 percent of the Selected Marine
Corps Reserve Marines currently activated are participating in
Operation Iraqi Freedom. From the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment
operating up front with the 1st Marine Regiment, to Reserve KC-130s
flying supplies into Iraq and evacuating prisoners of war, to the 6th
Engineer Support Battalion purifying over a million gallons of water,
to members of the 3rd Civil Affairs Group establishing local police
forces and organizing joint patrols with Iraqi policemen, Marine
Reserves continue to play a major role in Coalition operations in Iraq.
Reserve integration readily enhances Marine Corps operational
capabilities, however, the Commandant of the Marine Corps recognizes
that the Reserve is a finite resource and insists on its judicious use.
In the first year of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom we
activated no more than 11 percent of the Selected Marine Corps Reserve
(units and Individual Mobilization Augmentees) and less than 2 percent
of the Individual Ready Reserve. All of the Individual Ready Reserve
members were volunteers.
Mobilization readiness is our number one priority all the time and
the men and women in the Marine Corps Reserve have responded
enthusiastically to the call to duty. Only 1.8 percent of those
receiving orders have requested delay, deferment or exemption from
duty. The hard work and dedication of the Marines and Sailors to this
task has resulted in the efficient execution of the mobilization. We
moved personnel and cargo directly from reserve training centers to
embarkation points using tractor-trailers, chartered buses and
flights--without missing a designated arrival date. No reserve unit had
to ask for relief to enter theater without the required anthrax and
smallpox inoculations. As we begin to see combat operations taper off,
we are now preparing for the equally efficient demobilization of many
of our reserve units.
The ability of the Reserve to rapidly mobilize and integrate into
the Active component in response to the Marine Corps' operational
requirements is a tribute to the dedication, professionalism and
warrior spirit of every member of the Marine team--both Active and
Reserve. Our future success relies firmly on the Marine Corps' most
valuable asset--our Marines and their families.
MARINES AND THEIR FAMILIES
We continue to evaluate personnel policy changes regarding
entitlements, training and employment of Reserve forces, and support
for family members and employers to minimize the impact of mobilization
on our Marines. Success in this area will enhance our ability to retain
the quality Marines needed to meet our emerging operational
requirements.
We need your continued support to attract and retain quality men
and women in the Marine Corps Reserve. Our mission is to find those
Marines who choose to manage a commitment to their family, their
communities, their civilian careers, and the Corps. While such
dedication requires self-discipline and personal sacrifices that cannot
be justified by a drill paycheck alone, adequate compensation and
retirement benefits are tangible incentives for attracting and
retaining quality personnel. This challenge will be renewed when
mobilized units return from Active duty and begin the process of
reconstitution.
Last year, the Marine Corps Reserve achieved its recruiting goals,
accessing 5,900 non-prior service and 4,213 prior service Marines. This
is particularly challenging because the historic high rate of retention
for the Active component has reduced the pool for prior service
recruiting. Enlisted attrition rates for fiscal year 2002 decreased
approximately 2.8 percent from our four-year average. Marine Corps
Reserve officer attrition rates were slightly higher than historical
averages which can in part be attributed to Reserve officers leaving
non-mobilized Selected Marine Corps Reserve units to be mobilized in
support of individual augmentation requirements.
The incentives provided by Congress, such as the Montgomery G.I.
Bill and the Montgomery G.I. Bill Kicker educational benefits,
enlistment bonuses, medical and dental benefits, and commissary and
Post Exchange privileges, have helped us to attract and retain capable,
motivated, and dedicated Marines, which has contributed to the
stability of our Force. Congressional enhancements allowed us to
increase our recruiting and retention incentive programs during fiscal
year 2002. We are funding these programs to the same levels in fiscal
year 2003 through internal realignment. The increase is also reflected
in our fiscal year 2004 budget request. The tangible results of your
support for these incentives are the aforementioned decreased attrition
and recruiting successes.
The Marine Corps is the only Service that relies almost entirely on
its prior service population to fill the ranks of its Reserve officer
corps. Although the Marine Corps Reserve exceeded its recent historical
Selected Marine Corps Reserve unit officer accession rates in fiscal
year 2002, staffing our unit officer requirements at the right grade
and military occupational specialty continues to be our biggest
recruiting and retention challenge. We are exploring ways to increase
the Reserve participation of company grade officers.
The long-term impact of serial or repeated mobilizations on
recruiting and retention is still undetermined. More than 3,000 of our
activated reserves have now exceeded the one-year mark. We will not
know the overall retention impact until we demobilize a significant
number of these Marines and they have an opportunity to assess the
impact of mobilization on their families, finances and civilian
careers.
Should Active or Reserve Marines choose to make a transition back
to civilian life, the Marine for Life program is an initiative which is
already proving to be of immeasurable value to our returning citizens.
The Marine For Life Program was developed to achieve the Commandant's
vision of ``improving assistance for our almost 29,000 Marines each
year who honorably leave Active service and return to civilian life,
while reemphasizing the value of an honorable discharge.'' While work
continues to complete all necessary details of this broad program,
Marine For Life has begun the transition toward initial stand up.
Combining a nationwide network of hometown links administered by
Reserve Affairs at Headquarters Marine Corps, Marine For Life provides
Marines with information and assistance required to make a successful
transition from Active service to civilian life in their desired
hometown. This year marked the release of numerous policies and
information outreach campaigns on the use and benefits provided by
Marine For Life to the Total Force Marine Corps as part of our ongoing
efforts to improve the overall life of all Marines. The Marine For Life
Program will build, develop and nurture a nationwide network of
transitioning Marines, veterans, retirees, Marine Corps affiliated
organizations, and friends of the Corps.
Combat readiness and personal and family readiness are inseparable.
Our Marine Corps Community Services organization works aggressively to
strengthen the readiness of our Marines and families by enhancing their
quality of life. Our many Marine Corps Community Services programs and
services are designed to reach all Marines and their families
regardless of geographic location--a significant and challenging
undertaking considering the geographic dispersion of our Marines and
their families throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. During the
current mobilization we are seeing the payoffs of our significant
investment over the past several years in family readiness programs.
Key volunteers and site support personnel are assisting families and
keeping communities informed.
In December 2002, the Marine Corps began participating in a two-
year Department of Defense demonstration project providing 24-hour
telephonic and online family information and referral assistance.
Referred to as ``Marine Corps Community Services One Source'', it is
similar to employee assistance programs used by many of the nation's
major corporations as a proven Human Resource strategy to help
employees balance work and homelife demands, reduce stress and improve
on-the-job productivity. We are already receiving positive feedback
from users.
The support our Reserve Marines receive from their employers has a
major impact on their ability to serve. We have partnered with the
National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve to
foster a better mutual understanding and working relationship with
employers. During the current partial mobilization many employers have
voluntarily pledged to augment pay and extend benefits which has
greatly lessened the burden of activation on our servicemembers and
their families. I would like to acknowledge and thank the public and
private sector employers of our men and women serving in the Marine
Corps Reserve for their continued support.
Like the Active component Marine Corps, the Marine Corps Reserve is
a predominantly junior force with historically about 70 percent of
Selected Marine Corps Reserve Marines serving their first enlistment.
Many of our young Marines are also college students. Currently, there
are no laws that would offer academic and financial protections for
students and schools affected by mobilization. We support Employer
Support of the Guard and Reserve's new initiative to improve
communication between Reserve component personnel and their educational
institutions.
In addition to supporting Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom,
and Iraqi Freedom, Marine Reserves continued to provide operations
tempo relief to the Active forces. Notably, more than 300 reserves
volunteered to participate in UNITAS 43-02, creating the first Reserve
Marine Corps UNITAS (an annual U.S. sponsored exercise in South
America). From August to December, the Marines sailed around South
America conducting training exercises with military forces from Brazil,
Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, Peru, Chile and other countries. Marine
Forces Reserve also provided the majority of Marine Corps support to
the nation's counter drug effort, participating in numerous missions in
support of Joint Task Force 6, Joint Interagency Task Force-East and
Joint Interagency Task Force-West. Individual Marines and Marine units
support law enforcement agencies conducting missions along the U.S.
Southwest border and in several domestic ``hot spots'' that have been
designated as high intensity drug trafficking areas.
The Active Duty Special Work Program funds short tours of active
duty for Marine Corps Reserve personnel. This program continues to
provide critical skills and operational tempo relief for existing and
emerging augmentation requirements of the Total Force. The demand for
Active Duty Special Work has increased to support pre-mobilization
activities during fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 and will be
further challenged during post mobilization. In fiscal year 2002, the
Marine Corps executed 1,208 work-years of Active Duty Special Work.
Continued support and funding for this critical program will ensure our
Total Force requirements are fully met.
Maintaining overall Selected Marine Corps Reserve end-strength at
current levels will ensure the Marine Corps Reserve's capability to
provide operational and personnel tempo relief to Active Marine Forces,
maintain sufficient full-time support at our small unit sites, and
retain critical aviation and ground equipment maintenance capabilities.
Selected Marine Corps Reserve units are structured along the Marine Air
Ground Task Force model, providing air combat, ground combat and combat
service support personnel and equipment to augment and reinforce the
Active component. Less than one percent of our Selected Marine Corps
Reserve unit strength represents a reserve-unique capability. The
current Marine Forces Reserve structure also reflects a small tooth-to-
tail ratio with a minimal number of Active duty and Reserve personnel
in support roles, and a majority of our Reserve and active Marines and
Sailors as deployable warfighters.
The Marine Corps Reserve also provides a significant community
presence in and around our 187 sites nationwide. One of our most
important contributions is providing military funerals for our
veterans. The Active duty staff members and Reserve Marines at our
sites performed approximately 6,170 funerals in 2002 and we anticipate
supporting as many or more this year. The authorization and funding to
bring Reserve Marines on Active duty to perform funeral honors has
particularly assisted us at sites like Bridgeton, Missouri, where we
perform several funerals each week. We appreciate Congress exempting
these Marines from counting against active duty end strength.
CURRENT READINESS
I am happy to report that the the general state of readiness in the
Marine Corps Reserve today is good. This condition is attributable to
the spirited ``can do'' attitude of our Marines, and increased funding
in the procurement and operations and maintenance accounts provided by
the Congress in fiscal year 2002. Most important, we remain ready and
prepared to augment the Active Component in support of standing and
crisis action requirements.
The $5 million provided by National Guard and Reserve
Appropriations in fiscal year 2002 was used entirely for warfighting
priorities which will help us get to the fight and remain effective.
Night vision upgrades to our KC-130s and CH-53 helicopters have been
extremely valuable--enabling support of operations in Afghanistan and
of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Your support of National Guard
and Reserve Appropriations proposed for fiscal year 2004 will continue
to enhance the readiness of the Reserves and their ability to integrate
with the Active duty forces. The $10 million provided in fiscal year
2003 National Guard and Reserve Appropriations will further enhance the
Reserve aviation assets as well as provide communications systems
compatible with our Active duty counterparts. Additional funding
provided by Congress has also enabled us to begin issue of the new
Marine Corps combat utility uniform. By the end of 2003 every Marine in
the Marine Forces Reserve will have at least one set.
During the most recent mobilizations, the benefits of previous
Congressional support that provided for the creation of our Nuclear,
Biological and Chemical Defense equipment storage facility were
realized. Every Reserve Marine deployed with modern, serviceable
equipment.
Maintaining current readiness levels into the future will require
continued support as our equipment continues to age at a pace which,
unfortunately, exceeds replacement. Within our Reserve aviation
community, the average age of our ``youngest'' platform is the UC-35 at
5 years, followed by the AH-1W Cobra at 10 years, CH-53E at 15 years,
KC-130T at 17 years, F/A-18A at 19 years, and F-5 at 30 years. Our
oldest platform, and platforms which have exceeded programmed service
life, include the UH-1N at 32 years (20-year service life) and the CH-
46E at 36 years (20-year service life with ``safety, reliability, and
maintainability'' extension to 30 years). Maintaining these aging
legacy platforms requires increased financial and manpower investment
with each passing year due to parts obsolescence and higher rates of
equipment failure. Aircraft maintenance requirements are increasing at
an approximate rate of 8 percent per year. For example, for every hour
the CH-46 is airborne, it requires 37 man-hours of maintenance.
The situation within our Reserve ground community, while not as
dire as the aviation force in terms of nearing or exceeding service
life of platforms, also is a growing concern. The average age of our
Logistics Vehicle System fleet is 16 years; Light Armored Vehicles at
17 years; High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle A1s at 18 years;
5-ton trucks at 21 years; M-198s at 20 years; Reverse Osmosis Water
Purification Units at 18 years and Assault Amphibious Vehicles at 30
years, although all of our Assault Amphibious Vehicle P7A1 personnel
carriers have been upgraded through the Reliability, Availability, and
Maintainability/Rebuild to Standard program which significantly
increased vehicle readiness and lowered the support cost. Our 5-ton
trucks have exceeded their programmed service life, but will be slowly
replaced with the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement beginning in June
2003. The Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit, which currently has
a critical role in Iraq, has also exceeded its programmed service life
but will not be replaced until fiscal year 2006. While some are being
replaced or upgraded with service life extensions, maintaining these
aging legacy platforms still requires increasing financial and manpower
investments for the reasons cited earlier. Due to affordability, we
have taken some near-term readiness risk with the level of funding we
proposed in fiscal year 2004 for depot level maintenance.
In addition to equipment aging, operations and maintenance expenses
are also being driven upwards by increasing equipment utilization rates
brought about by greater integration and support with the Active
component, both in peacetime and more recently in support of the Global
War on Terrorism. We are pursuing various measures internally to
mitigate these trends by focusing on better business practices. One
example is transferring unit non-essential equipment to central storage
locations for preservation and maintenance.
We are thankful for and remain confident that the additional funds
provided by Congress in fiscal year 2003 will ensure the continuing
readiness of the Marine Corps Reserve, and we seek your continued
support in the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Our long-range strategy to maintain our connection with communities
in the most cost effective way is to divest Marine Corps owned
infrastructure and to locate our units in Joint Reserve Centers
wherever feasible. With the opening of the new Joint Reserve Center in
Wahpeton, North Dakota, this year, Marine Forces Reserve units will be
located at 187 sites in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. Over 75 percent of the reserve centers we are in are more than 30
years old, and of these, about 37 percent are over 50 years old.
Investment in infrastructure has been a bill-payer for pressing
requirements and near-term readiness for most of the last decade. The
transition to Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization
funding has enabled us to more accurately capture our requirements.
Like the Active Component Marine Corps, we do not expect to be able to
bring our facilities to acceptable levels of readiness before fiscal
year 2013. Thirty-seven percent of our facilities are currently rated
below acceptable levels. We have over a $20 million backlog in
restoration and modernization across the Future Years Defense Program.
Maintaining facilities adequately is critical to providing quality
training centers our Marines need.
Last year's vulnerability assessments identified $33.6 million in
projects to resolve anti-terrorism/force protection deficiencies at the
42 sites that we own or otherwise have responsibility for site
maintenance. We are prioritizing and addressing these deficiencies now
and in the future years. The age of our infrastructure means that much
of it was built well before anti-terrorism/force protection was a major
consideration in design and construction. These facilities will require
resolution through structural improvements, relocation, or the
acquisition of additional stand off distance. All of these more
expensive solutions will be prioritized and achieved over the long term
to provide the necessary level of force protection for all our sites.
Our fiscal year 2004 President's Budget submission for Military
Construction, Naval Reserve is $10.4 million, 20 percent lower than the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The fiscal year 2004 request addresses
our most pressing requirement--a new Reserve Training Center at
Quantico, Virginia. Joint construction often provides the most cost
effective solution. We support a Joint construction funding account, as
long as it is structured correctly.
In addition to the Military Construction, Naval Reserve program, we
are evaluating the feasibility of other innovative solutions to meeting
our infrastructure needs, such as real property exchange and public-
private ventures. The overall condition of Marine Corps Reserve
facilities continues to demand a sustained, combined effort of
innovative facilities management, proactive exploration of and
participation in Joint Facility projects, and a well-focused use of the
construction program.
MODERNIZATION AND TRANSFORMATION
In recent years the Marine Corps has made a deliberate choice to
fund current readiness over recapitalization and transformation. It is
well documented that this practice has led to a downward spiral in
which we annually invest more funds for operations and maintenance to
maintain aging equipment leaving insufficient funds for new equipment
procurement. Generating savings to reinvest in procurement, while
essential for recapitalization and transformation efforts, should be
accomplished with great care, using a risk management approach to
evaluate existing legacy equipment. The following modernization
priorities represent low investment/high pay-off capabilities, closely
linked to Marine Corps operational concepts and doctrine, relevant to
the combatant commanders, and essential to the survival of our Marines
in combat.
Modernization
F/A-18A Engineering Change Proposal 583
Our top modernization priority remains unchanged from fiscal year
2003: upgrading our fleet of 36 F/A-18A Hornet aircraft with
Engineering Change Proposal 583. This Marine Corps Total Force program
encompasses 76 aircraft. This Engineering Change Proposal converts
early lot, non-precision, day fighter/attack aircraft into F/A-18C Lot
17 equivalent aircraft capable of day/night operations employing the
newest generation of air-to-air and air-to-ground precision-guided
munitions, including the Joint Direct Attack Munition, Joint Standoff
Weapon, Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response, and AIM 9X.
Additionally, this Engineering Change Proposal replaces the APG-65
radar with the APG-73, adds a global positioning system to the
navigation suite, replaces radios with the ARC-210--a digital
communication system, and installs new mission computers and many other
components.
As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated in recent
testimony, there is ``increased reliance on our Reserve components to
defend the Nation's coastlines, skies and heartland, as well as protect
our interest worldwide.'' For the relatively low investment cost of
$5.2 million per aircraft, the combatant commanders, first, will have
access to an additional 76 capable and interoperable war-fighting
assets. Second, with many F/A-18C aircraft nearing service life limits,
upgrading these aircraft helps to mitigate the Navy's decreasing
inventory of tactical aviation assets. Third, it is supportive of a
goal outlined by the Secretary of Defense in recent testimony--to
continue transforming for the threats we will face in 2010 and beyond.
Congress has funded 52 aircraft Engineering Change Proposal 583
upgrades through fiscal year 2003 with 20 more aircraft requiring
follow on funding. The fiscal year 2004 President's Budget funds $27.0
million, which will provide 6 aircraft with the 583 upgrades.
CH-53E Helicopter Night Vision System
Our second modernization priority also remains unchanged from
fiscal year 2003: upgrading our fleet of 21 CH-53E helicopters with
Helicopter Night Vision Systems. This Marine Corps Total Force program
encompasses 152 aircraft, including 131 Active Component aircraft. The
primary component of the Helicopter Night Vision Systems is the AN/AAQ-
29 Forward Looking Infrared. Helicopter Night Vision Systems ``expands
the envelope'' by providing improved night and all-weather capability.
The importance of having a robust and capable heavy lift capability was
displayed in Afghanistan where the Corps' CH-53Es transported Marines
and supplies hundreds of miles inland to austere operating sites. To
operate effectively and within safe margins mandates that our CH-53Es
be equipped with Helicopter Night Vision Systems. Congress has funded
84 Helicopter Night Vision Systems through fiscal year 2003 with 68
remaining unfunded (59 Active Component/9 Reserve Component). The
fiscal year 2004 President's Budget funds $5.6 million, which will
provide another 5 Helicopter Night Vision Systems.
Initial Issue Equipment
On the ground side, our most important priority concerns the need
for adequate initial issue equipment for our individual Reserve
Marines. Individual issue equipment includes body armor, cold weather
items, tents, and improved load bearing equipment. Supplemental funding
provided through the Defense Emergency Response Fund in fiscal year
2002 allowed us to replace/replenish unserviceable gear which was
paramount to the success of the recent mobilization of the Reserve
forces.
Transformation
The value of the Marine Corps Reserve has always been measured in
our ability to effectively augment and reinforce the Active Component.
Over the next several years, the overall structure of the Marine Corps
Reserve will remain largely the same; however, we are working to create
new capabilities to adapt and orient the reserve force to the changing
strategic landscape. The capabilities were identified as part of an
internal comprehensive review begun in 2001 and do not involve any
changes to the number of reserves or the geographic laydown of the
force.
--Foremost among these capabilities will be the creation of two
Security Battalions and an Intelligence Support Battalion. The
Security Battalions will provide a dual-use capability
consisting of eight Anti-Terrorism Force Protection platoons
and an augmentation unit for the Marine Corps Chemical
Biological Incident Response Force.
--Recognizing the increased requirements at Marine Corps and Joint
Commands for rapid, flexible staff augmentation, the Marine
Corps Reserve is enhancing and modifying the Individual
Mobilization Augmentee program to increase the quantity and
distribution of augmentee billets to better support the
warfighting commander's needs.
--Additional Reserve capability improvements involve information
technology, environmental protection, and foreign language
skills.
CONCLUSION
In early February this year while visiting a group of Marines in
Qatar, the Commandant of the Marine Corps made the following comment:
``I understand from the numbers that two-thirds of you here are
reservists--I know you simply as Marines--and looking at performance I
can't tell the difference.'' Testaments like this tell the real story
of our success. Our greatest asset is our outstanding young men and
women in uniform. Your consistent and steadfast support of our Marines
and their families has directly contributed to our success. The Marine
Corps appreciates your continued support and collaboration in making
the Marine Corps and its Reserve the Department of Defense model for
Total Force integration and expeditionary capability.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. General Sherrard.
General Sherrard. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, I, too, would like to thank you for the opportunity
to come before you representing the men and women of the Air
Force Reserve Command, nearly 76,000 strong, of which we have
in excess of 15,000 mobilized today.
As has been expressed by all the members of your committee,
as well as my colleagues, the men and women of our command,
along with all our cohorts, have just been fabulous in what
they've done in response to the needs of the Nation, and we
could not be more proud. We have a responsibility, each one of
us, to make certain that we in fact look after their needs and
make certain that they in fact are met, and I want to thank the
committee for the things that you have done for us in the past,
and for those that you'll do for us in the future in terms of
pay and education benefits, in terms of modernization
capabilities for our equipment, and as General James mentioned
the LITENING II pods. That's one of the greatest things we've
ever done for your Air Force, in terms of giving that
capability to our F-16s, and we're now taking it into the A-10
and the B-52, and it gives it remarkable capability, and if it
were not for your support that would not have been possible.
MOBILIZATION
I would tell you that our priorities in the command remain
our people, readiness and modernization. We want to make
certain that our people are always our number one objective. In
doing so, as we go through the mobilization period we were
faced with the same things that my cohorts have already
mentioned, in some cases very short notice. We did not have the
normal 30-day notice that we would like to have had. The
members responded. In fact, I will tell you in reality they
responded in the volunteer state and deployed before we had
mobilization authority. They deployed as volunteers, and then
we mobilized them in place in some cases.
READINESS
In terms of the readiness side, we want to continue to
pursue our accessing as many prior active service members as
possible. That gets to be a major challenge for us,
particularly as was mentioned by the earlier panel. When there
is a stop loss of the active force, that does put a restriction
on our recruiters, but I am very proud to tell you that our
recruiters are out there, they met goal by getting as many of
the nonpriors to fill in those holes where the prior service
members were, in fact, not available, but the prior service
members are certainly our key to success. They give us that
experience level that is so critical for us to be able to do
the things that we ask our members to do in light of the very
limited time that they would have to serve with us when they're
not in a mobilized state.
MODERNIZATION
In terms of modernization, as I mentioned, we need to
continue to make certain that our weapons systems are relevant.
The combatant commanders insist upon that. If not, they don't
invite you to the fight. We've got to make sure that they're
interoperable not only with our active force and the Air
National Guard, but also with our other component friends here,
because we're all using the same battle space, and we've got to
make certain that we can communicate and know who is the friend
and who is the foe.
DEMOBILIZATION
The things that I would tell you are most critical to us,
as I mentioned earlier on the demobilization side, we have
demobbed just under 3,000 people to date. We are bringing the
people back as fast as the combatant commander releases them,
back to the gaining major commands, who in turn will release
them to us, but we want to make certain we do it in a very
rational manner, that we provide the member the opportunity to
exercise all the rights of reconstitution, of leave, and most
importantly of the medical assessment, so we can determine if
there have been some issues that would need to be addressed in
the future for that member. We take that time and ensure that
we don't do something that would place our members into harm's
way when we could have prevented that if we had just taken some
time and been a bit more orderly in the way we go about it.
I think the Air Force has got a very reasonable and
rational plan in bringing our members back and making certain
that we do it properly. I will tell you, that as we in the blue
suit community know very well, we are in fact all tied
together, the active force, the Air Force Reserve, and the Air
National Guard, seamlessly, and I would tell you our unit
equipped units as well as our very cost-effective associate
units give us a capability that allows us to meet the Air Force
needs worldwide.
I'd like to just close with the statement that I had the
opportunity to discuss with one of my outstanding troops. I was
having a conversation with one of our special operators when he
was in theater, and he put it very succinctly, but also it
touched what I think is the very reason that all of you are
talking about today, why are our men and women willing to go
sacrifice in some cases maybe their business, they certainly
sacrifice time with their families and with their employers,
and he put it very straightforward. He said, you know, if it's
not me, then who, and if it's not now, then when, and I think
that statement, or those two statements are, in fact, the
things that each member of the Guard and Reserve components ask
themselves, because it is their dedicated efforts that allow it
to happen, and we could not be more proud of the response that
they have stepped forward when asked. I thank the committee
again for their service and support of us, and I also will tell
you that we're very, very proud to be serving with our Air
Force, and I look forward to questions that you may have. Thank
you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General James E. Sherrard III
Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, and distinguished members of the
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and
I certainly want to thank you for your continued support, which has
helped your Air Force Reserve address vital recruiting, retention,
modernization, and infrastructural needs. Your passage of last year's
pay and quality of life initiatives sent a clear message to our citizen
airmen that their efforts are not only appreciated and supported by
their families, employers, and the American people, but also by those
of you in the highest positions of governing.
HIGHLIGHTS OF 2002
We culminate 2002 and begin 2003 focused on transforming our air
and space capabilities as well as streamlining the way we think about
and employ our forces. We continue to develop our airmen into leaders,
bring technology to them at their units and in the battlespace, and
integrate operations to maximize our combat capabilities. These three
basic core competencies are critical to the Air Force Reserve as we
become more and more relevant in the future total force.
The Air Force, with the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC), has
enjoyed over 30 years of unparalleled Total Force integration success.
We were the first to establish associate units which blend Active and
Reserve forces into the correct mix. Our members perform in almost
every mission area and seek involvement in all future mission areas, as
those areas become relevant. Key to our successes, to date, is the fact
that AFRC is a very dynamic organization in a dynamic environment,
still putting our airmen first, and using new technology to seamlessly
integrate all our forces, whether associate or unit equipped, in both
peace and war.
DEVELOPING OUR AIRMEN
I am pleased to tell you that the Air Force Reserve continues to be
a force of choice for the Air Force and the warfighting commanders, as
we respond swiftly to each phase of the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT).
We focus our attention on our people to assure they are provided the
full spectrum of training opportunities, enhancing their war-fighting
skills, the capabilities of the Air Force Reserve, and thus, the
capabilities of the Air Force.
As we strive to retain our best and brightest, we must continue to
reward them through compensation and benefits. We continue to challenge
our family support personnel, commanders, and first sergeants to find
improved ways to look after the families who remain while our members
deploy. We reach out to their employers with our thanks for their
sacrifice and support. We encourage open dialogue among the troops, and
from the troops, through their chain of command, to me, to exchange
ideas and receive feedback. Finally, it is critical to partner with you
to ensure we remain the strongest air and space force in the world.
The Air Force is a team--we train together, work together, and
fight together. Wherever you find the United States Air Force, at home
or abroad, you will find the active and Reserve members working side-
by-side, trained to one tier of readiness, READY NOW! and that's the
way it should be.
RECRUITING
In fiscal year 2002, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) exceeded its
recruiting goal for the second year in a row. This remarkable feat was
achieved through the outstanding efforts of our recruiters, who
accessed 107.9 percent of the recruiting goal, and through the superb
assistance of our Reserve members who helped tell our story of public
service to the American people. Additionally, AFRC was granted
permission by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Manpower and
Reserve Affairs, in coordination with the Under Secretary for Defense
(Personnel and Readiness), to surpass its fiscal year 2002 end-strength
due to the ongoing support of current operations. AFRC end strength
reached 102.59 percent of congressionally authorized requirements.
Several initiatives contributed to Air Force Reserve recruiters
once again leading the Department of Defense in annual accessions per
recruiter. For example, in fiscal year 2001, AFRC permanently funded 50
recruiter authorizations through accelerated authorizations and
appropriations by the Congress, we extended the much appreciated
Congressional action through the Programmed Objective Memorandum
process. Further, they instituted a new 1-800 call center, redesigned
the recruiting web site, launched an advertising campaign targeting
those accessed from other services, and re-energized the ``Get One''
program, whereby Air Force Reserve members receive incentive awards for
referrals and accessions given to recruiters.
Moreover, AFRC received permanent funding for an ``off-base'' real
estate program to set up offices in malls and other high visibility
areas. This initiative was desperately needed to provide recruiters
greater exposure in local communities and access to non-prior service
(NPS) applicants--a significant recruiting requirement since the active
duty drawdown.
While fiscal year 2002 was an outstanding year for Recruiting,
fiscal year 2003 is shaping up to be a very challenging year. A
personnel management program, ``Stop-Loss,'' was implemented for Air
Force members. Historically, Reserve Recruiting accesses close to 25
percent of eligible separating active duty Air Force members (i.e. no
break in service), accounting for a significant portion of annual
accessions. Although Stop-Loss has since been terminated, the continued
high OPS/PERS tempo may negatively impact our success in attracting
separating airmen. As a result, Recruiters will have a difficult task
accessing through other sources, including NPS, Air Force separatees
with a break in service, and accessions from other service's former
members.
Additionally, one of the biggest challenges for recruiters this
year is a shortage of Basic Military Training (BMT) and technical
training school (TTS) quotas. BMT and TTS allocations have not kept
pace with increasing NPS recruiting requirements. Specifically,
Recruiting Services enlisted almost 1,500 applicants in fiscal year
2002 without BMT and TTS dates. We are working closely with Air Force
Specialty Code Functional Managers (FAMs) and the personnel community
to increase the future number of BMT and TTS quotas available. In the
interim, when we cannot match Basic Training and Technical Training
Schools back-to-back, new airmen can complete basic training, report
back to their unit for orientation and local training, then attend
their technical school at a later date convenient to both the Air Force
Reserve and the applicant.
Finally, while overall end-strength of the Air Force Reserve
exceeds 100 percent, some career-fields are undermanned. To avoid
possible readiness concerns, recruiters will be challenged to guide
applicants to critical job specialties. To assist in this effort, we
continually review enlistment bonus listings to achieve parity with
active duty listings for our airmen in these critical career-fields. It
is an on-going management process involving all levels from career
advisors to those of you on this committee to look into the future,
anticipate the high demand specialties, and increase bonuses to balance
supply and demand.
RETENTION
Retention is a major concern within the Air Force Reserve. With the
lifting of Stop Loss and extended partial mobilizations, the full
impact on Reserve retention remains to be seen. Nevertheless, our over-
all enlisted retention rate of 86 percent for fiscal year 2002 exceeded
the five year average. For officers, retention remains steady at
approximately 92 percent.
We continue to look at viable avenues to enhance retention of our
reservists. We are exploring the feasibility of expanding the bonus
program to our Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) and Air Reserve
Technician (ART) members; however, no decision has yet been made to
implement. In addition, the Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) continues
to be offered to retain our rated AGR officers. The Reserve has made
many strides in increasing education benefits for our members, offering
100 percent tuition assistance for those individuals pursuing an
undergraduate degree and continuing to pay 75 percent for graduate
degrees. We also employ the services of the Defense Activity for Non-
Traditional Education Support (DANTES) for College Level Examination
Program (CLEP) testing for all reservists and their spouses. These are
our most notable, but we continue to seek innovative ways to enhance
retention whenever and wherever possible.
QUALITY OF LIFE INITIATIVES
In an effort to better provide long term care insurance coverage
for its members and their families, the Air Force Reserve participated
in the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (a commercial insurance
venture sponsored by the Office of Personnel Management). This program
affords members of the Selected Reserve insurance coverage for a
variety of home and assisted living care requirements. Legislative
changes are being pursued to open program eligibility to those members
who are ``gray area.'' The Air Force Reserve expanded its Special Duty
Assignment Pay (SDAP) program to include an additional 17 traditional,
7 Active Guard and Reserve (AGR), and 10 Individual Mobilization
Augmentee (IMA) Air Force Specialty Codes, and continues to advance
staff efforts to mirror the active duty SDAP program. Additionally, an
initiative to pay Congressionally authorized SDAP to members performing
inactive duty for training was approved on the thirteenth of February,
this year.
THE BIG PICTURE
We have learned much from the events of September 11, 2001, as it
illustrated many things very clearly, not the least of them being the
need for a new steady state of operations demanding more from our
people and our resources. Within hours, and in some cases within
minutes of the terrorist attacks, AFRC units throughout the country
were involved in transporting people and resources to aid in the
massive humanitarian relief effort. Air Force Reserve aeromedical
evacuation (AE) aircrews were among the first to respond and provided
almost half of the immediate AE response provided. However, the larger
need was mortuary affairs support, of which the Air Force Reserve
provides 75 percent of Air Force capability. Again, one hundred eighty-
six trained Reservists immediately stepped forward, in volunteer
status, for this demanding mission. Reserve airlift crews were among
the first to bring in critical supplies, equipment and personnel,
including emergency response teams from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), fire trucks, search dogs, and earth moving
equipment. F-16 fighters and KC-135/KC-10 air refueling tankers
immediately began pulling airborne and ground alert to provide combat
air patrol support over major U.S. cities.
In direct support of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF), Air Force
reservists have flown a multitude of combat missions into Afghanistan.
Most notably, the 917th Wing at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana (B-52s), the
419th Fighter Wing at Hill AFB, Utah (F-16s), the 442d Fighter Wing at
Whiteman AFB, Missouri (A-10s) and the 926th Fighter Wing at NAS Joint
Reserve Base, New Orleans (A-10s). Reserve aircrews have flown C-17
airdrop missions into Afghanistan delivering humanitarian aid, provided
refueling tanker crews and support personnel from the 434th Air
Refueling Wing at Grissom ARB, IN, and 349th Air Mobility Wing at
Travis AFB, California (KC-10). Additionally, Air Force Reserve F-16
units have been involved in support of Noble Eagle by flying combat air
patrols over American cities (301st Fighter Wing, JRB NAS Fort Worth,
Texas, 482d Fighter Wing, Homestead ARB, Florida, and 419th Fighter
Wing, Hill AFB, Utah). Our AWACS associate aircrew from Tinker AFB, OK,
flew 13 percent of the OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE sorties with only 4
percent of the Total Force crews. Air Force Reserve C-130s with their
aircrew and support personnel, under the direction of NORAD, in support
of OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE, provided alert for rapid CONUS deployments of
Army and Marine Quick response Forces and Ready Response Forces.
Reserve units were also refueling those combat air patrol missions with
refueling assets from various Reserve wings. Also in direct support of
OPERATIONS ENDURING FREEDOM/NOBLE EAGLE, Air Force space operations'
reservists have conducted Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
(DMSP), Defense Support Program (DSP), and Global Positioning Satellite
(GPS) operations, providing critical weather, warning, and navigation
information to the warfighter. Additionally, Air Force reservists have
supported Aerospace Operations Center efforts providing COMAFSPACE with
situational awareness and force capabilities to conduct combat
operations at all levels of conflict.
Also, to date in support of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF), we have
seen our reservists make huge contributions to each discipline key to
its ongoing success. In strategic airlift, we contributed 45 percent of
the C-17 support, 50 percent of the C-5 support, and 90 percent of the
C-141C aircraft to not only move the people and supplies into theater,
but to repatriate the Prisoners of War (POW) after their amazing
recoveries. Intra-theater operations have also been critical to the
success of the Operation, thus far. We have supplied 25 percent of the
KC-10 and KC-135 support for theater refueling and 45 percent of
aeromedical evacuation of the injured. Many thanks to you for your help
in procuring cutting edge medical equipment such as Modular medical
capability that allowed us to safely transport the injured. Our F-16s,
B-52s, and A-10s, outfitted with the LITENING II pods and integrated
with Army assets on the ground, through the Situation Awareness Data
Link (SADL), proved invaluable for Strategic Attack, Close Air Support,
and hunting down SCUD missiles. Three more areas that become more
critical with each conflict are Special Operations, Combat Rescue, and
Space Operations. Again, the Air Force Reserve plays a significant role
in their success and support to the mission. We provided 33 percent of
the HC-130 and HH-60 combat rescue, 62 percent of the Special
Operations crews, and more than 900 space operators, providing
Battlefield Situational Awareness key to the Commander's decision loop
at all levels.
What makes these units and individuals unique is the fact that our
reservists have demonstrated time and time again, the success of an all
volunteer force. In fact, many of those who were mobilized, had
volunteered to perform duty, and day to day, a significant percentage
of Air Force missions are performed through or augmented by AFRC. We
are no longer a force held in reserve solely for possible war or
contingency actions--we are at the tip of the spear. The attacks on our
freedom--on our very way of life--cemented the Total Force policy
already in place and AFRC continues to work shoulder-to-shoulder with
the Active Duty (AD) and Air National Guard (ANG) components in the
long battle to defeat terrorism.
Effective modernization of Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) assets
is our key to remaining a relevant and combat ready force. It is
apparent to all, that the Reserve Component is crucial to the defense
of our great nation and our modernization strategy is sound, but is
dependent upon lead command funding. AFRC has had limited success in
getting the lead commands to fund our modernization requirements (CCIU
and C-17 sim are two examples), but unfortunately lead command funding
of AFRC modernization priorities remains below the level needed to
maximize our capabilities. Although the National Guard and Reserve
Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) funding helps offset some of these
modernization shortfalls, the level of funding precludes us from
addressing our larger modernization priorities. Success in meeting our
modernization goals depends on robust interaction with the lead
commands and in keeping Congressional budgeting authorities informed of
AFRC initiatives.
INTEGRATING OPERATIONS
AFRC made major Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) contributions in
fiscal year 2002. We met virtually 100 percent of both aviation and
combat support commitments, by deploying over 20,700 volunteers
overseas and another 12,600 supporting homeland defense, in volunteer
status. The challenge for 2003 will be to meet ongoing AEF commitments
with volunteers from a Reserve force which has had much of its
operations and combat support mobilized for homeland defense and the
war on terrorism. As of today, over 12,000 Air Force Reservists are
mobilized, and thousands more continue to provide daily support as
volunteers. Over 1,500 of those mobilized are Individual Mobilization
Augmentees (IMAs), providing critical support to the Unified Commands,
active component MAJCOMs, and various defense agencies supporting
Homeland Security and OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM. Required support
functions span the entire breadth of Reserve capabilities including
security forces, civil engineering, rescue, special operations,
strategic and tactical airlift, air refueling, fighters, bombers,
AWACs, command and control, communications, satellite operations,
logistics, intelligence, aerial port, services, mission support, and
medical.
AEF CY02--IN REVIEW
2002 ended as it began, in transition. It began with surging
requirements brought on by the GWOT. To manage the surge, we remained
true to the AEF concept to hold the negative impact of operations and
personnel tempos to a minimum. AFRC was meeting the new taskings
brought on by the war and the associated mobilizations while at the
same time meeting AEF commitments we made prior to September 11. From
the AFRC AEF Cell perspective it was a magnificent effort by all the
wings in the command to meet the challenges. The full impact is
appreciated when it is understood we did not ask to be relieved of any
AEF tasking, met all new ONE/OEF taskings, and were still able to find
volunteers to help fill other identified shortfalls. As the year ended,
we transitioned to a lower activity level through demobilizations, but
continued to plan for a potential new demanding operation. The constant
is that we still have our AEF commitments, we are still meeting them,
and we do not have any shortfalls. For next year we expect the number
of AEF requirements to reflect the increase brought on by the war on
terrorism. The culture change to an expeditionary air force is being
realized through all levels of the command and is demonstrated in
action as well as words by the response to the AEF, ONE, and OEF
taskings of the past year.
ARC participation is central to the AEF construct. The ARC normally
contributes 10 percent of the Expeditionary Combat Support and 25
percent of the aviation for steady-state rotations. Air National Guard
(ANG) and AFRC forces make up nearly half of the forces assigned to
each AEF, with the ARC making up the majority of forces in some mission
areas.
TECHNOLOGY TO THE WARFIGHTER
F-16 Fighting Falcon
Air Combat Command and AFRC are upgrading the F-16 Block 25/30/32
in all core combat areas by installing a Global Positioning System
(GPS) navigation system, Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) and NVIS
compatible aircraft lighting, Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL),
Target Pod integration, GPS steered ``smart weapons'', an integrated
Electronics Suite, Pylon Integrated Dispense System (PIDS),and the
Digital Terrain System (DTS).
The acquisition of the LITENING II targeting pod marked the
greatest jump in combat capability for AFRC F-16s in years. At the
conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, it became apparent that the ability
to employ precision-guided munitions, specifically laser-guided bombs,
would be a requirement for involvement in future conflicts. LITENING II
affords the capability to employ precisely targeted Laser Guided Bombs
(LGBs) effectively in both day and night operations, any time at any
place. LITENING II was designed to be spirally developed to allow
technology advances to be incorporated as that technology became
available, and provides even greater combat capability. This capability
allows AFRC F-16s to fulfill any mission tasking requiring a self-
designating, targeting-pod platform, providing needed relief for
heavily tasked active duty units.
These improvements have put AFRC F-16s at the leading edge of
combat capability. The combination of these upgrades are unavailable in
any other combat aircraft and make the Block 25/30/32 F-16 the most
versatile combat asset available to a theater commander. Tremendous
work has been done keeping the Block 25/30/32 F-16 employable in
today's complex and demanding combat environment. This success has been
the result of far-sighted planning that has capitalized on emerging
commercial and military technology to provide specific capabilities
that were projected to be critical. That planning and vision must
continue if the F-16 is to remain usable as the largest single
community of aircraft in America's fighter force. Older model Block 25/
30/32 F-16 aircraft require structural improvements to guarantee that
they will last as long as they are needed. They also require data
processor and wiring system upgrades in order to support employment of
more sophisticated precision attack weapons. They must have improved
pilot displays to integrate and present the large volumes of data now
provided to the cockpit. Additional capabilities to include LITENING II
pod upgrades, are needed to nearly eliminate fratricide and allow
weapons employment at increased range, day or night and in all weather
conditions. They must also be equipped with significantly improved
threat detection, threat identification, and threat engagement systems
in order to meet the challenges of combat survival and employment for
the next 20 years.
A/OA-10 Thunderbolt
There are five major programs over the next five years to ensure
the A/OA-10 remains a viable part of the total Air Force. The first is
increasing its precision engagement capabilities. The A-10 was designed
for the Cold War and is the most effective Close Air Support (CAS)
anti-armor platform in the USAF, as demonstrated during the Persian
Gulf War. Unfortunately, its systems have not kept pace with modern
tactics as was proven during Operation Allied Force. The AGM-65
(Maverick) is the only precision-guided weapon carried on the A-10.
Newer weapons are being added into the Air Force inventory regularly,
but the current avionics and computer structure limits the deployment
of these weapons on the A-10. The Precision Engagement and Suite 3
programs will help correct this limitation. Next, critical systems on
the engines are causing lost sorties and increased maintenance
activity. Several design changes to the Accessory Gearbox will extend
its useful life and reduce the existing maintenance expense associated
with the high removal rate. The other two programs increase the
navigation accuracy and the overall capability of the fire control
computer, both increasing the weapons system's overall effectiveness.
Recent interim improvements included Lightweight Airborne Recovery
System (LARS) and LITENING II targeting pod integration.
With the advent of targeting pod integration, pods must be made
available to the A-10 aircraft. Thirty LITENING II AT pods are required
to bring advanced weapon employment to this aircraft. AFRC looks
forward to supporting the Precision Engagement program to further
integrate targeting pods. Looking to the future, there is a requirement
for a training package of 30 PRC-112B/C survival radios for 10th Air
Force fighter, rescue, and special operations units. While more
capable, these radios are also more demanding to operate and additional
units are needed to ensure the aircrews are fully proficient in their
operation. One of the A-10 challenges is resources for upgrade in the
area of high threat survivability. Previous efforts focused on an
accurate missile warning system and effective, modern flares; however a
new preemptive covert flare system may satisfy the requirement. The A-
10 can leverage the work done on the F-16 Radar Warning Receiver and C-
130 towed decoy development programs to achieve a cost-effective
capability. The A/OA-10 has a thrust deficiency in its operational
environment. As taskings evolved, commanders have had to reduce fuel
loads, limit take-off times to early morning hours and refuse taskings
that increase gross weights to unsupportable limits.
B-52 Stratofortress
In the next five years, several major programs will be introduced
to increase the capabilities of the B-52 aircraft. Included here are
programs such as a Crash Survivable Flight Data Recorder and a Standard
Flight Data Recorder, upgrades to the current Electro-Optical Viewing
System, Chaff and Flare Improvements, and improvements to cockpit
lighting and crew escape systems to allow use of Night Vision Goggles.
Enhancements to the AFRC B-52 fleet currently under consideration
are:
--Visual clearance of the target area in support of other
conventional munitions employment;
--Self-designation of targets, eliminating the current need for
support aircraft to accomplish this role;
--Target coordinate updates to JDAM and WCMD, improving accuracy; and
--Bomb Damage Assessment of targets.
In order to continue the viability of the B-52 well into the next
decade, several improvements and modifications are necessary. Although
the aircraft has been extensively modified since its entry into the
fleet, the advent of precision guided munitions and the increased use
of the B-52 in conventional and Operations Other Than War (OOTW)
operation requires additional avionics modernization and changes to the
weapons capabilities such as the Avionics Midlife Improvement,
Conventional Enhancement Modification (CEM), and the Integrated
Conventional Stores Management System (ICSMS). Changes in the threat
environment are also driving modifications to the defensive suite
including Situational Awareness Defense Improvement (SADI) and the
Electronic Counter Measures Improvement (ECMI), and integration of the
LITENING II targeting pod. 5 LITENING II AT pods are required to
support this important new capability.
The B-52 was originally designed to strike targets across the globe
from launch in the United States. This capability is being repeatedly
demonstrated, but the need for real time targeting information and
immediate reaction to strike location changes is needed. Multiple
modifications are addressing these needs. These integrated advanced
communications systems will enhance the B-52 capability to launch and
modify target locations while airborne. Other communications
improvements are the Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) Phase 1, an
improved ARC-210, the KY-100 Secure Voice, and a GPS-TACAN Replacement
System (TRS).
As can be expected with an airframe of the age of the B-52, much
must be done to enhance its reliability and replace older, less
reliable or failing hardware. These include a Fuel Enrichment Valve
Modification, Engine Oil System Package, and an Engine Accessories
Upgrade, all to increase the longevity of the airframe.
MC-130H Talon
In 2006, AFRC and Air Force Special Operations Command will face a
significant decision point on whether or not to retire the Talon I.
This largely depends on the determination of the upcoming SOF Tanker
Requirement Study. Additionally, the MC-130H Talon II aircraft will be
modified to air refuel helicopters. The Air Force CV-22 is being
developed to replace the entire MH-53J Pave Low fleet, and the MC-130E
Combat Talon I. The CV-22 program has been plagued with problems and
delays and has an uncertain future. Ultimately, supply/demand will
impact willingness and ability to pay for costly upgrades along with
unforeseeable expenses required to sustain an aging weapons system.
HC-130P/N Hercules
Over the next five years, there will be primarily sustainability
modifications to the weapons systems to allow it to maintain
compatibility with the remainder of the C-130 fleet. In order to
maintain currency with the active duty fleet, AFRC will accelerate the
installation of the APN-241 as a replacement for the APN-59.
Additionally, AFRC will receive two aircraft modified from the ``E''
configuration to the Search and Rescue configuration. All AFRC assets
will be upgraded to provide Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) mission
capability for C-130 combat rescue aircraft.
HH-60G Pave Hawk
Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Mission Area modernization strategy
currently focuses on resolving critical weapon system capability
shortfalls and deficiencies that pertain to the Combat Air Force's
Combat Identification, Data Links, Night/All-Weather Capability, Threat
Countermeasures, Sustainability, Expeditionary Operations, and
Pararescue modernization focus. Since the CAF's CSAR forces have
several critical capability shortfalls that impact their ability to
effectively accomplish their primary mission tasks today, most CSAR
modernization programs/initiatives are concentrated in the near-term
(fiscal year 2000-06). These are programs that:
--Improve capability to pinpoint location and authenticate identity
of downed aircrew members/isolated personnel
--Provide line-of-sight and over-the-horizon high speed LPI/D data
link capabilities for improving battle space/situational
awareness
--Improve Command and Control capability to rapidly respond to
``isolating'' incidents and efficiently/effectively task
limited assets
--Improve capability to conduct rescue/recovery operations at night,
in other low illumination conditions, and in all but the most
severe weather conditions
--Provide warning and countermeasure capabilities against RF/IR/EO/DE
threats
--Enhance availability, reliability, maintainability, and
sustainability of aircraft weapon systems.
WC-130J Hercules
The current WC-130H fleet is being replaced with new WC-130J
models. This replacement allows for longer range and ensures weather
reconnaissance capability well into the next decade. Once conversion is
complete, the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron will consist of 10
WC-130J's. Presently, there are seven WC-130J models at Keesler AFB, MS
undergoing Qualification Test and Evaluation (QT&E). The remaining
three aircraft have been transferred to AFRC and are currently at
Lockheed Marietta scheduled for delivery to Keesler AFB. Deliveries are
based on the resolution of deficiencies identified in test and will
impact the start of operational testing and the achievement of interim
operational capability (IOC). Major deficiencies include: propellers
(durability/supportability), radar modification to correct (range to
range inconsistencies), tilt and start up blanking display errors and,
SATCOM transmission deficiencies. AFRC continues to work with the
manufacturer to resolve the QT&E documented deficiencies.
C-5 Galaxy
Over the next five years, there will be sustainability
modifications to the weapon system to allow it to continue as the
backbone of the airlift community. The fleet will receive the avionics
modernization which replaces cockpit displays while upgrading critical
flight controls, navigational and communications equipment. This will
allow the C-5 to operate in Global Air Traffic Management (GATM)
airspace. Additionally, the C-5B models and possibly the C-5As, will
undergo a Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining program which will
not only replace the powerplant, but also numerous unreliable systems
and components. The 445th Airlift Wing at Wright Patterson AFB, OH will
transition from C-141 Starlifters to C-5As in fiscal year 2006 and
fiscal year 2007. Finally, the 439th Airlift Wing at Westover ARB, MA
will modernize its C-5 fleet in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008
when it transitions from C-5As to C-5Bs.
C-17 Globemaster
Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Air Force Reserve Command will
enter a new era as the 452nd Air Mobility Wing at March Air Reserve
Base, CA transitions from C-141s to C-17 Globemasters. Although
reservists have been associating with active C-17 units since their
inception in the active Air Force, March ARB will be the Command's
first C-17 Unit Equipped Unit and will aid in maintaining diversity in
the Reserve Command's strategic mobility fleet.
C-141 Starlifter
For the past 30 years, the C-141 has been the backbone of mobility
for the United States military in peacetime and in conflict. In the
very near future, the C-141 will be retired from the active-duty Air
Force. However, AFRC continues the proud heritage of this mobility
workhorse and will continue to fly the C-141 through fiscal year 2006.
It is crucial that AFRC remains focused on flying this mission safely
and proficiently until units convert to follow-on missions.
Replacement missions must be more than the insertion of another
airframe. They must be a viable mission that includes modernized
equipment.
C-130 Hercules
AFRC has 127 C-130s including the E, H, J and N/P models. The
Mobility Air Forces (MAF) currently operates the world's best theater
airlift aircraft, the C-130, and it will continue in service through
2020. In order to continue to meet the Air Force's combat delivery
requirements through the next 17 years, aircraft not being replaced by
the C-130J will become part of the C-130X Program. Phase 1, Avionics
Modernization Program (AMP) program includes a comprehensive cockpit
modernization by replacing aging, unreliable equipment and adding
additional equipment necessary to meet Nav/Safety and GATM
requirements. Together, C-130J and C-130X modernization initiatives
reduce the number of aircraft variants from twenty to two core
variants, which will significantly reduce the support footprint and
increase the capability of the C-130 fleet. The modernization of our C-
130 forces strengthens our ability to ensure the success of our
warfighting commanders and lays the foundation for tomorrow's
readiness.
KC-135E/R Stratotanker
One of AFRC's most challenging modernization issues concerns our
unit-equipped KC-135s. Five of the seven air refueling squadrons are
equipped with the KC-135R, while the remaining two squadrons are
equipped with KC-135E's. The KC-135E, commonly referred to as the E-
model, has engines that were recovered from retiring airliners. This
conversion, which was accomplished in the early-mid 1980s, was intended
as an interim solution to provide improvement in capability while
awaiting conversion to the R-model with its new, high-bypass, turbofan
engines and other modifications. AFRC's remaining two E-models units
look forward to converting to R-models in the very near future. The
ability of the Mobility Air Forces (MAF) to conduct the air refueling
mission has been stressed in recent years. Although total force
contributions have enabled success in previous air campaigns,
shortfalls exist to meet the requirements of our National Military
Strategy. AMC's Tanker Requirements Study-2005 (TRS-05) identifies a
shortfall in the number of tanker aircraft and aircrews needed to meet
global refueling requirements in the year 2005. There is currently a
shortage of KC-135 crews and maintenance personnel. Additionally, the
number of KC-135 aircraft available to perform the mission has
decreased in recent years due to an increase in depot-possessed
aircraft with a decrease in mission capable (MC) rates. An air
refueling Mission Needs Statement has been developed and an Analysis of
Alternatives (AoA) will be conducted to determine the most effective
solution set to meet the nation's future air refueling requirements.
FUTURE VECTOR
As we think about our future, the nature of warfighting, and the
new steady state, we anticipate many challenges. While this new mission
activity continues, we need to keep our focus--assess the impact of
Stop Loss on our operations, provide adequate funding for continuing
activations, and keep an eye on sustaining our recruiting efforts. The
challenge will be to retain our experience base and keep our prior
service levels high.
With your continued support, and that which you have already given,
we will be able to meet each new challenge head-on, without
trepidation.
Our Citizen Airmen, alongside the Active Duty and the Air National
Guard, continue to step through the fog and friction as we prosecute
the GWOT. Our support for them is not just in the battlespace, but at
home. We will continue to refine the ways we support their families,
their employers, and the members themselves as we keep the lines of
communication open to you. We must ensure that we are doing as much for
them through increased pay, benefits, and finding the right mix between
equity and parity with their Active Duty counterparts, as we continue
to ask more and more of them. We must continue to think outside the
box, to protect their rights as students who are called away from an
important semester, as employees who must turn that big project over to
someone else in the company for a while, and just as critically, as
sons, daughters, husbands, wives, and parents who will miss birthdays,
graduations, and a litany of other events many of us take for granted.
We are making strides at leveling the operations tempo by finding
the right skill mix between the ARCs and the AD. In a Total Force
realignment of scarce Low Density/High Demand (LD/HD) resources, the
939th Rescue Wing's HC-130s and HH-60s will transfer to the active
component in order to reduce the Total Force PERSTEMPO in the LD/HD
mission of Combat Search and Rescue. The transfer of these assets to
the active component increases full-time personnel without increasing
already high volunteerism rates or having to mobilize a significant
number of CSAR reservists. The activation of the 939th Air Refueling
Wing, Portland, OR addresses the need for more aerial refueling assets
on the West coast enhancing our ability to rapidly respond to any
crisis.
Additionally, AFRC has assumed responsibility for supporting the
National Science Foundation DEEP FREEZE mission. The next three years,
the men and women of the 452nd AMW at March ARB, CA, will be flying C-
141 support missions in support of this Antarctic operation. We have
also assumed 16 percent of the total force Undergraduate Pilot Training
programs at seven bases around the United States and we continue to
balance, assume, and relinquish missions or parts of missions to
accommodate the goals of the Air Force and Department of Defense as
world events unfold and dictate change, and as necessary to lessen the
burden on our members and the AD.
All of the distinguished members on the committee, and we in the
Air Force and Air Force Reserve, have been given an incredible
opportunity and an incredible responsibility to shape not only the
structure of the world's premiere air and space force, but to shape its
environment--its quality people, and the quality of their lives. Our
mission will continue to be accomplished more accurately, more timely,
and with an even greater pride, as we focus on our best resource.
These and other evolving missions are just some of the areas into
which we hope to continue to expand, keeping reserve personnel
relevant, trained, and READY NOW when we are called. I'd like to extend
my thanks again to the committee for allowing me the opportunity to
testify before you here today and for all you do for the Air Force
Reserve.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you all. The actions of your
people and your supervision of them more than validated all the
work that we've done to try to upgrade the reserve and to make
certain that it had the equipment, you all had the equipment to
train and to deploy that would be needed.
RETIREMENT POLICY
You sat through the questions that we had for your
predecessors. If you have any comments about those, we would be
glad to have them, but I've been thinking about the problem of
a total force and what it means to be deployed as often as we
have had people deployed during these past years going back to
Bosnia and Kosovo, and even back further than that into Panama
and various other problems, and I wonder if you've ever thought
about the concept of active Guard Reserve having a multiplier
for the retirement credit for the times they actually serve in
combat status. Any of you ever reviewed that, some added
incentive, really reward for those who do answer the call?
We've had people go through prolonged periods of peacetime
who had reserve credits towards retirement, but I think when
these people are called up, particularly under the
circumstances that we've had in the past few years, there
should be a change in the retirement system so that there's a
recognition for those who have answered the call, and I think
it would be an incentive for those who might be called up to
respond. Do you have any comments about that? Admiral.
Admiral Totushek. If I may, Mr. Chairman, everywhere I go
today people ask me about a change in the retirement policy and
this, of course, was proposed last year to lower the retirement
age for reservists down to age 55.
I understand that in the form that it was presented it was
a very big bill to the country, but it seems to me there has to
be some recognition of, if we're going to use reservists more
often, that we in fact do recognize the fact that they are no
longer weekend warriors and are very much a part of the total
force, so I think an idea like that, or an idea that combines
something that allows them to get a little bit of their
retirement a little bit earlier, if it makes sense for them,
would make sense for all the reserve components.
Senator Stevens. Well, this would make their retirement
come earlier. If you had 2 years' service and it gave you 4, or
maybe 6 years' credit to your retirement, then obviously you're
going to get it sooner.
Admiral Totushek. Right.
Senator Stevens. Because it is a combination of age and
total service, isn't it?
Admiral Totushek. Yes. It's your number of points that you
earn, and those basically are done by the year, and this
would--an idea like that, but there is an idea out there
somewhere, if we put all these things together, that's going to
work for our people.
Senator Stevens. I will ask for a review of that and see if
we can get some studies made. There ought to be some
recognition so that those--we're in a situation where some
people are not called up, and they will go through and get the
same retirement as those who were, and I think there ought to
be some mark on the wall for having answered the call to duty,
and for those people who are already on duty to have intensive
duty as compared to just normal peacetime service, but it's one
of those things--is there anything you're doing now to assure
that we're going to meet the recruiting goals in the future?
Are we going to have a drop-off now?
We had an increase in volunteerism, I'm sure you know, a
spike there, as this whole situation built up, but I think now
that this is over, there's sort of a lull that comes. What are
your plans for recruiting in this post-war period? We're not
there yet, but it's coming soon, I assume.
General Helmly. Senator, if I may, for the Army we went
back and I looked at Desert Shield/Desert Storm as a point in
time. We experienced--since Desert Shield/Desert Storm, the
soldiers who served in Desert Shield/Desert Storm, that cohort
group has attrited since then by about 85 percent. I've been
unable to break that, the number who, if you will, left as
opposed to those who completed a term of service, that is,
retired after 20 years, and I might add one correction. Your
proposal regarding retirement under current law, though, would
still not allow the reserve member to receive benefits from
retirement until age 60. They might get there faster, but
wouldn't get any benefits.
Senator Stevens. I may not have explained it, but I would
reduce----
ATTRITION
General Helmly. Yes, sir, okay.
Senator Stevens [continuing]. The age by the equivalent
amount.
General Helmly. I understand.
Senator Stevens. So that if you served 5 years and you're
supposed to retire at 65, you would actually be able to stand
down at 55.
General Helmly. Yes, sir. But regarding attrition, for
myself, I dare say for all of us, in an all-volunteer force,
that is something we cannot take for granted. We're addressing
that. I proposed to the Department of the Army that we retain a
stop-loss in place. That stop-loss is good for the period of
mobilization plus 90 days. I've asked for that solely because
we wish to have the soldier deal, not with emotions and
external pressures, but, rather, facts. It is a very volatile
situation.
Where we are today, if we retain the current stop-loss in
place, based on the number we have mobilized and just the
physical factors of how fast you can bring them back home and
demobilize them in a humane, considerate sort of way, we will
exceed our end strength at the end of fiscal year 2003 by as
much as 9,000. Our end strength is 205. We have projections we
could come in at 214. In turn, our worst case attrition model
says that we could come in as low as 192 at the end of next
fiscal year 2004, so I will tell you that it is an extremely
volatile situation.
My biggest concern falls in the area of professional
medical staff. Two-thirds of the Army's combat medical care is
resident in the Army Reserve. Our highest attrition rates are
suffered by our professionals in the AMEDD field, self-
employed. In fact, we put them some years ago on a 90-day
rotation model to be considerate of not breaking private
practices, so I don't have any ready-made solutions, other than
to say we're putting a full court press on, to include starting
tomorrow, myself, personally, going out to hold town hall
meetings with soldiers that we have mobilized, and we have
about 25,000 in this category that we have mobilized in less
than 10 days' notice, gotten trained, and gotten certified for
deployment, but the war was over quickly, and they're hung up
literally at a mobilization station waiting for us to either
demobilize them, give them a subsequent mission in another part
of the world, or send them to the desert and bring another unit
home, but again, the law of physical mass applies in terms of
strategic lift transportation, what kind of unit is needed in
theater, sequencing that, et cetera.
So I would just close by saying there's a passage in a new
book out, and I apologize, I don't remember the author's name.
The book is, The Principles of War for the Information Age. One
of the passages in that book deals with the requirement for
precision mobilization. That is what I alluded to in my remarks
when I said that largely the policies, practices, procedures
that we employ in the Department with regard to the
mobilization and use of reserve members were designed for an
age which is no longer with us; that is, a mobilization of
masses of people over a long period of time with subsequent
demobilization of virtually everyone. We just have to come to
grips with that and develop the procedures, policies, and
practices to be more precise and, in so doing, very considerate
of people and their employers.
Senator Stevens. Well, I do appreciate that. Do any of the
other of you have comments? I do want to make one request, and
I'm sure Senator Cochran's got some questions, but I'd like to
have each of you for the record provide us information about
the percentage of your people who actually stay in your service
to retirement time, as compared to the volume that come through
your reserve units.
How many of them really stay with you to retirement,
particularly with the age you mentioned, 65? That would be
interesting for us to look at, because I think there ought to
be some greater incentive to keep people through at least the
50, 55 age group, and I'd like to see where that break-off is.
Where do they start fluffing off and saying, this is not worth
it?
General Helmly. We can get you that data. We've got that.
[The information follows:]
Retirement
The following information is presented to provide a short
introduction to the current retirement program for members of the Air
Force Reserve as set forth by provisions found in 10 United States
Code, Sections 12731, 8911, and 8914. The most notable distinction
between reserve (non-regular) retirement and active duty (regular
retirement) is that reservists do not receive retired pay until
attaining age 60 while active duty (regular retirees) receive an
immediate annuity upon retirement.
The Retired Reserve consists of two categories of members. The
first category is composed of those members that are actually receiving
retired pay. The second category is composed of those members who have
met all requirements for retired pay EXCEPT for the attainment of age
60. The Reserve components use age 60 as the ``cut-off'' for retirement
as public law prohibits military service past age 60 (with the
exception of general officers, chaplains, and those officers in medical
specialties). Originally, the age 60 retired pay eligibility
corresponded to the retirement age for federal civil service. The
retirement age for full civil service annuity was lowered to 55 over 25
years ago.
Members must complete at least 20 years of satisfactory service to
attain eligibility for retired pay (a satisfactory year is a year in
which a member earns 50 or more ``points'' toward retirement).
Additionally, the last six or eight qualifying years of this service
must have been served in the Reserve component (as directed by changes
in public law). The 2003 National Defense Authorization Act made
permanent the six-year requirement for qualifying duty in the Reserve
component.
Retired pay for active duty members who first joined any military
service on or after September 8, 1980 is computed using the average of
the highest 36 months of base pay and the member's grade and years of
service. Members qualifying to retire under the ``active duty''
retirement provision (Sections 8911 and 8914), and who have a ``date of
initial entry to military service'' on or after August 1, 1986 may
elect to receive a career status bonus at the 15-year point. However,
their retired pay will be computed using 40 percent of the ``high-
three'' years of service for 20 years and additional 3.5 percent for
each additional year up to a maximum of 75 percent. As with any
retirement plan, the greater the time of satisfactory service, the
greater the retirement pay at the culmination of the career. This
provides an increased incentive for members to stay longer in the
Reserve component.
RESERVE COMPONENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Qualification for payment of retired pay for non-regular service
(Reserve component retirement) is outlined in Title 10, United States
Code 12731. It requires that the person:
--Is at least 60 years of age;
--Has performed at least 20 years of service; and
--Performed the last six years of qualifying service while a member
of the Reserve components.
Regardless of the total number of years served beyond 20 years,
receipt of retired pay is delayed until age 60.
The only monetary incentive for participation beyond 20 years of
service (assuming member has served at least the last six in the RC) is
the payment of duty performed and the accumulation of additional points
to increase the value of the members retirement pay upon receipt at age
60.
Reduction of receipt of retired for RC members acknowledges the
contribution of these members when DOD is asking more and more of these
citizen airman, soldiers, sailors, marines and coast guardsmen.
Analysis of Congressional bills introduced in the 108th Congress:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 331 H.R. 742 S. 445
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduced By....................... Rep Wilson (R-2-SC)............................... Rep Saxton (R-3-NJ)............................... Sen Landrieu (D-LA)
Title............................... Armed Forces Retirement Equity Act................ To amend title 10 United States Code, to reduce Reservists Retirement and Retention Act of 2003
the age for receipt of military retired pay for
non-regular service from 60 to 55.
Requirement of Bill................. Member qualifies for receipt of retired pay at 20 Reduces receipt of retired pay to age 55, assuming Reduces receipt of retired pay by 1-year for every
years of service, assuming all other requirements all other requirements of 10 U.S.C. 12731 are met. 2 years the member serves beyond 20, assuming all
of 10 U.S.C. 12731 are met. other requirements of 10 U.S.C. 12731 are met,
not to be reduced below age 55
Pros................................ (1) Pays retirement immediately, based on same (1 Reservist waits 5-years less for receipt of (1) Encourages service beyond 20-years to increase
length of service commitment as active duty retirement pay; (2) Recognizes and rewards the the value of members retirement pay and thus
members; (2) Incentive for prior active service increased use of RC members; (3) Possible reduce age for receipt of payment; (2) Retention
members to join the RC. incentive for prior active service members to tool of current RC members and recruiting tool of
join the RC; (4) Reduces the pay gap between prior active service members--good deal for the
actual retirement and receipt of retired pay at RC; (3) Members continued service beyond 20
age 60. determines the receipt of retired pay before age
60; (4) Reduces the pay gap between actual
retirement and receipt of retired pay at age 60
Cons................................ (1) No incentive for continued service beyond 20 (1) Little incentive for continued service beyond (1) Increased cost, but as member continues to
years; (2) Cost prohibitive; (3) To make the 20 years--Not a good deal for the RC; (2) participate, additional dollars are added to the
proposal cost neutral, would have to reduce the Increased cost to pay 5-years early and to retirement accrual account thus reducing the up
value of each retirement point significantly, include current gray-area Reservists between age front bill to the services required in H.R. 742
thus value of monthly retired pay is reduced. 55 and 59; (3) Includes these members and their
dependents in the TRICARE Health Program 5-years
early.
Costs............................... Unknown; highest cost............................. Unknown; middle cost.............................. Unknown; lowest cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
naval reserve retirement data
The following chart shows the percentage of Naval Reservists that
became eligible for retirement for the past four years (1999-2002).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling # of Notices
Year Reserve of Eligibility Percent
Strength for Retirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................................................ 70,872 3,200 4.5
2000............................................................ 64,163 3,163 4.9
2001............................................................ 69,636 2,754 4.0
2002............................................................ 73,142 2,724 3.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Admiral, do you have any
comments?
Admiral Totushek. Yes, and in our case actually, because as
I was saying, with some of the mobilizations, that actually
increased and helped us, I believe, drive down the attrition
that we've experienced historically in the Naval Reserve. I
actually lowered my recruiting goal by 2,000 for my enlisted
people this year. The war had a little bit more impact on
officers and my officer recruiting has dipped off a little bit.
We're working hard to try and get that up by the end of the
year, but in the near term we don't see a big impact on us.
Now, we're going to carefully measure and again survey to
find out exactly what the implications are after the second
large mobilization in a row, and I think this additive thing is
a thing we're going to have to deal with, now that we're
looking at two big ones right back to back. That will have some
impact, and we're just going to have to assess what it is.
Senator Stevens. General McCarthy.
General McCarthy. Senator, I would like to just make the
point that this question of retention and so forth is another
one of those indications that one size doesn't fit all in terms
of the various Armed Services. The Marine Corps Reserve, just
like the active component of the Marine Corps, is very, very
largely a first-term force, about 70 percent. In each case,
both the active component and reserve component are first term
marines. We are not a long-term or a large career force like
some of the others, and so the implications of what constitutes
retention are different and vary by service.
Having said that, there clearly is a portion of our force,
most of the Officer Corps and those enlisted marines who will
go on to be staff noncommissioned officers that we're very,
very interested in retaining, and we'll have to study over the
next year what the implications of that, of a prolonged
mobilization will have on that portion of our force.
Recruiting has continued apace while we've been deployed,
and we've continued to meet all of our goals on recruiting, and
so I'm less concerned about our recruiting and our ability to
recruit in the future than I am about this issue of retention,
but as I say, for the Marine Corps, the proportions, or the
percentages are significantly different than my colleagues, and
so the remedies or the tools that we need to use may be
somewhat different as well, but it is an issue that we're very
watchful of.
Senator Stevens. Do you have an in-grade step increase? For
instance, you know, in the Civil Service, if you're grade 13
you can be grade 13 step 1 through 12, I think. Do you have
that for sergeants in the Marines?
General McCarthy. Yes, sir, and our pay scale is exactly
the same as everybody else, so that a corporal with 3 years'
service makes less money than a corporal with 4 years' service,
and progressing on, yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Well, I'd be interested in what you might
think would extend some of those people beyond one term, not
now, but if you have any incentives in mind--you do have a
particularly different force.
General McCarthy. Yes, sir.
RETENTION
Senator Stevens. If you have any concept of what might lead
people to re-up for another hitch, particularly coming from
active to reserve for at least one additional hitch, those sort
of things would augment the total force in a tremendous way,
because we all know the Marines have a different focus in terms
of mobilization, and they're needed now, you know, so it's a
different thing.
General Sherrard.
General Sherrard. Yes, sir. I would tell you that, as I
mentioned in my earlier statement, our key to success is prior
service and retaining those members. Anything that we can do
that would retain that member to the maximum extent possible,
ideally for the enlisted force to their high-year tenure date,
or for the officers to their mandatory separation date, it
certainly would enhance our ability to keep that experience
base that is so critical for us to do our jobs.
As you know, and it was mentioned earlier, when you have
attained 20 years of satisfactory service, you are eligible to
declare yourself for retired status, realizing you're not going
to draw pay until age 60. I'm a firm believer and have been a
strong advocate all along that if I can keep them from 20 to 30
years, that 10 years, every time I keep three of those members,
that's one that I've reduced the training requirement and a
huge training dollar cost significantly for my force and for
this Nation. We need to keep that base there.
So I would welcome you to look at all these options, sir,
whether it be a multiplier, as you mentioned, for combat
service, or whether it would be some option for service beyond
20 years, or some incentivization that you could offer to the
member that, as you know, all bonuses and things of that type,
with the exception of the pilot bonus for the active duty
members, ends at the 20 years.
So really they're working for points that they're going to
achieve toward retirement, but if there would be a way to
incentivize them beyond that 20-year point, it would certainly
be a boon, I think, for our service, and most certainly for our
Nation.
Senator Stevens. I shouldn't get too personal about it, but
I remember when I moved to Alaska, the Air Force had a concept
that you couldn't have reserve duty in a territory, and that
meant that I would have to fly at my own expense to Seattle to
train. Obviously, I sent a nasty letter to the Air Force and
resigned, but I do think that there are subjective factors in
retention that each service ought to look at. Mobility is one.
Our people move so much now around the country, and sometimes
the disjunctive of moving from one area to another, where
there's no longer a unit that you can join, has a lot to do
with retention.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I was reminded about my reserve experiences personally as
well. I got through law school primarily because I could earn
money by going back on active duty in the summers and being a
member of the teaching complement at the Officer Candidate
School at Newport, Rhode Island, and the money I made in the
summer I spent in the fall and the spring semesters of law
school, so I've always had an appreciation for the opportunity
that the Navy gave me to continue to serve while pursuing
another career.
LITTORAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
I know the Navy is planning to transfer some of its
resources in my State of Mississippi over to the Naval Station
in Pascagoula. Admiral Totushek, I understand you're basing
your second littoral surveillance system at the Naval Station.
I wonder if you could tell us what role you envision this
system playing in force protection and possibly with homeland
security as well?
Admiral Totushek. Thank you, Senator Cochran. We think that
there is gold in them thar hills in this system. The Coast
Guard is very interested in it. Just a quick little primer
here. It is a system that allows us to integrate any kind of
sensor that the Nation has, whether it be an unmanned sensor, a
manned sensor, a satellite kind of sensor, and to integrate
that to give you a total picture of an area as large as you
would like, depending on how far out you want to employ these
sensors, to be able to have situational awareness and, if need
be, to mensurate targets. It's that good that it can actually
spit out the coordinates of the targets you might be interested
in.
We think the implications of that for homeland security are
immense. The Coast Guard agrees with us, and we are starting to
talk with them about how we can integrate a Naval Reserve
capability using this littoral surveillance system, along with
what the Coast Guard is doing around our ports,and as they
pointed out, in a lot of cases there are areas of interest in
the country where there isn't a robust capability, and this
would allow us, because it's portable, to take it to another
part of the country where you might have an area of interest
for a short period of time, and to take a look at something
that may be going on in that area.
One scenario would be, as some of these tankers and
freighters come into our ports, that we really don't have a
good idea of what's on them. If we had a tip that perhaps one
of them belonged to somebody we didn't trust, we might want to
go out and take a look at that while it's still hundreds of
miles from our shores instead of just close in as it's entering
the port.
So I think there's going to be a great synergy there
between what the Coast Guard's doing and what we're able to
support them with in homeland security.
NAVAL COASTAL WARFARE UNITS ROLE IN HOMELAND SECURITY
Senator Cochran. I understand also you're planning to move
two of your naval coastal warfare units from Gulfport,
Mississippi, to Pascagoula Naval Station. When these units are
not forward-deployed, what role do you see them providing in
support of Coast Guard or homeland security missions?
Admiral Totushek. We originally got the littoral
surveillance system to marry up with these units that basically
would surveil a port, and so their being right there, not only
is it a great training opportunity for us to have the port
there, to have the boats and have the littoral surveillance
system, to be able to train for it, but also we now have a
great capability for looking at not only the port of
Pascagoula, but basically the Gulf of Mexico, and we think that
there's a great synergy there not only to train, but to offer
that force protection to the entire gulf as well.
Senator Cochran. And I also understand the Navy plans to
transfer some patrol coastal (PC) craft to the Coast Guard and
decommission as many as eight other patrol craft. Do you see a
role for these PCs in the Naval Reserve as well?
Admiral Totushek. The problem with the PCs is, they're very
expensive to operate. They're gas turbine engine ships, boats,
and they move real fast but they burn a lot of gas, and that's
the main reason that the Navy is interested in getting rid of
them. They're in great shape. The Coast Guard is taking over
six of those, I believe is the number, for use in being able to
get out very quickly to look at contacts of interest further
from our shores than usual.
We have proposed the idea of the Reserve force taking over
some of these. The problem again is the operating cost of the
platform. We think there will be a mission area that's going to
require something with this kind of capability. Whether that's
the right platform or not we're still talking to the Navy
about, but we think that it's a real capability that could be
used not only in the gulf, but up and down the shores of the
Nation.
HURRICANE HUNTERS
Senator Cochran. General Sherrard, the Air Guard--no, the
Air Reserve unit down in the Biloxi-Gulfport area has what they
call hurricane hunters that go out and fly right into the eye
of hurricanes, and they conduct surveillance. It's been a
mission that has been unique for sometime, and I understand
there is some conversation about transferring this. As a matter
of fact, there's probably a proposal to transfer this to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the
Oceanographic Administration.
My concern is, whether or not there is a continuing need
for weather reconnaissance that's related directly to military
operations. I notice the hurricane hunters were deployed
recently to Guam to conduct weather reconnaissance support of
some operations. They also were operating last month out of
Elmendorf, where Senator Stevens has invited me to visit on a
couple of occasions, supporting winter weather reconnaissance
missions there.
What's your view about the utility of the hurricane hunters
as a part of the military force, as opposed to transferring
them to NOAA?
General Sherrard. Well, sir, as you know we have been asked
to work with NOAA to look at the transfer. In fact, there has
been one meeting and there will be a subsequent meeting
scheduled for the 13th, but I was told yesterday that that may
be slipped for a week.
I have asked our staff, and we've got some information,
sir, and I want to be very candid with you. We're in dialogue
with the Air Force leadership about the very issue that you
addressed in terms of military utilization, simply because of
the fact that we have just recently, as you know, activated
that unit, and we are sending them--they are at Guam to do the
mission, and there is some concern that on behalf of the
organization that I have asked the leadership that I be allowed
to bring to them for discussion, and until that happens, sir, I
really can't go beyond that, but I will tell you that we're
going to have that conversation with the leadership of the Air
Force.
Senator Cochran. That's good. Well, I appreciate knowing
about that very much.
F/A-18 AIRCRAFT UPGRADES
General McCarthy, my question to you has to do with the
upgrade of the F/A-18 aircraft, bringing it to a level of
modern capability. The upgrade includes the Global Positioning
System (GPS) launch precision, guided munitions, et cetera.
Could you give us an update on the plans and the likelihood for
funding needs in this area?
General McCarthy. Yes, Senator Cochran, I can. It's an
overall package called the ECP-583, and it's a group of
technologies that brings our F-18A models up to the equivalent
of an F-18C, enables them to fire precision-guided munitions
and some other things. It's been very successful.
We're about 60 percent through our fleet of 48 F/A-18As,
and there's a steady program to continue until all of those
aircraft are completed, and the impact on the capability of
these aircraft is phenomenal, and then fortunately our F-18As,
which have never been used in a carrier role, therefore have an
extended life so that with this upgrade and their extended life
they become among the most capable F-18s that the Marine Corps
has.
Admiral Totushek. I'd like to point out if I could,
Senator, that the Naval Reserve has the same kind of a program,
slightly different nomenclature, but basically doing the same
thing to upgrade As into what we call A pluses. We took one of
those squadrons and deployed it into Iraqi Freedom. They flew
combat operations and basically led that air wing with some of
the oldest airplanes out there, but once again, as we heard
earlier, some of our great pilots out there are doing great
things, and we would not have been able to do it if it had not
been the support of this committee that got us those kits that
upgraded those airplanes, so thank you very much.
Senator Cochran. That's interesting to know, and we
appreciate your advice and counsel on these issues.
General Helmly, I know that there's already been some
discussion today about whether some units ought to be active
duty or whether they should be reservists, but some I know,
medical support, civil affairs, have had more than the usual
amount of activation and active duty experience. Is this going
to cause disruption that's a problem for Army reservists? Are
you going to have a proposal to make about maybe transferring
these responsibilities to active duty units, because these
people have been in a perpetual state of activation, many of
them, and what's your reaction to that?
General Helmly. Senator, a couple of facts I'd like to
cite, if I may, regarding this issue on the table of overuse.
The first caution is that use is much different than abuse, and
in a volunteer force one can go to the abuse side with an
active force also, and we should be cautious of that. Admiral
Totushek in his opening remarks cautioned similarly. I would
say that there's concern on all of our parts here. I certainly
speak for myself.
The solutions put forth to date are too simple. What we'll
do is, either we'll grow the end strength of the active
component, or we'll transfer missions to the active component,
which implies some sort of tradeoff. You transfer Civil
Affairs, some number from the Army Reserve to the active
component, and then in turn we pick up some other mission.
I do not concur with those. There were two primary
ingredients that went into the Abrams doctrine, and some have
described that doctrine as outdated. I would not go down that
road so quickly. One was political. That's the one often
alluded to, and that was the desire on the part of General
Abrams to ensure that we never send the Army to war again
without the support of the American people, certainly a valid
requirement.
But the other one was more pragmatic and business-like, and
that was a recognition that in certain skill sets it is, in
fact, more cost-effective to put those into the Reserve. We in
the Army Reserve are quite proud of our record in such areas as
medical support, civil affairs. The issue that we have on the
table is that we are structured wrong. We do not have
sufficient depth in those capabilities. General Schultz in the
last panel spoke to the issue of military police. The reason we
have high-demand, low-density units is that we made a conscious
decision to make them at a density level which now proves too
low.
We are involved and have put forth to the Army leadership
what some would call a radical, I would call it a measured,
practical, but still very strong transformation plan which
proposes to reduce our structure in some cases, units that we
have had little requirement for, and in turn to stand up
additional civil affairs capability, medical capability,
transportation, military police, a couple of other specialties
that are in the high demand area that we believe we can
maintain equally effective and at reduced cost within the Army
Reserve as opposed to transforming to the Active Component.
We did have in the past year about 6,000 spaces, 6,000
soldier positions, authorizations in the active component that
increased in the combat support, service support area. In turn,
we in the Army Reserve adjusted slightly by picking up in those
high demand areas about 13,000 more authorizations. It's our
proposal to go much deeper over the next 3 to 5 years.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Stevens. We thank you all, gentlemen, and you've
got sort of think tanks. I'd urge you to just think about
retention incentives and give us some ideas. We're perfectly
willing to give you some authority to have pilot projects to
try to initiate some changes and test them outright during this
period. This would be a good test period on a lot of ideas that
might lead us to further retention.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General James R. Helmly
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
ARMY RESERVE TRANSFORMATION
Question. General Helmly, in the fall of 2000, the Chief of Staff
of the Army announced a far reaching initiative to transform the Army's
combat units and the systems the Army would field to support those
units. Could you comment on the progress the Army Reserve has made in
transforming itself over the past three years?
Answer. Sir, the Army Reserve is transforming as the Army
transforms and we will play a crucial role as the Army fields the
Objective Force. Transformation is not new to the Army Reserve. We have
essentially transformed ourselves since the end of the Cold War, when
we reduced and restructured our force to a smaller, more efficient
infrastructure with a greater focus on our core competencies of combat
support and combat service support. We have continually improved on
this force structure to enhance accessibility to our invaluable
capabilities for the Army to achieve a seamless integration of the Army
Reserve with the active component. The Army Reserve is pursuing six
imperatives to accomplish transformation. First, we are re-engineering
the mobilization process to remove impediments between the time
competent legal authority authorizes mobilization and the time soldiers
arrive at the place they are needed. Second, we will transform Army
Reserve command and control to focus on soldier readiness, unit
readiness, and shortened mobilization timelines. Third, we are
resourcing a smaller more focused, high demand, and capable force
manned and organized at Level One of Authorized Level of Organization.
A resourced Trainee, Transient, Holdee, and Student account will be a
critical enabler to reach this transformational end state. Fourth, we
will implement Human Resources Life Cycle Management of Army Reserve
soldiers that ensures ``once a soldier, always a soldier'' is a
statement of fact, not a desire. Fifth, we are building a rotational
base in our force that will facilitate Army Reserve engagement in a
wide variety of Army operations. This provides our units with
operational experience, and provides operational tempo relief for the
active Army. It also imparts a sense of predictability for our soldiers
and evens out the work load across the force. Finally, we are re-
engineering the individual capability that the Army Reserve provides to
the Army, built to meet real-world combatant commander requirements as
validated in the World-Wide Individual Augmentation System.
Question. Of those initiatives, which do you feel are most
important to maintaining the momentum for change?
Answer. Sustaining the momentum for change is a very important
element of our effort to transform the Army Reserve. The Objective
Force of the Army will bring greater capabilities for the nation in its
mission to fight and win our nation's wars. Our six imperatives of Army
Reserve Transformation will ensure the Army Reserve remains capable of
supporting the Objective Force when it is fielded. As such, these
imperatives are functionally interrelated and mutually supporting. Any
one imperative may generate some positive effect; however, all
imperatives will be necessary for Army Reserve Transformation to be
able to produce ready soldiers, ready units, shortened deployment
timelines, and reduced costs. As I have said, this is a complete
package. While certain aspects of it, such as Human Resources Life-
Cycle Management and maintenance of a Trainee, Transient, Holdee, and
Student account are new functions that will require resources to
perform, significant savings will be generated in other areas. These
include force structure adjustments that will balance the force for
future operational requirements and reduce base operations and
equipment costs. A smaller, more focused peacetime command and control
structure will generate efficiencies. Finally, Army Reserve
Transformation will produce a ready force organized at Level One of
Authorized Level of Organization. This force will be readily deployable
without extensive cross leveling, post mobilization training,
validation, or equipment purchases, prior to deployment.
RECONSTITUTION OF ARMY RESERVE FORCES
Question. General Helmly, today, we have a large number of forces
forward deployed while we simultaneously pursue elements of terror at
home and globally. Do you believe we will be able to reconstitute our
Army Reserve forces in an orderly manner for a sustained war against
terror while meeting our many other commitments around the globe?
Answer. Reconstitution is an ongoing activity. Recently the
reconstitution of Army Reserve forces has become increasingly difficult
due to the continued growth of our enduring commitments. Some of our
mobilized units have been re-missioned to ensure that those commitments
can be met. As units demobilize, commanders are tasked with keeping
their soldiers trained and prepared for future missions while
sustaining high morale and retention. The existence of high demand/low
density requirements exclusive to our war against terror, countered by
portions of our force that are rarely used, confirms that we need to be
able to build the right force to accomplish our changing mission. One
of our Transformation Imperatives is to build a Rotational Force within
the Army Reserve, which will add depth to those capabilities which are
subjected to heavy use.
ARMY RESERVE'S ROLE IN REBUILDING OF IRAQ
Question. As our troops take on the responsibility for shoring up
security and starting the rebuilding process in Iraq, what do you see
as the Army Reserve's role within that mission?
Answer. The Army Reserve will have a major role in the rebuilding
of Iraq. We have the right mix of Combat Support/Combat Service Support
units that would allow us for example to be tapped for construction,
fresh water, and medical support. The Army Reserve has the capability
to provide significant amounts and types of forces required in nation
building efforts. The critical operational capabilities that reside at
a 75 percent level or more in the Army Reserve include Civil Affairs at
97 percent, Public Affairs at 82 percent, Personnel Services at 87
percent, Supply Operations at 76 percent, Psychological Operations at
83 percent, and Chemical at 75 percent.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMS IN FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST
Question. What are your key Transformation programs in the 2004
budget request?
Answer. The Army Reserve has no key Transformation programs
identified in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. The Federal Reserve
Restructuring Initiative (FRRI), which is a key structure decision that
supports the Army Reserve Transformation and includes the reduction of
theater support requirements, incorporation of a Trainee, Transient,
Holdee and Student account, and redesign of Army Reserve Command and
Control, was accepted as an Army Transformation initiative and endorsed
by senior Army leadership. The initial start up costs in fiscal year
2004 for FRRI actions can be accomplished within our requested
Operations and Maintenance funding. Building rotational depth in our
force that facilitates Army Reserve engagement in a wide variety of
Army operations is critical to Army Reserve force development. This
operational depth provides our units with operational experience,
OPTEMPO relief for the active Army, imparts a sense of predictability
for our soldiers, and evens out the workload across the force. The Army
Reserve experience in current operations has validated the FRRI
imperatives of re-engineering the mobilization process and demonstrated
the need for structural and individual adjustments that we knew had to
be made. The Army is not a static organization. All components are
interconnected; therefore, any change to one component impacts the
entire Service.
MOBILIZATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST
Question. How has mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom
influenced next year's budget request?
Answer. Since the length of the current mobilization is not known,
the impact on the fiscal year 2004 budget request cannot be determined
at this time. Although lengthy mobilizations can create under execution
in the personnel appropriations, any perceived savings often fail to
materialize in a period in which the Army is both mobilizing and de-
mobilizing Army Reserve soldiers. Additional requirements may be driven
by de-mobilization and the re-constitution of equipment and by
additional pre-mobilization training requirements. Depending on the
speed of de-mobilization and the status of equipment that needs to be
re-constituted, the Army Reserve may require additional transfer
authority between appropriations or additional funding in fiscal year
2004.
LESSONS LEARNED FROM MOST RECENT MOBILIZATION
Question. What lessons have you learned from the most recent
mobilization and how can you improve the process for next time?
Answer. Lessons learned from our most recent mobilization are being
addressed internally and are being incorporated in the transformation
of the Army Reserve. The mobilization process needs to be reengineered.
We must adopt new doctrine and legislation to streamline and automate
the mobilization process, which is currently time-intensive, paper-
based, and multi-layered. We need to improve the mobilization process
to enable flexible, rapid response when necessary, while protecting the
rights and lives of Reserve soldiers. Our current force structure must
be redesigned to meet a global asymmetrical threat versus any defined
adversary. There must be rigor in our decision making process to ensure
that support assets required for large mobilizations are established
prior to units flowing into the Area of Responsibility.
TRICARE HEALTH COVERAGE
Question. What are your thoughts on extending TRICARE health
coverage to members and families of the Reserve on a cost-share basis?
Answer. For those who are self-employed or lack adequate civilian-
employer provided medical insurance, the availability of such coverage
would be a welcome benefit. The immediate benefit would be offset
somewhat, however, by the actual cost to the member--those who
typically lack medical insurance are also least likely to be able to
afford premium payments--and by the relative inaccessibility of the
Military Health System to Reserve Component members. For example, only
20.5 percent of the Reserve soldiers live within an Army catchment
area. The vast majority would not reap the full benefit of the TRICARE
program unless it was tied to liberal access to TRICARE Remote and
TRICARE Prime Remote. Still, limited health insurance is better than
none, and I would be inclined to support this effort.
Question. Would this provide a needed service to our Reservists?
Answer. A recent survey by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense Reserve Affairs and the Defense Manpower Data Center showed
that 86 percent of Reserve soldiers with dependents have health
insurance coverage of some sort. The greatest benefit would be afforded
to the remaining 14 percent who lack medical insurance coverage.
Question. Would employers view it as an incentive to hire
Reservists?
Answer. Employers are required to offer the same level of
healthcare insurance coverage to all employees. TRICARE health coverage
would most likely be viewed in neutral terms by civilian employers.
SUPPORTING EMPLOYERS OF RESERVISTS
Question. How can you recommend we better support the employers of
our Reservists?
Answer. The Army Reserve strongly supports initiatives to reach the
employers of the over 76,000 Army Reserve personnel mobilized for
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Retaining the support of
employers is essential to the retention of quality personnel within our
force. This is even more essential given that our force is largely
built upon the civilian skills that many of our Reserve soldier bring
to their respective military positions. We are working with the
Department of the Army personnel chain to develop an effective means to
centrally collect employer information of our soldier. The Army Reserve
will continue to support initiatives to recognize employers of
mobilized personnel at both home station and as part of a greater
strategic effort aimed at retaining employer support for the Army. In
April 2003, we implemented the Army Reserve Employer Recognition
Program initiating actions to ensure every employer of a mobilized
Reserve soldier is recognized by the first General Officer in the chain
of command.
EQUIPMENT SHORTFALLS
Question. The Army Reserve has performed world-wide missions in
support of the War on Terrorism since September 12, 2001. I am
interested in knowing more about the equipment readiness of the Army
Reserve and how the deployments might impact that readiness.
Specifically, please tell me: What significant equipment shortfalls
exist in the Army Reserve?
Answer. Sir, prior to the start of mobilization for Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF), the U.S. Army Reserve had reached a level of fill for
equipment considered essential to effective performance of a unit's
mission with the appropriate authorized substitutions. Without
substitutes, the percentage of items on-hand would have dropped below
70 percent of the required equipment on hand to perform the mission.
Although authorized for substitutions, this equipment is very
maintenance intensive and expensive to sustain and in many cases
provides less capability than the required system. For example, the
Army Reserve is utilizing older 1960's technology 2.5 and 5 Ton trucks
as authorized substitutes for the more modern Family of Medium Tactical
Vehicles and the Combat Utility Commercial Vehicle instead of the High
Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle. The significant equipment
shortages that exist in the Army Reserve today include materiel
handling equipment; petroleum, oil, and lubrication and water systems
such as the 5,000 gal fuel tankers; fuel system supply points; and
forward area water points. Additionally, we are short line-haul prime
movers and tactical trailers, heavy High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled
Vehicles, high frequency radios, and night vision goggles. Although
short the above requirements, the Army Reserve was able to meet the
mission through extensive cross-leveling of equipment from non-
deploying units to those deploying units in support of OIF.
Question. How do these shortfalls impact the Army Reserve's mission
in support of the war on terrorism?
Answer. Sir, the end result was that the Army Reserve was forced to
redistribute assets internally throughout the force to meet the
requirement, both prior to and during the mobilization of units. The
original minor shortfalls were exacerbated by the increased readiness
targets for unit deployments and the additional equipment requirements
beyond normal authorizations. The change in mobilization requirements
resulted in the Army Reserve units that were not immediately mobilized
being depleted of their equipment to support the additional requirement
to fill units to 100 percent of their authorizations. As such, there
would be a significant challenge for the Army Reserve to provide
operational units for any additional contingency operations beyond OIF.
Question. What are the potential future impacts of these equipment
shortfalls?
Answer. Sir, as the Army transforms, so will the Army Reserve. Part
of our transformation objective is to assure unit readiness and
relevance, add operational depth to the Army, successfully meet
continuous contingency operations, relieve Army operational tempo, and
transform the Army Reserve to the Objective Force. As the Army Reserve
transforms and eliminates non-relevant structure, we will redistribute
equipment internally to offset current shortfalls, thus improving
equipment on-hand shortages. While the proposed force restructuring
initiatives will reduce the Army Reserves' equipment shortages, future
contingency missions will continue to be successfully met by retaining
and maintaining, for some percentage of the fleet, less modern and
capable equipment, at increasing operations and sustainment costs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
MODERNIZATION AND SUSTAINMENT CRITICAL SHORTFALLS
Question. General Helmly, the Army Reserve has been utilized
continually since 1991. The Army Reserve's operational tempo in support
of the War against Terrorism, both at home and globally, has kept a
large portion of the Army Reserve mobilized since September 11, 2001.
It appears we are asking the Army Reserve to do more and more. I'm
concerned whether we are providing these units and soldiers with the
resources to accomplish the missions our nation is asking them to
perform. For the record, could you please--state the Army Reserve's
modernization and sustainment critical shortfalls and explain the near
term and long term consequences of not funding these shortfalls.
Answer. Sir, the Army Reserve has maintained a high operational
tempo because we are a fully engaged, ready, relevant, and reliable
force supporting the nation and the Army's global war on terrorism.
Since recent world events indicate that the Army will continue to be
engaged in and support a wide variety of contingency operations,
equipment modernization and sustainment efforts must be a high priority
in order to continue to successfully meet the full spectrum of
operations. The Army Reserve must be modernized to keep pace with the
requirements of Army transformation. Some examples of modernization
shortfalls include our combat wheeled vehicle fleet of 2.5 and 5 ton
vehicles and High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs).
Additionally, we are short materiel handling equipment; petroleum, oil,
and lubrication and water systems; line-haul prime movers; night vision
goggles; communication equipment; and the heavy HMMWVs for our
frequently deployed Military Police units.
The near term consequences are the reliance on limited overhaul and
rebuild programs to sustain older less modern equipment. Additionally,
extensive internal cross-leveling is necessary to fill shortages to 100
percent of the requirement for mobilizing and deploying Army Reserve
forces. The extensive cross-leveling of equipment from mobilizing to
non-mobilizing units poses unique challenges to equipment on hand
readiness levels.
The long term consequences are increased maintenance and
operational costs as equipment exceeds its economical useful life and
eventually some degree of incompatibility with the Active Army forces.
This incompatibility is a result of the Army Reserve having older less
modern equipment that creates a host of maintenance and compatibility
challenges to include Army training programs for mechanics and
operators, the establishment of separate repair parts inventories, and
special tools and test equipment unique to each equipment model.
______
Questions Submitted to Vice Admiral John B. Totushek
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
REDESIGN OF THE NAVAL RESERVE
Question. We understand Navy is involved in an initiative to
redesign the Naval Reserve. What changes do you anticipate will be made
to force structure, missions and roles, and end strength?
Answer. The Navy continuously reviews how to achieve greater
capability from its budget, and redesign of the Naval Reserve is the
subject of much review as part of this process. The final outcome of
these studies is yet to be determined so identification of future force
structure changes, other than those cuts proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2004 budget, would be pre-decisional. The Naval Reserve
provides a low-cost means to preserve capability and recapture training
and knowledge investments. My expectation is that Navy will continue to
leverage these investments as we identify ways to maximize the Naval
Reserve's contribution to the country's future war-fighting force.
RECAPITALIZATION OF THE NAVAL RESERVE
Question. What is your plan to recapitalize your Naval Reserve
force with reduced NG&REA funding levels?
Answer. The $10 million of NG&REA appropriated during each of the
past two fiscal years was used to fund critically needed equipment and
upgrades. During this same period there was limited funding provided in
Navy's APN and OPN accounts to upgrade Naval Reserve aircraft and
surface craft to fleet equivalent mission capabilities. The President's
Budget for fiscal year 2004 reflects an upturn in new equipment funding
using APN (C-40 Logistics Aircraft, F-5 replacements, MH-60s and C130T
Avionics Modernization Program), but there remains a sizeable
requirement to upgrade or replace aging Naval Reserve equipment. Until
sufficient funds are identified in the Navy's procurement
appropriations, Naval Reserve equipment will continue to be replaced by
equipment transferred from the active force.
Question. What equipment investments has Navy made into the Naval
Reserve in the fiscal year 2004 budget request?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request contains the following
equipment investments for the Naval Reserve:
--Procurement of one C-40A aircraft to replace aging Naval Reserve
DC-9 aircraft. ($64 million)
--Funding commences on an Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) to
upgrade 18 Naval Reserve C-130T aircraft. The total AMP
requirement is $122 million. This is the initial funding for
these upgrades currently scheduled to be complete in fiscal
year 2013. ($3.3 million)
--Funding to upgrade Naval Reserve cargo aircraft (C-9B, DC-9, UC-
12B, C-37A, C-40A) to meet CNS/ATM mandated requirements. This
is a multiyear program with fiscal year 2004 being the initial
funding received to perform the upgrades. ($4.3 million)
--Procurement of 32 Swiss F-5 aircraft to replace 32 Naval Reserve
and Marine Corps Reserve F-5E aircraft. ($4.7 million)
--Funding to procure small boats, table of allowance equipment and
upgrade Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare surveillance equipment.
($45.6 million)
--Funding to procure table of allowance construction and
communication equipment for reserve Naval Construction Force
units. ($10.5 million)
Question. What are the top five Naval Reserve equipment unfunded
items for fiscal year 2004?
Answer. Our top five unfunded items for fiscal year 2004 are:
--Procurement of two additional C-40A aircraft to replace aging DC-9
aircraft. ($131.0 million)
--Funding to upgrade two Littoral Surveillance Systems. ($19.2
million)
--Procurement of remaining equipment to fill out 10,000 CBR-D sets
including storage and phased replacement. ($8.0 million)
--Procurement of two P-3C AIP kits in order to achieve commonality/
compatibility with Active P-3C UD III Squadrons. ($28.8
million)
--Upgrade third (of three) Naval Reserve VFA squadrons (F/A-18A) with
precision-guided munitions capability and procure Advanced
Targeting Forward Looking Infrared Radar for three Naval
Reserve VFA squadrons. ($52.8 million)
LITTORAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (LSS)
Question. The Navy's Littoral Surveillance System (LSS) and Navy
Patrol Craft are critical assets we need in Homeland Security. Have you
considered assigning these assets a Homeland Security mission? If not,
why not?
Answer. The Naval Reserve is currently investigating a potential
role for the Littoral Surveillance System (LSS) in Homeland Security.
Plans are being discussed for LSS participation in two Naval Reserve/
Coast Guard Joint Harbor Operations Centers. The Naval Reserve's two
LSS systems, being developed and funded from 1999 through 2003, may be
used to further expand this systems capability in the Homeland Security
mission.
The Navy will transfer five Patrol Craft (PC) to the Coast Guard in
fiscal year 2004. The Coast Guard has been using PC's for Homeland
Security missions since the September 11th attacks and will continue to
do so. Plans for the remaining eight PC's are undecided at this time.
NAVAL RESERVE EQUIPMENT LIST
Question. We understand Navy is considering drastically altering
the equipment list for Naval Reserve units. If this is true, how
extensive are the cuts and what will the impact be on readiness and the
Navy's ability to access its Reserve force?
Answer. The Navy continuously seeks to balance resources and
requirements in order to maximize war-fighting wholeness within
realistic fiscal restraints. Options to expand integration of Active
and Reserve forces are under review; however, identification of
potential force structure changes, beyond those proposed in the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget, if any, would be pre-decisional.
PB04 makes a significant effort to maximize DON total force
warfighting wholeness. The Secretary of Defense identified TacAir
Integration as the model transformational program. Leveraging the
synergy of a better integrated Navy and Marine Corps Aviation team
provides a readier, more surge-capable, and affordable force.
Additionally, the PB04 decommissioning of selected E-2 and P-3 reserve
squadrons will provide resources necessary for transformation,
integration, and recapitalization. The SecDef Counter Drug (CD) Execute
Order has reduced the annual requirements for deployed E-2 coverage.
The resultant reduction in force structure meets this new E-2 CD
commitment. For P-3s, PB04 transitions two Reserve squadrons to
augmentation units. Three additional Reserve P-3 squadrons will
transition within the FYDP. This migration of reserve units to
augmentation units allows for tighter integration between reserve and
active forces, facilitates enhanced interoperability, and keeps
reservists in the most modern weapons systems.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
RESERVE HEALTH CARE
Question. What are your key Transformation programs in the 2004
budget?
Answer. The Naval Reserve's overall role in the Transformation of
the Department of Defense focuses on the continuing process of
integrating the Naval Reserve with the Active Component. Several
ongoing studies are addressing the changing role of the Naval Reserve
in a transforming Navy and Department of Defense.
Internally, the Naval Reserve is defining its appropriate role in
Homeland Security (HLS), and is actively engaged with Northern Command
in the identification of potential requirements. The fielding of the
Littoral Surveillance System, for example, will help meet today's
threat, contribute to the NORTHCOM mission, and efficiently utilize
unique Naval Reserve capabilities. Although these transformational
initiatives have not yet progressed to the point of resulting in
programmatic changes in the fiscal year 2004 budget, it is anticipated
that future budget submissions will reflect increased emphasis on the
Littoral Surveillance System and HLS in general, as well as supporting
the continued integration of the Naval Reserve with the Active
Component.
IMPACT OF MOBILIZATION ON BUDGET REQUEST
Question. How has mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom
influenced next year's budget request?
Answer. The current goal is to reduce Navy Reserve personnel
mobilized from nearly 12,000 to 3,000 (3.4 percent) by the end of
fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 2004 mobilization end state is
projected to be zero. In the fiscal year 2004 budget the Reserve
participation rates have been adjusted slightly to compensate for
remaining ``demobilization'' from 3,000 to 0, and is therefore
considered to have no budgetary impact.
In fiscal year 2004, the O&MNR appropriation is currently priced
for peacetime operations. Any increase in operating tempo due to
further conflict would have to be addressed with supplemental funding.
From an aviation depot maintenance point of view, it has yet to be
determined if any reconstitution costs resulting from increased
operating tempo in OIF are required. The aviation depot maintenance
budget is currently priced for peacetime operations. Any necessary
reconstitution of airframes or engines work would require supplemental
funding.
RESERVE MOBILIZATION LESSONS LEARNED
Question. What lessons have you learned from the most recent
mobilization and how can you improve the process for next time?
Answer. The Navy is continuously reviewing the processes and
progress of our mobilization efforts since September 2001,
incorporating several improvements along the way. The Navy headquarters
staff was inadequately organized to properly prioritize mobilization
requirements and orchestrate the mobilization process. Within days, the
Navy created the OPNAV Mobilization Cell to serve as a single
submission point for all Navy mobilization requests. The Mobilization
Cell is now the single-point of contact for all Navy decisions on
mobilization and demobilization sourcing priorities.
Additionally, Navy learned early on that it needed a single, web-
based ADP program for tracking and processing mobilization
requirements. Within a remarkably quick two-month period, a modified
version of the pre-existing Marine Corps Mobilization Processing System
(MCMPS) was fielded as the Navy MCMPS (NMCMPS). NMCMPS provides a web-
based medium, accessible worldwide, that allows Naval Reserve
Activities and Navy Mobilization Processing Sites to update the status
of mobilizing Reservists. It also provides gaining Commands and Navy
leadership the ability to track the Reservist's status. NMCMPS also
consolidates all Navy mobilization order writing at Navy Personnel
Command, a task previously executed by over 140 individual Naval
Reserve Activities. This consolidation of mobilization (and
demobilization) orders writing has eliminated all of the administrative
errors experienced when orders were written by individual Commands.
There is a third part to NMCMPS that is not yet operational. Navy is
working to field a secure, classified part of NMCMPS for the submission
and review of mobilization requirements. When this is complete,
Combatant and Service Component Commanders will be able to view the
status of their Navy requirements from generation and submission,
through the Navy Headquarters review process, to the selection and in-
processing of Reservists, all the way to their actual arrival at
gaining Commands via an automated real-time web-based application. Navy
is working to incorporate the full functionality of NMCMPS in the
Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS).
Just as the OPNAV Mobilization Cell provides a single point of
contact Commands to submit and staff Navy mobilization requirements,
Navy realizes the immense importance of having a single organization to
serve as an advocate for our mobilized Reservists. In April of 2002,
the Navy created the Noble Eagle Sailor Advocacy (NESA) Office at the
Navy Personnel Command to aid in ensuring a positive mobilization
experience for our mobilized Reservists. In particular, a foremost
tenet of the NESA team is to pay special attention to those Reservists
who are experiencing genuine hardships as a result of early
demobilization, or other problems, and forwarding those issues up the
chain of command for individual mitigation. Since its creation, NESA
has evolved into a program that not only helps mobilized Reservists
with hardship issues, but also closely emulates many detailing
functions found within the active duty Navy and its Project SAIL
(Sailor Advocacy through Interactive Leadership) program, including
contacting every mobilized Reservist prior to the end of their orders
to discuss their desires and ensure they understand the options
available to them.
Many of the same concerns that led to the creation of NESA reaffirm
the importance of continuous, open, and clear communication with our
Reservists. Throughout the current mobilization, we have maintained
communication through such means as messages and public affairs
publications, town hall meetings, and leadership visits with our
mobilized forces.
As we demobilize over 12,000 Naval Reservists currently serving in
support of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and Noble Eagle,
Navy is focusing on performing formal assessments of the conduct of
Operation Iraqi Freedom, including the mobilization process. We will
undoubtedly find many more ways to improve our mobilization process
during these assessments, and look forward to sharing those with the
Congress once the assessments are completed.
RESERVE HEALTH CARE
Question. What are your thoughts on extending TRICARE health care
coverage to members and families of the Reserve on a cost-share basis?
Answer. Approximately 80 percent of Reservists have health
insurance coverage when not on active duty as reported in the GAO
Report, GAO-02-829, ``Defense Health Care: Most Reservists Have
Civilian Health Coverage But More Assistance Needed When TRICARE is
Used'', dated September 6, 2002. This coverage is through employer-
sponsored programs or spouse's employer health plans. This report found
of that 80 percent, 90 percent maintained their civilian coverage when
deployed. The GAO report (GAO-03-549T), ``Military Personnel:
Preliminary Observations Related to Income, Benefits, and Employer
Support for Reservists During Mobilizations'' reiterates that most
reservists maintain their own healthcare coverage when mobilized.
In addition, 70 percent of Reservists and their families live
outside of Military Treatment Facility catchment areas and cannot take
advantage of the assistance and array of services found near military
treatment facilities (MTFs). These families must rely on the limited
TRICARE network of providers for support.
The GAO report also estimates that any TRICARE healthcare program
providing continuous TRICARE coverage for reservists and their
dependents during the entire enlistment period--regardless of
reservists' mobilization status--with benefits similar to those for
active duty will cost DOD about $10.4 billion. This estimate assumes
that the current number of DOD MTFs remains constant in services and
providers, which is unlikely based on BRAC and manpower adjustments.
This cost would escalate with the increased number of active duty and
reserve members in need of care through the TRICARE network.
Question. Would this provide a needed service to our Reservists?
Answer. No. It would only serve an extremely small percentage of
Reservists. The precedence for opposition to this proposal lies with
the TRICARE Dental Program (TDP). Selected Reservists and/or their
family members can participate in the TDP. As of May 2003, only 7.8
percent of Naval Reservists are enrolled in the TDP plan.
Question. Would employers view it as an incentive to hire
Reservists?
Answer. This question would be best answered by the National
Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (NESGR), but
the impact of employees with other health insurance may be dependent
upon their company's benefits. It may negatively impact small business
owners by reducing the number of eligible employees for a plan size and
increasing plan costs. Larger corporations might not be similarly
impacted.
RESERVE EMPLOYER SUPPORT
Question. How can you recommend we better support the employers of
our Reservists?
Answer. The best support to the employers of our Reservists is to
ensure we have an active Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve
(ESGR) organization. We must continue supporting ESGR's efforts to
educate employers on their rights and responsibilities, as well as
those of the employed Reservists. Navy believes Congress provides
sufficient authority in Title 10 to enable the Services to obtain the
employer data the ESGR needs to provide improved support to employers
through their Civilian Employment Information (CEI) Program.
Additionally, Navy is implementing lessons learned in the
mobilization and demobilization of our Naval Reservists. This allows
the Reservists more time to prepare for a ``career transition,'' and
provides earlier notification to their employers. DOD policy is to
notify Reservists whenever possible at least 30 days prior to their
mobilization. While we cannot always provide this much advance
notification due to operational concerns, it is essential that every
effort be made to meet or exceed DOD's policy.
RESERVE EQUIPMENT
Question. The Navy Reserve has performed worldwide missions in
support of the War on Terrorism since September 12, 2001. I am
interested in knowing more about the equipment readiness of the Navy
Reserve and how the deployments might impact that readiness.
Specifically, please tell me:
What significant equipment shortfalls exist in the Navy Reserve?
Answer. The Naval Reserve is short the following equipment:
Airlift, C-40A Transport Aircraft, Qty short--8, Unit Cost $65
million. This aircraft replaces aging C-9 aircraft.
Individual Protective Equipment, Qty short--30,000, Unit Cost
$1,000.
P-3C Aircraft-BMUP Kits to achieve commonality with Active P-3C UD
III Aircraft, Qty short--13, Unit Cost $9 million.
P-3C Aircraft-AIP Kits to improve ASW capability, enhance weapons
suite, improve target sensing, and achieve commonality with Active P-3
Aircraft; Qty short--12; Unit Cost $14.4 million.
Naval Coastal Warfare Table of Allowance equipment and small boats
for a total cost of $45 million.
F/A-18 Aircraft Modification (ECP 560) to provide precision
munitions capability, Qty short--12, Unit Cost $3.5 million.
F/A-18 Aircraft Modification (Advanced Targeting Forward Looking
Infrared Kits) to provide precision guided munitions capability, Qty
short--16, Unit Cost $2.5 million.
F-5 Aircraft Radar Upgrade to better simulate enemy aircraft. Qty
short--36, Unit Cost $360,000.
P-3C Counter Drug Upgrades to provide day and night electro-optic
capability, Qty short--13, Unit Cost $1.5 million.
SH-60B Helicopter Forward Looking Infrared Kits to improve
surveillance capability, Qty short--5, Unit Cost $1.4 million.
Question. How do these shortfalls impact the Navy Reserve's mission
in support of the war on terrorism?
Answer. The Naval Reserve supports the overall mission of the Navy,
which is, ``Be prepared to conduct prompt and sustained combat
operations at sea in support of U.S. national interests'', which
naturally includes any missions in the Global War on Terrorism.
The following equipment enhancements could all be, at some time,
used by the Naval Reserve to support Navy Global War on Terrorism
missions;
Airlift, C-40A Transport Aircraft, Qty short--8, Unit Cost $65
million. This aircraft replaces aging C-9 aircraft.
Individual Protective Equipment, Qty short--30,000, Unit Cost
$1,000.
P-3C Aircraft-BMUP Kits to achieve commonality with Active P-3C UD
III Aircraft, Qty short--13, Unit Cost $9 million.
P-3C Aircraft-AIP Kits to improve ASW capability, enhance weapons
suite, improve target sensing, and achieve commonality with Active P-3
Aircraft; Qty short--12; Unit Cost $14.4 million.
Naval Coastal Warfare Table of Allowance equipment and small boats
for a total cost of $45 million.
F/A-18 Aircraft Modification (ECP 560) to provide precision
munitions capability, Qty short--12, Unit Cost $3.5 million.
F/A-18 Aircraft Modification (Advanced Targeting Forward Looking
Infrared Kits) to provide precision guided munitions capability, Qty
short--16, Unit Cost $2.5 million.
F-5 Aircraft Radar Upgrade to better simulate enemy aircraft. Qty
short--36, Unit Cost $360,000.
SH-60B Helicopter Forward Looking Infrared Kits to improve
surveillance capability, Qty short--5, Unit Cost $1.4 million.
Question. What are the potential future impacts of these equipment
shortfalls?
Answer. Naval strategy identifies the need for the integration of
the Active and Reserve components into a seamless and cohesive Total
Force capable of meeting all operational requirements in peacetime and
in war. These shortfalls impact the ability of the Reserves to maintain
compatibility and relevance with the Active Navy's mission
accomplishments.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Dennis M. McCarthy
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
TRANSFORMATION
Question. What are your key transformation programs in the 2004
budget request?
Answer. The Marine Corps' transformation is broken down into
several categories: technological, organizational, operational and
acquisition policies and procedures. Currently, we are investing
approximately $1.5 billion per year in transformational initiatives, to
include our top ground and aviation investment programs--the
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (formerly referred to as the Advanced
Amphibious Assault Vehicle) and the MV-22.
Within the above listed categories, three investment areas warrant
mention as priority and material enablers to transformation. First, Sea
Viking 2004 (SV04) represents the main experimentation effort designed
to support decisions and strategies for 2015 transformational goals.
SV04 will examine Seabasing and Operational Maneuver from the Sea
(OMFTS) within a joint context and will provide the conceptual
foundation for Naval transformation. Second, an On the Move Combat
Operations Center (OTM COC) capability will feature Over the Horizon
Communications (OTH Comm), an iridium-based voice and data tactical
communication system, and Position Location Information (PLI)
imperative for future combat operations. Third, initiation of a
synergistic land counter-mine capability. This capability will provide
both near term Marine Expeditionary Unit capability sets, as well as
science and technology investment in the areas of advanced signature
duplication, family of tailored explosives systems and light-weight
mechanical breaching systems. Fourth, our fiscal year 2004 program will
include the first dedicated funding for Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV)
experimentation. JHSV will have a pervasive transformational impact by
providing exponential capability improvements in support of
expeditionary maneuver warfare. Finally, in fiscal year 2004, Marine
Corps Science & Technology resources will be used to validate the
designs and concepts of the first three categories.
Both our Active and Reserve forces will benefit from these
transformation initiatives to confront future conflicts as we have in
the past, as a Total Force. Our Selected Marine Corps Reserve units are
structured and trained based on the Marine Air Ground Task Force model
and are ready to augment the Active component with personnel and
equipment whenever the need arises.
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM MOBILIZATION
Question. How has mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom
influenced next year's budget request?
Answer. Next year's budget request was already submitted before
mobilization of forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom. A request for
funding of mobilization costs was submitted with the request for fiscal
year 2003 Supplemental Funding. Most of the mobilization cost has been
covered with funds received from the fiscal year 2003 Supplemental;
however, because forces are still mobilized, requirements have not been
fully assessed. It is premature to budget for such costs until they
have been completely assessed. Our unfunded fiscal year 2004 costs will
be addressed in a supplemental budget request in fiscal year 2004.
LESSONS LEARNED
Question. What lessons have you learned from the most recent
mobilization and how can you improve the process for the next time?
Answer. The Marine Corps Reserve was able to successfully mobilize
and provide trained war fighters to combatant commanders on a timeline
that rivals that of active duty units. 24,221 Reserve Marines were
activated and approximately 74 percent were forward deployed to the
CENTCOM area of responsibility. Most mobilization plans proved sound
and were properly executed by all levels of command.
In addition to the joint lessons learned effort, the Commandant of
the Marine Corps tasked the Enduring Freedom Combat Assessment Team
Reserve (EFCAT-R) to perform a detailed study of the Reserve
experience. The EFCAT-R team surveyed over 4,000 active and reserve
component Marines to produce a valuable report. Commander of Marine
Forces Reserve (MARFORRES) established a MARFORRES Mobilization
Assessment Team (MMAT). Several key areas require early action.
Security Clearances
Many Reservists reported to the Gaining Force Command (GFC) without
current security clearances. The primary cause was a shortage of field
grade Officers with Top Secret (Special Compartmentalized Information)
clearances throughout the Reserves and especially in the Individual
Ready Reserve.
A meaningful improvement will require both organizational changes
and a significant increase in funding for background investigations.
Program Nine Activation
The Navy mobilization process for medical and chaplain personnel
does not fully support Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR) unit
deployment. Navy personnel in support of SMCR units are mobilized
separately from the Marine unit and take longer to reach the GFC. For
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, most SMCR units
took 7-9 days from notification until they reported to the GFC. The
typical Navy corpsman or chaplain required over 22 days from
notification to arrival at the GFC.
The solution is to ``integrate'' Navy personnel into SMCR units for
mobilization purposes Navy and Marine personnel in each SMCR unit would
mobilize together and travel jointly to the GFC. We are working
cooperatively with Commander Naval Reserve Force and may make joint
requests for support to implement this important initiative.
Table of Equipment/Allowance
To reduce the maintenance burden, reserve units have only a portion
of their combat equipment at their Reserve Centers. Upon mobilization,
the units expect to receive the additional needed equipment from a
variety of sources including Logistics Command (LOGCOM), Remain Behind
Equipment (RBE), and the GFC. Obtaining this additional equipment not
only caused significant confusion but also only a portion of the
additional equipment was obtained in a timely manner. Similar problems
were experienced during Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
To increase the efficiency of equipment sourcing, equipment
reporting accuracy will be improved and Reserve-specific logistics
planning will be incorporated into the deliberate planning process. A
revised Force policy on internal redistribution of equipment by major
subordinate commands will be published. Although this may increase our
transportation of things costs, it will better position our equipment
for future mobilizations. In order to ensure that sufficient amounts of
communication and other ``high value-low density'' equipment are
available upon mobilization, the Single Site Storage Facility (SSSF)
program may be expanded.
Personal Recovery/Mortuary Affairs
The mission of a mortuary affairs unit is to respectfully recover,
preserve, tentatively identify, and return all remains to the country
of origin. Unlike the Army, a Marine mortuary affairs unit functions at
the tactical level, occasionally performing its duties on the
battlefield. In addition, this unit provides the necessary link between
the Marine component and theater agencies responsible for evacuation of
remains to CONUS. However, Marine Mortuary Affairs currently lack a
doctrine consistent with its utilization in both Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Desert Storm. As a result, units are inappropriately
organized, trained, and equipped to support the Marine combatant
commander in a joint environment.
We plan a revision of the unit organization, manning, and the
acquisition of additional equipment.
Key Volunteer Program
The information flow from deployed units to Marine families at home
is greatly enhanced by an active and engaged Key Volunteer Network
(KVN), an official Marine Corps program. Since the KVN program only has
a small operating budget, it is very dependent on the enthusiasm of
individual volunteers. As there are 187 separate Reserve centers
throughout the United States, Marine Forces Reserve must fight the
``tyranny of distance'' as it tries to build a close-knit Key Volunteer
organization. Information flows are further complicated upon
activation. While a Reserve unit may smoothly join the GFC, it is
difficult to merge the Reserve and Active Key Volunteer Networks. As a
result, families of Reservists find it more difficult to obtain
authoritative answers to questions and concerns.
Making the successful ``MCCS One Source'' experiment (sponsored by
Office of the Secretary of Defense) a permanent program will be
recommended. We anticipate working with the National Guard and other
Reserve components to develop a system of joint Family Service Centers
nationwide.
Accountability Protocol
The active and reserve components of the Marine Corps maintain
separate computer systems for tracking personnel. In order to bridge
this difference, MARFORRES units were forced to improvise by creating
locally generated computer spread sheets. Navy personnel were tracked
using a third system.
We will recommend continuing improvements to the current, Manpower
Management systems.
TRICARE BENEFITS EXTENSION
Question. What are your thoughts on extending TRICARE health care
coverage to members and families of the Reserve on a cost-share basis?
Would this provide a needed service to our Reservists? Would employers
view it as an incentive to hire Reservists?
Answer. I encourage the continued exploration of TRICARE health
coverage alternatives for Reserve Marines, and studying the
effectiveness implementation might have on both the reserve component
and active component retention. My personal sense is that it would not
be a disincentive for active duty retention. Providing such coverage is
not duplicative to private insurance coverage as much as an
alternative. The challenges associated with implementation--cost,
administration of the program, (the mechanisms for enrollment, billing,
premium payment, reimbursements, etc.) are considerable; however, this
alternative would provide a vital service for our Reserve Marines and
would be viewed as an employer incentive to hire Reserve Marines.
SUPPORT FOR EMPLOYERS OF RESERVISTS
Question. How can you recommend that we better support the
employers of our reservists?
Answer. Thanks to the good work of the Employer Support to the
Guard and Reserve (ESGR) and our concerted partnership with them in the
time since Desert Shield/Desert Storm, we have made significant strides
in better supporting our nation's employers when our Reserve Marines
are called to active duty. But, there is work yet to do. We should: (1)
provide employers with tax incentives for supporting Reserve Marines,
(2) develop business insurance options for small business owners/
employers and self-employed Marines, (3) subsidize companies that
maintain health care coverage on the family members of activated
Reserve Marines, and (4) continue to explore avenues through which
TRICARE could contribute to medical insurance for Reserve Marines,
including periods of activation and when not activated.
RESERVE EQUIPMENT SHORTFALLS
Question. The Marine Corps Reserve has performed worldwide missions
in support of the War on Terrorism since September 11th, 2001. I am
interested in knowing more about the equipment readiness of the Marine
Reserve and how the deployments might impact that readiness.
What significant equipment shortfalls exist in the Marine Reserve?
Answer. I am not aware of any significant legacy equipment
shortfalls. However, the program manager for infantry weapons has
projected significant new acquisition system shortfalls. Systems
impacted are:
1. AN-PVS-17 B & C.--The AN/PVS-17B night vision device provides
2.25 system magnification and is designed to be used with the M16A2
rifle. The AN/PVS-17C provides 4.5 system magnification and is designed
to be used with the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon and M240G Medium
Machine Gun. The systems are designed to provide high performance
observation, quick man sized target acquisition, and aiming
capabilities during night operations. Projected shortfalls: AN/PVS-17B.
Qty: 1,037. AN/PVS-17C. Qty: 403.
2. Thermal Weapon Sight (TWS) AN/PAS-13 (V3) Heavy Thermal Weapon
Sights (HTWS).--The TWS is a high performance forward looking infrared
(FLIR) device. The system is virtually unaffected by weather and
obscurants. Primarily designed for target detection and engagement with
Marine Corps crew serve weapons [M2 50 Cal Machine Gun & MK19 Grenade
launcher], it can also be used for all weather surveillance. Projected
shortfall: AN/PAS-13. Qty: 644.
Question. How do these shortfalls impact the Marine Reserve's
mission in support of the war on terrorism?
Answer. Night capability of reserve units will lag active duty
units without this equipment and this could affect mission
effectiveness.
Question. What are the potential impacts of these equipment
shortfalls?
Answer. Reserve units will be required to use alternative or less
capable types of equipment to accomplish assigned missions and tasks.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General James E. Sherrard III
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMS
Question. What are your key Transformation programs in the 2004
budget request?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command's (AFRC) key Transformation
programs in the 2004 budget request involve implementation of the Air
Force's mobility modernization plan, tanker roadmap and plans to
alleviate active duty Low Density/High Demand (LD/HD) issues. AFRC will
retire its C-141 fleet located at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio, Andrews
AFB, Maryland, and March ARB, California--converting those units to C-
5A, KC-135R and C-17A missions respectively. The 2004 budget request
also funds conversion of one each C-5 Associate squadron located at
Dover AFB, Delaware and Travis AFB, California to C-17 Associate units.
The Portland IAP, Oregon conversion transfers eight HH-60 and five HC-
130 aircraft to the active duty while standing up a KC-135R unit in its
place. Additionally, AFRC will transfer two C-130H aircraft to the
active duty--part of an overall transfer plan of 14 aircraft moving to
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to alleviate LD/HD issues. AFRC will
divest itself of aging KC-135Es at Selfridge Air National Guard Base
(ANGB), Michigan and Beale AFB, California in exchange for less costly,
and more reliable KC-135Rs. Lackland AFB, Texas is also programmed to
take on the role as the AF's sole C-5 Formal Training Unit (FTU)
replacing Altus AFB, Oklahoma in fiscal year 2007. Manpower savings
from the C-141 retirements and the active duty retirement of
Continental United States C-9 at Scott AFB, Illinois allows AFRC to
increase its KC-135 Unit Equipped crew ratios from 1.27 to 1.5, and C-
130 crews from 1.75 to 2--allowing the Command to better use those
assets in accordance with increased requirements in recent years.
Overall, the 2004 budget request realigns and changes over 4,500
reserve military and civilian positions in fiscal year 2004, matching
personnel to requirements while divesting AFRC of legacy missions.
These realignments and changes are primarily driven by AFRC's
transformation programs.
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
Question. How has mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom
influenced next year's budget request?
Answer. Mobilization has not influenced our budget request at all.
AFRC budgets are developed to maintain normal training for the entire
Air Force Reserve as if there were no mobilization. Because
mobilization effects are undeterminable at the time budgets are
developed, mobilization is dealt with as an execution year issue.
Question. What lessons have you learned from the most recent
mobilization and how can you improve the process for next time?
Answer. Our lessons learned from previous mobilizations helped us
immensely in dealing with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Perhaps one of the
most important lessons learned is the need for a centralized up-to-date
handbook for readiness/mobilization policy and procedures for all three
Air Force components to use. As of this writing, a new version of the
out-of-date publication (AFH 10-416 Personnel Readiness and
Mobilization dated December 22, 1994) is being finalized and
coordinated by the active Air Force.
Timely submission of mobilization requirements would improve
coordination with gaining MAJCOMs and AFRC and improve the mobilization
package for processing and approval by Air Force Manpower and Reserve
Affairs (SAF/MR).
Based on a much clearer vision of requirements under this
operation, we learned that only the most stressed Air Force Specialty
Codes (AFSCs) needed to be included under Stop Loss. Through the use of
a Total Force formula for identifying ``stressed'' AFSCs, only those
that are absolutely needed will be Stop Lossed.
Finally, we learned that we needed continuous communication and
coordination with our gaining MAJCOM partners, in emphasizing the
necessity for rotation of reservists to allow sufficient time prior to
demobilization to provide for the use of accrued leave, downtime,
medical assessments and reconstitution if appropriate.
TRICARE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
Question. What are your thoughts on extending TRICARE health care
coverage to members and families of the Reserve on a cost-share basis?
Would this provide a needed service to our Reservists? Would employers
view it as an incentive to hire Reservists?
Answer. Reserve component members become eligible for military
health benefits when they are placed on active duty orders. The family
members become eligible for TRICARE benefits when the member receives
orders for greater than 30 days. The recent changes to policy
permitting reserve component members and their families to enter
TRICARE Prime at 31 days of active duty orders instead of 179, had a
positive impact on members of the reserve in general. It brought a
significant benefit in reach to members that required low cost quality
health insurance. The proposed legislation of Senate Bill 852 extending
health care coverage on a cost share basis to reserve members and their
families will complement, complete and make comprehensive the medical
benefits we offer Reservists.
GAO report dated September 2002 on Defense Health Care, ``Most
Reservists Have Civilian Health Coverage, but More Assistance is Needed
When TRICARE is Used'' identified that 20 percent of Americas are
without health insurance and the reserve forces are a microcosm of
American society. Therefore at a estimated minimum 20 percent of our
reserve component population is without health insurance for themselves
and their families. The GAO in their report also indicated that a
government purchased/cost share plan would be well received. Offering
medical benefits through TRICARE on a cost shared basis, like the
TRICARE Dental Program would be a welcomed benefit. There also exist
advantages for both the DOD and the member and their family to
participate. Below is a short examination of those advantages:
1. Offering a low cost insurance plan will offer greater incentive
for individuals to join and/or remain in the reserve. This is
especially true for the self-employed.
2. TRICARE as a health plan offers equal to or better benefits than
many smaller employers can offer.
3. Keeping the same health insurance and the same physicians even
when the member moves from one employer to the next (and mobilization),
providing the ultimate experience in health insurance portability and
continuity of care. This too serves as an incentive to remain in the
reserve and make it a career.
Many small companies/employers may not be able to offer health
insurance to their work force so this provides the reserve member the
option to look for work in these areas. It frees the member from
linking employers to the type of job they must look for.
Advantage to the DOD will be seen in fewer members having problems
using TRICARE benefits when activated, since more members will know the
TRICARE system better.
Transitioning from active duty status to Transitional Health Care
Benefits to a Reserve TRICARE Health Benefits plan would make it
seamless, and offers reserve members that don't have jobs to return to
more flexibility and make their reserve duty experience less stressful.
4. It may serve as an incentive to hire the reservist. Health
insurance, next to salaries, is the most expensive benefit an employer
may pay. Ranging any where between $6600.00 to $7,500.00 annually, an
employer may even offer to reimburse the reservist a portion of their
premiums if they use their TRICARE benefit. The member themselves may
be in a position to negotiate a higher salary or wage based upon lower
cost. Many employers will translate this as a ``real savings'' and
bottom line issue.
5. Since this offers real saving to the employer, the government
controversy to offer tax saving/incentives to employers who have
reservists, the availability of TRICARE health coverage may be seen as
benefit without offering additional tax credits.
6. Benefit to the government may be seen in the shape of fewer
problems with members and their families transitioning from one health
plan to another when brought on active duty or mobilized.
7. Identifying family members that have special medical needs may
be easier and reduces the burden/stress on the Military Healthcare
System, TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) and the member on how to get
care when the member is activated.
Other Recommendations:
1. Law should include that all aspects of TRICARE benefits be
extended. Many members live in remote areas and TRICARE Prime Remote/
TRICARE Prime Remote for Active Duty Family Members' equivalent must be
offered to make this plan relevant to all reservists.
2. Law should direct TMA to expand provider networks and update
their participating provider listings annually to keep them current.
Many listings are currently long out of date.
3. Cost share premiums must be low enough to serve as incentive to
join the plan. Since many employers cost share their plans with their
employees, the average coat share (employee cost) ranges from $150 to
$300 monthly.
RESERVISTS
Question. How can you recommend we better support the employers of
our Reservists?
Answer. Employers of reservists are key enablers for maintaining
the readiness of our reserve service members and their support is vital
to the Total Force. Employers give up key personnel from their
workforce to provide support for national defense for extended duration
periods. Beyond that, many employers have stepped forward to assure
their employee-reservists do not take a substantial cut in pay when
called to active duty by making up the difference between their active
duty pay and their civilian pay. Other employers have provided
continuing health care premium payments to assure ongoing health care
coverage for family members of reservists. While these efforts are
laudable, it is unreasonable to expect such generosity to continue for
an extended period as reservists enter the second year of, or
subsequent mobilizations. Moreover, it is also the case that employers
should not be faced with a financial disincentive to hire reservists,
nor bear an unreasonable proportion of the financial costs of
mobilization.
In recognizing employer support of reservists, Congressional
leaders have introduced several bills tailored to recognizing the
contributions of employers of reservists that would go far in
supporting employers. Among these bills are proposed tax relief in the
form of tax deductions and credits for employers of reservists, health
care initiatives that would address care ``gaps'' and ``continuity of
care'' issues reported by some reservists. In particular, allowing
reservists to participate in a proposed group TRICARE cost-share
program would benefit employers, and encourage hiring of reservists at
a time when anecdotal reports indicate a less than enthusiastic
propensity by some employers to hire reservists. As a major benefit
cost for employers would be eliminated, this would provide a strong
incentive for civilian employers to hire Reserve Component members.
Also, civilian employers would not incur the expense of paying premiums
for employees who are mobilized if the member elected to have TRICARE
benefits only. Furthermore, TRICARE would be the sole payee for any
valid insurance claims.
We must also continue supporting employers and enhance assistance
through support-organizations such as Employer Support of the Guard and
Reserve (ESGR). Ongoing communication between Reserve Component
leadership, individual service members, support organizations and
employers will strengthen relationships among these groups, minimize
problems that arise, and facilitate swift resolution to problems as
they occur.
EQUIPMENT READINESS
Question. The Air Force Reserve has performed world-wide missions
in support of the War on Terrorism since September 12, 2001. I am
interested in knowing more about the equipment readiness of the Air
Force Reserve and how the deployments might impact that readiness.
Specifically, please tell me:
What significant equipment shortfalls exist in the Air Force
Reserve?
Answer. With regard to equipment shortfalls as it relates to the
War on Terrorism, and the readiness of the Air Force Reserve to support
the War on Terrorism, the following list of items is submitted.
The WC-130J radar modification.
F-16 color display processor.
F-16 Litening II pod upgrade.
F-16 Litening AT pod procurement.
Security Forces UTC/LOGDET mobility equipment.
A-10 Litening AT procurement.
B-52 Litening AT procurement.
Deployable secure tactical radios.
C-5 Airlift Defensive Systems.
APN-241 radar replacement for C-130E/H.
Question. How do these shortfalls impact the Air Force Reserve's
mission in support of the war on terrorism?
Answer. The lack of equipment effectively prevents the Air Force
Reserve from achieving its maxim combat capability.
WC-130J radar modification is required to correct display
inconsistencies and boost detection range of weather hazards through
software and hardware changes for the 10 Hurricane Hunter aircraft.
Without these radar modifications the WC-130 J-model is not currently
capable of penetrating hurricanes.
F-16 Color Display Processor replaces the overloaded and
logistically unsupportable data display processor and provides color
multi-functional display for weapons, navigation, and aircraft systems
information. The upgraded display will enhance pilot situational
awareness in combat and increase overall combat capability of the 69 F-
16 aircraft fleet in the Air Force Reserve.
F-16 Litening II pod upgrade enhances target detection range and
target tracking accuracy. Pilots will have greater flexibility with
increased safety while attacking targets with greater precision and
minimizing collateral damage. This upgrade will bring the existing pods
up to the capability of the enhanced Litening AT version.
F-16 Litening AT pod is the most capable multi-sensor targeting
pod, which provides enhanced precision strike capability while
minimizing collateral damage. The Litening II pod was used with great
success during the War in Afghanistan and during Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Currently, there are 30 Litening II pods shared between 132
aircraft F-16, A-10 and B-52's.
Security Forces UTC/LOGDET mobility equipment funds are required to
replace assets such as field telecommunication equipment, tactical
radios, night vision devices, pallets and cargo nets. These assets were
deployed in direct support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom and left in country in support of commander's request. Funds
are also required to acquire equipment for newly assigned Security
Forces, which have already started deploying without all required
equipment due to short notice taskings and previously deployed
equipment.
A-10 Litening AT pod is the most capable multi-sensor targeting
pod, which provides enhanced precision strike capability while
minimizing collateral damage. The Litening II pod was first used by the
A-10 in combat with great success during the Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Currently, there are 30 Litening II pods shared between 132 aircraft F-
16, A-10 and B-52's.
B-52 Litening AT pod is the most capable multi-sensor targeting
pod, which provides enhanced precision strike capability while
minimizing collateral damage. The Litening II pod was first used by the
B-52 in combat with great success during the Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Currently, there are 30 Litening II pods shared between 132 aircraft F-
16, A-10 and B-52's.
The Deployable secure tactical radios are needed to replace the
Scope Shield I and II tactical field radios which are unsupportable and
must be replaced. They are no longer depot repairable and are
technically unsupportable. Secure tactical radios are the Air Force's
primary means of communication for force protection operations.
The C-5 Airlift Defensive System is intended to provide protection
against infrared (IR)-guided surface-to-air missile threats in low-
threat and some medium-threat environments. The system is designed to
detect the threat, alert the crew, and automatically expend IR
countermeasure decoys.
The APN-241 Radar replacement for C-130 E/H is the AMC standard
radar to replace the APN-59 for combat delivery aircraft. The current
APN-59 radar system does not meet mission reliability, maintainability,
and supportability requirements. Cost to maintain an antiquated APN-59
system is becoming prohibitive. HQ AMC is working a program to replace
the APN-59 radar on the entire C-130 fleet with new generation low-
power color radars under the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP);
however, the AMP Program has taken several budget cuts and is being
extended into the future.
Question. What are the potential future impacts of these equipment
shortfalls?
Answer. The potential future impact of these equipment shortfalls
will prevent the Air Force Reserve from maintaining interoperability
not only within the total force construct, but the entire battle space
shared by our sister services and allies. In order to maintain
relevance and provide the combat capability required by the Combatant
Commanders, the Air Force Reserve must modernize.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Stevens. We appreciate your service and your
willingness to be with us today. We're going to reconvene on
May 14 to hear from the Secretary of Defense.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 a.m., Wednesday, May 7, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, May 14.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:33 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Specter, Domenici,
Shelby, Burns, Inouye, Hollings, Byrd, Leahy, Durbin, and
Feinstein.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DOV ZAKHEIM, Ph.D., COMPTROLLER, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL PETER PACE, U.S. ARMY, VICE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF
STAFF
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning, Mr. Secretary, General Pace,
and Secretary Zakheim. We welcome you back before the
committee.
Because of the number of people I believe will come to the
table, before we get started I ask that all members limit their
comments to not more than 2 minutes as we get started on this
hearing so we can listen to the Secretary and get Senators'
questions.
The committee continues to review the fiscal year 2004
defense budget and we are going to be very interested in
hearing from you about the expenditure of the 2003 supplemental
for military operations in Iraq and for the global war on
terrorism. We also look forward to hearing today your
priorities in the budget request regarding investments for the
future derived from lessons learned from these overseas
operations we have been involved in.
It may be too early to really understand all of those
lessons, but we do hope to hear from you about our operations,
not only in Iraq, but Afghanistan. I know we will have many
times in the coming months to review your statement in full,
which we will put in the record as though read.
I yield to my good friend from Hawaii, and I hope all
Senators will abide by the 2-minute limitation.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to
your request, may I request that my statement be made part of
the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Good morning Mr. Secretary. I want to join our chairman in
welcoming you as the subcommittee concludes its Defense
Department hearings on the fiscal year 2004 budget request. Mr.
Secretary, these days we hear the word transformation a lot. I
am sure you and the chairman will recall that it was General
Shinseki who first used the term to describe his plans for the
Army.
Mr. Secretary, today we hope you will inform us how the
concept of transformation is incorporated in your budget
request for fiscal year 2004. But Mr. Chairman you and I are
also keenly aware that the systems that were so successful in
the recent war in Iraq were not part of transformation;
virtually all resulted from investments by previous
administrations.
The M-1 tank, Apache helicopter, and the F-117 were
developed in the 1970's. The Tomahawk missile, the B-2 bomber,
the aegis ships were first purchased in the 1980's. Even
JSTARS, and JDAM missiles were developed long before the
current administration came into office.
So we hope to hear as well Mr. Secretary how your fiscal
year 2004 request builds on the successes of your predecessors.
During our hearings this year we received testimony from
the leaders of the military departments and the Guard and
Reserves, and from the Surgeons General. As we have examined
the testimony of these officials, it is clear they are
basically pleased with your budget request.
The Navy might not have enough ships, but that is mostly
because the ship programs aren't ready to be accelerated.
This year, we learned more about the shortfall and aging of
our Air Force tanker and transport aircraft while we await your
decision on leasing.
General Hagee gave us an optimistic assessment of the V-22
for the marines. We would like to hear your assessment as well.
The Army testified that it desperately needs six Stryker
brigrages. Again, we await your thoughts on this matter.
We would also like to hear about your reviews of our
amphibious forces and submarine fleet, and the status of our
space programs. Mr. Secretary, you know this committee wants to
help you transform the military to ensure that we can prevent
future wars. As always, we stand ready to assist you.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I look forward to hearing the
Secretary's testimony and responses to the committee's
questions.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Good morning.
Senator Inouye. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. I want to join
my chairman in welcoming you and your staff to be with us today
for a very important hearing. May I congratulate you and,
through you, the troops of the United States of America.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you very much, sir. They did a
wonderful job.
Senator Stevens. Senator Burns.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. I will submit my statement for the record,
Mr. Chairman. We want to welcome the Secretary of Defense this
morning and look forward to hearing his comments. We are
looking at a different kind of a world now since the Iraqi
operation and I look forward to working with the Secretary in
doing some of that planning.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you,
Secretary Rumsfeld, for being here today. I know you all are--
as so many are--incredibly busy, considering current events
around the world.
Our active military forces have seen a lot of action as of
late. The Guard and Reserve components have experienced an
increased operations tempo as well. The performance of our
military men and women has been outstanding.
Our military has performed honorably in the latest missions
with which it has been tasked--the Global War on Terrorism,
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. While
there indeed was a lot that was done right in all of these
operations, I hope we continue to look back to see where we
could have done better. Here at home, we have witnessed
employers and communities coming together to support these men
and women and their families.
Ensuring that our military men and women have the proper
training, equipment and facilities necessary to carry out their
duties is essential. I pledge to do what I can to ensure that
the United States military has the tools, skills and support
needed to maintain its position as the finest fighting force in
the world.
Again, I thank you for being here today. I look forward to
hearing your testimony and listening to the discussion this
morning.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Hollings.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I have supported you before you became
popular, and the jointness that I have in what we call SPAWAR
down in Charleston, South Carolina, I want you to see that.
That is a Rumsfeld operation and I want you to come and visit
it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, I just want to welcome the
Secretary back here. There is nothing like success and you
epitomize that.
Thank you.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Senator Byrd.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to congratulate the Department on the
work that it has done with respect to cleaning up the
information concerning the status of accounts. We talked
several months ago about the fact that the Defense Department
could not trace, could not trace $3 trillion of its inventory,
of its accounts. Dr. Zakheim was just telling me a little while
ago that you have gotten that down now to less than $800
million, you are still working on it, and I want to
congratulate you on that, on that progress.
You indicated at that time that you were going to get your
teeth into it, that you were going to get hold of it, and you
were going to turn it around, and you are doing that. You are
doing that. I want to thank you and congratulate you.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Mrs. Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would just say welcome. I have a number of questions and
I will reserve them for the appropriate time. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. I thank you all for your cooperation.
Senator Leahy, did I call on you?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. You did not, but I am glad to see the
Secretary. When he first--when he was first Secretary of
Defense, he was the youngest Secretary of Defense; I was the
second youngest member of the Senate. I have aged. He has done
a Dorian Gray; he has not. I am glad to see him here.
Senator Stevens. Again, I thank you all.
Mr. Secretary, pleased to hear from you, and the statements
you have presented will be printed in full in the record.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. I appreciate your putting the entire
statement in the record and I will make some remarks from that
statement.
Senator Stevens. We do not have copies of that statement.
They gave them out to the press, but we do not have them up
here. It would be nice if we had one, too.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I will see that that happens.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, we do.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Others seem to have it. I do not know.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Secretary Rumsfeld. We can pass one up to you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD'S OPENING STATEMENT
Secretary Rumsfeld. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee: I am accompanied by Dr. Dov Zakheim, Comptroller of
the Department of Defense, and General Pete Pace, the Vice
Chief of Staff--the Vice Chairman correctly, the Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Dick Myers' absence.
We thank you for this opportunity to update the committee
on our progress in our efforts to try to strengthen the
Department to meet the challenges of the 21st century and to
discuss the President's request for fiscal year 2004 to 2009. I
also want to thank the members of this committee, Mr. Chairman,
and you for the action, prompt action, on the President's
emergency 2003 supplemental request for the global war on
terror. Passage of that legislation will certainly help provide
the fighting men and women with the capabilities they need, to
prosecute the war on terror in the weeks and months ahead.
As several of you have said, our troops have been and are
doing a truly superb job all across the globe, and we are
certainly grateful to them for their dedication and their
courage, and also for the fact that they are all volunteers who
stepped forward to serve their country. They crossed hundreds
of miles in Iraq, facing death squads and dust storms, and
liberated Baghdad in less than a month.
What they accomplished is very likely going to go down in
history books.
APPLYING LESSONS LEARNED
The Department, as you point out, cannot wait for history
to be written. We need to meet the threats that this dangerous
new century poses, and threats that emerge often without
warning. We have to apply the lessons from the experiences in
Afghanistan and Iraq to transform the Department and the
services as to how they organize, how they train, how they
equip and exercise and fight.
Even now, while the lessons learned process is still in its
early stages, we can already see that the experience in Iraq
has validated some of the strategic decisions that we made in
our defense reviews over the past 2 plus years, decisions that
in some ways contributed and drove this 2004 budget.
Consider a few of the lessons. One is speed, and it
matters. Coalition forces pressed through southern Iraq in a
matter of weeks. It seems likely that the enemy was not able to
mount a coherent defense or attack its neighbors, as it had in
1991 with Scud missiles, or destroy its oil wells. It did
manage to destroy a handful or so, but not all of them, as they
did in Kuwait 12 years ago. We believe that in part this was
because the coalition advance was so much faster than had been
anticipated.
The experience highlights the value of capabilities that
can move quickly into theater, reach targets with speed and
agility.
Another important lesson involves intelligence and the
ability to act on intelligence rapidly. In Iraq, using time-
sensitive targeting cells, the coalition was able to launch
attacks on enemy targets in some cases in 20 minutes, based on
intelligence information that was fresh. Planes taking off for
bombing runs on occasion did not receive their targeting
information until they were in the air and well on their way.
The success of Operation Iraqi Freedom helps to validate
the recommendation in the budget for increased investments in
command, control, communications, intelligence, and persistent
surveillance.
Another is the importance of precision. The capabilities
employed in Iraq were discrete. One new weapon used for the
first time in Iraq, a thermobaric Hellfire missile, can take
out the first floor of a building without damaging the floors
above and is capable of reaching around corners, striking enemy
forces that hide in caves or bunkers and hardened multi-room
complexes. It went from development to deployment in less than
1 year.
Coalition military planners used a sophisticated computer
model to determine the precise direction, the angle of attack,
and the type of weapon needed to destroy desired targets while
sparing nearby civilian facilities.
It was important that we won, but it was also important how
we won, and the fact that this conflict was done with greater
precision than any conflict in history and as a result it had
to have persuaded the Iraqi people that the effort was not
against the country of Iraq, was not against the Iraqi people,
was not against the religion, but, in fact, was against a
regime.
We believe that these experiences support the decision to
request increases in the 2004 budget for research and
development, testing, evaluation, procurement, as well as the
decision to try to begin changing how we develop new
capabilities by employing spiral development to allow us to
bring new weapons to the field in a matter of months or years
instead of decades, which has been the pattern.
Another lesson in Iraq is the importance of joint
operations. U.S. forces, as General Tom Franks properly points
out, did not fight as individual services on a deconflicted
basis, which has been historically the pattern. Instead, they
fought as a truly joint force. One example is the rescue of PFC
Jessica Lynch, which was made possible by a joint team of Navy
SEALs, Army Rangers, Marines, Air Force Special Operators, of
course with the help of an Iraqi citizen.
The joint warfighting experience in Iraq supports the
request in the budget to make new investments in joint training
and in joint warfighting capabilities.
Another lesson was the importance of Special Operations
Forces. In Iraq the special operators were the first coalition
forces to hit the ground. Indeed, a number of them went in
before the war formally began, with hundreds more pouring into
the western portion of Iraq and other regions just before the
ground invasion, securing airfields, attacking terrorist
facilities and regime targets, and taking out the regime's
capability to launch attacks against neighboring countries.
These experiences, as well as the remarkable performance of
special operators in Afghanistan, we believe support the
decisions that we have made and the proposals we have made to
transform the Special Operations Command and to request needed
new investments in Special Operations in the budget.
There will be other important lessons as we study Operation
Iraqi Freedom. But the point is this. This budget was developed
with warfare of this kind in mind and the experiences in
fighting this war have confirmed the decisions made in the
defense review, which are reflected in the budget before the
committee.
TRANSFORMING TO MEET CHANGING THREATS
Mr. Chairman, over the past 2 years the senior civilian and
military leaders of the Department have been working to
determine how the Department of Defense (DOD) can best
transform to meet the changing threats of the new century. This
year's budget request before you is the first to fully reflect
the new defense strategies and policies and the lessons of the
global war on terror. Our defense review identified six goals
that drive transformation efforts:
First, we have to be able to defend the homeland and bases
of operations.
Second, we have to be able to project and sustain forces in
distant theaters. That is clear after these two recent events.
Third, we have to be able to deny enemy sanctuaries.
Fourth, we have to improve space capabilities and maintain
unhindered access to space.
Fifth, we need to harness our substantial advantages in
information technology to link up different kinds of United
States (U.S.) forces so that they can fight jointly.
And sixth, we have to be able to protect U.S. information
networks from attack and to be able to disable the information
networks of our adversaries to limit their ability to
communicate.
This budget request funds investments that support these
transformational goals. Over the next 6 years, we have proposed
a 30 percent increase in procurement funding and a 65 percent
increase in funding for research, development, testing, and
evaluation above the 2002 baseline budget. That is an
investment of roughly $150 billion annually.
In addition to these increases, the research, development,
test, and evaluation (RDT&E) spending will rise from 36 percent
to 42 percent of the overall investment budget. This shift
reflects a decision to accept some near-term risk in order to
accelerate the development of needed next generational systems.
Among the more important transformational investments we
propose is a request for funds to establish a new Joint
National Training Capability. To ensure that U.S. forces train
like they fight and fight like they train, we have budgeted
$1.8 billion over the forward year defense plan to fund range
improvements and to permit more of both live and virtual joint
training, an annual investment of about $300 million.
The total investment in transforming military capabilities
in this budget request for fiscal year 2004 is $24 billion or
about $240 billion over the Future Year Defense Program.
BALANCING RISK
Even as we accept some increased near-term risk--and this
budget does accept near-term risk--so that we can prepare for
the future, it also recognizes that new and unexpected dangers
will likely be awaiting us over the horizon. That is why this
budget requests increased investments in critical areas such as
readiness, quality of life, improvements for the men and women
in uniform, and to make certain existing capabilities are
properly maintained and replenished.
We have made investments that should stabilize funding for
training, spares, and OPTEMPO and put a stop to past practices
of raiding the investment accounts to pay for the immediate
operations and maintenance needs. So we stop robbing the future
to pay for today's urgent bills.
In this request for fiscal year 2004, we increase the
shipbuilding budget by $2.7 billion, making good on our hope
last year that we could increase shipbuilding from five to
seven ships per year.
We increase the Special Operations budget by $1.5 billion
to pay for equipment lost in the global war on terror and for
an additional 1,890 people.
We increase military and civilian pay proposals by $3.7
billion, increase missile defense by $1.75 billion, including
increased funding for Research and Development of promising new
technologies, and to deploy a small number of interceptors
beginning in 2004.
The President has asked Congress for a total of $379.9
billion for 2004. That is a $15.3 billion increase over last
year's budget. But even that increase only moves us part of the
way, requiring us to make tough choices between competing
demands, and that means that some desirable capabilities do not
get funded in this budget.
Yet, in making those decisions we believe we made better
choices this year because we followed a new approach to
balancing risks that we developed in last year's defense
review. It is an approach that tries to take into account not
just the risks to operations and contingency plans, but also
the risks to the force, to the men and women in uniform, to
make sure we can attract and retain the right people, and risks
to modernization or the failure to modernize, if you will, as
well as the risk to the future or the failure to transform,
risks that in the past had often been crowded out by more
immediate, pressing demands. The result is, we believe, a more
balanced approach and a more overall coherent program.
To free resources, the services have stepped up and will be
canceling, slowing, or restructuring a number of programs so
that they can invest those savings in transforming
capabilities. In all, by retiring or restructuring less urgent
programs we believe we can achieve savings of some $80 billion
over the Future Year Defense Program, money that will be
reinvested by the services in capabilities for the 21st
century.
As you consider the budget, I am sure you will hear
pleading for a number of programs and plausible arguments as to
why this or that program should be saved or funded at a higher
rate. I suspect some may disagree with decisions that have been
made in this budget and may want to make changes in the budget
proposal, and certainly as a former member of Congress I
recognize that Article I of the Constitution, the Congress is
Article I, that the President proposes and the Congress
disposes. I know that.
But it is also important, it seems to me, that as the
committee considers potential changes it recognizes that this
budget--we have tried to balance those risks, and it is not an
easy thing to do. This is not to suggest that the budget before
you is perfect. Certainly no one has a monopoly on wisdom, and
there are a number of examples I could cite wherein Congress
pressed the Executive Branch over the years to invest in
programs, such as the Joint Surveillance Target Attach Radar
System (JSTARS), Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's), that later
proved critical to the success of the armed forces.
What I am suggesting is that if changes are made, and they
will be, that they be made in a coherent way, that we have a
chance to talk them through, and that they are made with a full
understanding of the implications, not only on the program in
question that somebody may want to increase, but also on the
costs in terms of the reductions that have to take place in
other areas.
We have done our best to develop a budget with what we
believe has been unprecedented transparency. We hope that this
spirit of openness and cooperation will continue as Congress
deliberates.
IMPROVING MANAGEMENT
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we really cannot transform unless we
have the ability to better manage the Department. In an age
where terrorists move information at the speed of an E-mail,
money at the speed of a wire transfer, and people at the speed
of a commercial jet liner, the Defense Department is, to be
very honest, still bogged down in bureaucratic processes that
resulted from the industrial age, not the information age.
Some of our difficulties are self-imposed by the
Department, to be sure. Others, however, are the result of law
and regulation, and together they have created a culture that
too often stifles innovation in the Department. The result is
we are fighting the first wars of the 21st century with a
Department that was fashioned, organized, to meet the
challenges of the mid-20th century.
Our legislative proposal, the Defense Transformation Act
for the 21st Century, would give the Department the needed
flexibility. Among the provisions in this legislation, many of
which I admit are controversial, and I know that, we have
proposed more flexible rules for the flow of money through the
Department to give us the ability to respond to urgent needs as
they emerge. We have proposed elimination of some of the more
onerous regulations that make it difficult or virtually
impossible for many small businesses to do business with the
Department of Defense.
We have proposed expanded authority for competitive
outsourcing so that we can get military personnel out of non-
military tasks and back into the field. We have proposed
measures for transforming our system of personnel management so
that we can gain more flexibility and agility as to how we
manage the more than 700,000 civilians who provide the
Department such vital support. We need a performance-based
promotion system for our civilian work force that rewards
excellence, just like the one Congress insisted on for the men
and women in uniform.
Mr. Chairman and members, transformation, as you know well,
is not an event; it is not something that starts and then ends.
It is a process, it is a culture, it is a frame of mind. Our
goal is to set in motion that process and culture that will
keep the United States several steps ahead of our potential
adversaries. To do that, we need not only resources, but
equally we need flexibility to use those resources with speed
and agility so we can respond quickly to the new threats that
we face as this century unfolds.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your attention. General Pace
and Dov Zakheim and I are available to respond to questions,
unless you have a statement, General Pace.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald H. Rumsfeld
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to update the Committee on our progress in strengthening
the Department of Defense for the 21st century challenges, and to
discuss the President's budget request for fiscal year 2004-2009.
I also want to thank you and the members for your action on the
President's emergency supplemental request for the global war on
terror. Your prompt passage of that legislation will help to provide
for our fighting men and women as they prosecute the global war on
terror in the weeks and months ahead.
Our troops are doing a superb job and deserve our thanks for their
courage and dedication to duty.
What coalition forces have accomplished in Operation Iraqi Freedom
is remarkable. They crossed hundreds of miles in Iraq--facing death
squads and dust storms--to liberate Baghdad in less than a month.
Today, because of coalition forces' tenacity and skill, the regime
of Saddam Hussein is no longer--and the Iraqi people are free to
determine their own destiny.
Visiting with the troops, I told them that what they accomplished
will go down in the history books. And it will. But at the Department,
we cannot afford to wait for history to be written. The threats we face
in this dangerous new century are emerging, often without warning. We
need to apply the lessons from the experience in Iraq to transform how
the Department and the Services organize, train and equip for the 21st
century.
The ``lessons learned'' process for Operation Iraqi Freedom is well
underway. It will likely impact budgets and procedures, training and
doctrine, and the security of our country for some years to come. But
even now, while that process is still in its early stages, we can
already see that the experience in Iraq has validated a number of the
strategic decisions that were made in our defense reviews over the past
two years--decisions that drove the development of this 2004 budget.
Consider a few of those lessons:
One lesson is that speed matters. Coalition forces pressed through
Southern Iraq in a matter of weeks, racing towards Baghdad. The enemy
was unable to mount a coherent defense, use WMD, attack neighboring
countries with SCUD missiles, destroy oil wells, or blow up dams,
bridges and infrastructure--in part, we believe--because the coalition
advance was so fast. This experience highlights the value of
capabilities that can move quickly into theater and reach targets with
speed and agility.
Another is the importance of intelligence--and the ability to act
on that intelligence rapidly. In Iraq, using ``Time Sensitive Targeting
Cells,'' the coalition was able to launch attacks on enemy targets, in
some cases within 20 minutes of receiving the intelligence information.
Planes taking off for bombing runs on occasion did not receive their
targeting information until they were in the air and well on their way.
Ground forces were able to stay ``in contact'' with the enemy forces,
and attack them with great effect, even as those forces made every
effort to avoid contact. The success of these efforts in Operation
Iraqi Freedom validates the recommendation in this budget for increased
investments in command, control, communications, intelligence, and
persistent surveillance.
Another is the importance of precision. The capabilities employed
in Iraq were discreet. One new weapon used for the first time in Iraq--
a ``thermobaric'' Hellfire missile--can take out the first floor of a
building without damaging the floors above, and is capable of reaching
around corners, into niches and behind walls to strike enemy forces
hiding in caves, bunkers and hardened multi-room complexes. It went
from development to deployment in less than a year. Coalition military
planners also used a sophisticated computer model to determine the
precise direction, angle of attack and type of weapon needed to destroy
a desired target, while sparing nearby civilian facilities.
This unprecedented precision allowed the coalition to fight this
war with unprecedented care--protecting innocent lives while delivering
devastating damage to the Iraqi regime. There was no refugee crisis
because Iraqis felt safe to stay in the cities as long as they stayed
clear of military targets. As a result, the Iraqi people saw that this
war was being waged not against a country, or a people or a religion,
but against a regime--and that we were coming not as conquerors but as
liberators. We believe these experiences support the decision to
request increases in the 2004 budget for research, development, testing
and evaluation, and for procurement, as well as the decision to change
how we develop those new capabilities--by employing ``spiral
development'' to allow us to bring new weapons to the field in months
or years instead of decades.
Another lesson in Iraq was the importance of joint operations. U.S.
forces did not fight as individual deconflicted services. Instead, they
fought as a truly joint force. One example is the rescue of Pfc.
Jessica Lynch--it was made possible by a joint team of Navy SEALs, Army
Rangers, Marines, and Air Force Special operators--with the help of an
Iraqi citizen. The joint war fighting experience in Iraq supports the
request in the 2004 budget to make new investments in joint training
and in joint war fighting capabilities.
Another lesson was the critical importance of special operations
forces. In Iraq, special operators were the first coalition forces to
hit the ground--some of them before the war formally began--with
hundreds more pouring into Western Iraq and other regions just before
the ground invasion--securing airfields, attacking terrorist facilities
and regime targets, and taking out the regime's capability to launch
attacks against neighboring countries. These experiences--as well as
the remarkable performance of special operators in Afghanistan--support
the decisions to transform the Special Operations Command and to
request needed new investments in Special Operations in the 2004
budget.
There will be other important lessons as we study Operation Iraqi
Freedom. But the point is this: the 2004 budget was developed with
warfare of this kind in mind--and the experiences in fighting this war
have confirmed the decisions made in the defense review which are
reflected in the budget before the Committee today.
Mr. Chairman, over the past two years, the senior civilian and
military leaders of the Department have been working to determine how
DOD can best transform to meet the changing threats of a new century.
Together we have:
--Fashioned a new defense strategy.
--Replaced the decade-old two Major Theater War approach to sizing
our forces with an approach more appropriate for the 21st
century.
--Developed a new approach to balancing risks that takes into account
the risks in contingency plans and also the risks to the force,
to modernization and to transformation.
--Reorganized the Department to better focus our space activities.
--Adopted a new Unified Command Plan, which establishes the new
Northern Command to better defend the homeland; a Joint Forces
Command that focuses on transformation; and a new Strategic
Command responsible for early warning of, and defense against,
missile attack and the conduct of long-range attacks.
--Expanded the mission of the Special Operations Command, so that it
cannot only support missions directed by the regional combatant
commanders, but also plan and execute its own missions in the
global war on terror.
--Worked with Allies to develop a new NATO command structure and
begin the development of a NATO Response Force that must be
able to deploy in days and weeks, instead of months.
--Taken steps to attract and retain needed skills in the Armed
Forces, with targeted pay raises and quality of life
improvements.
--Reorganized and revitalized the missile defense research,
development and testing program, freed from the constraints of
the ABM Treaty.
--Completed the Nuclear Posture Review, with a new approach to
deterrence that will enhance our security, while permitting
historic deep reductions in offensive nuclear weapons.
--Moved from a ``threat-based'' to a ``capabilities-based'' approach
to defense planning, focusing not only on who might threaten
us, or where, or when--but also on how we might be threatened,
and what portfolio of capabilities we will need to deter and
defend against those new asymmetric threats.
These are significant changes. Last year's budget--the 2003
request--was finalized just as this defense review process was nearing
completion. So while it included a top-line increase, and made
important, and long-delayed investments in readiness, people,
maintenance, and replacement of aging systems and facilities, we were
only able to begin funding some transforming initiatives as the new
defense strategy came into focus.
But this year's budget--the 2004 request before you today--is the
first to fully reflect the new defense strategies and policies and the
lessons of the global war on terror.
Our defense review identified six goals that drive our
transformation efforts:
--First, we must be able to defend the U.S. homeland and bases of
operation overseas;
--Second, we must be able to project and sustain forces in distant
theaters;
--Third, we must be able to deny enemies sanctuary;
--Fourth, we must improve our space capabilities and maintain
unhindered access to space;
--Fifth, we must harness our substantial advantages in information
technology to link up different kinds of U.S. forces, so they
can fight jointly; and
--Sixth, we must be able to protect U.S. information networks from
attack-and to disable the information networks of our
adversaries.
The President's 2004 budget requests funds for investments that
will support these transformational goals. For example:
--For programs to help defend the U.S. homeland and bases of
operation overseas--such as missile defense--we are requesting
$7.9 billion in the 2004 budget, and $55 billion over the
Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
--For programs to project and sustain forces in distant theaters--
such as the new unmanned underwater vehicle program and the
Future Combat Systems--we are requesting $8 billion in 2004,
and $96 billion over the FYDP.
--For programs to deny enemies sanctuary--such as unmanned combat
aerial vehicles, and the conversion of SSBN to SSGN
submarines--we are requesting $5.2 billion in 2004 and $49
billion over the FYDP.
--For programs to enhance U.S. space capabilities--such as Space
Control Systems--we are requesting $300 million in 2004 and $5
billion over the FYDP.
--For programs to harness our advantages in information technology--
such as laser satellite communications, Joint Tactical Radio,
and the Deployable Joint Command and Control System--we are
requesting $2.7 billion in 2004 and $28 billion over the FYDP.
--For programs to protect U.S. information networks and attack those
of our adversaries--such as the Air and Space Operations
Center--we are requesting $200 million in 2004 and $6 billion
over the FYDP.
Over the next six years, we have proposed a 30 percent increase in
procurement funding and a 65 percent increase in funding for research,
development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E) above the 2002 baseline
budget--an investment of roughly $150 billion annually.
In addition to these increases, RDT&E spending will rise from 36
percent to 42 percent of the overall investment budget. This shift
reflects a decision to accept some near-term risk in order to
accelerate the development of needed next generation systems.
Among the more important transformational investments we propose is
a request for funds to establish a new Joint National Training
Capability. As we saw in Iraq, wars in the 21st century will be fought
jointly. Yet too often our forces still train and prepare for war as
individual services. That needs to change.
To ensure that U.S. forces train like they fight and fight like
they train, we have budgeted $1.8 billion over the next six years to
fund range improvements and permit more of both live and virtual joint
training--an annual investment of $300 million.
The total investment in transforming military capabilities in the
2004 request is $24.3 billion, and about $240 billion over the FYDP.
We propose not only transforming the capabilities at our disposal,
but also the way we develop new capabilities. The old way was to
develop a picture of the perfect system, and then build the system to
meet that vision of perfection, however long it took or cost. The
result was that, as technology advanced, and with it dreams of what a
perfect system could do, capabilities were taking longer and longer to
develop and the cost of systems increased again and again--Time is
money.
A different approach is to start with the basics, simpler items,
and roll out early models faster--and then add capabilities to the
basic system as they become available. This is what the private sector
does--companies bring a new car or aircraft on line, for example, and
then update it over a period of years with new designs and
technologies. We need to do the same.
Take, for example, the approach to ballistic missile defense.
Instead of taking a decade or more to develop someone's vision of a
``perfect'' shield, we have instead decided to develop and put in place
a rudimentary system by 2004--one which should make us somewhat safer
than we are now--and then build on that foundation with increasingly
effective capabilities as the technologies mature.
We intend to apply this ``spiral development'' approach to a number
of systems, restructured programs and new starts alike over the course
of the FYDP. The result should be that new capabilities will be
available faster, so we can better respond to fast moving adversaries
and newly emerging threats.
BALANCING RISK
Even as we accept some increased near-term risk so we can prepare
for the future, this budget also recognizes that new and unexpected
dangers will likely be waiting just over the horizon--and that we must
be flexible to face them.
That is why the 2004 budget requests increased investments in
critical areas such as: readiness, quality of life improvements for the
men and women in uniform, and to make certain existing capabilities are
properly maintained and replenished.
Over the next six years, the President has requested a 15 percent
increase for Military Personnel accounts, above the 2002 baseline
budget, and an increase in funding for family housing by 10 percent
over the same period. The 2004 budget includes $1 billion for targeted
military pay raises, ranging from 2 percent to 6.25 percent. Out of
pocket expenses for those living in private housing drop from 7.5
percent to 3.5 percent in 2004, and are on a path to total elimination
by 2005.
Over the next six years, we have requested a 20 percent increase
for Operations and Maintenance accounts above the 2002 baseline budget.
We have proposed $40 billion for readiness of all the services and $6
billion for facilities sustainment over the same period.
These investments should stabilize funding for training, spares and
OPTEMPO, and put a stop to the past practice of raiding the investment
accounts to pay for the immediate operations and maintenance needs, so
we stop robbing the future to pay today's urgent bills.
In our 2004 request:
--We increased the shipbuilding budget by $2.7 billion, making good
on our hope last year that we could increase shipbuilding from
five to seven ships.
--We increased the Special Operations budget by $1.5 billion, to pay
for equipment lost in the global war on terror and for an
additional 1,890 personnel.
--We increased military and civilian pay by $3.7 billion.
--We increased missile defense by $1.5 billion, including increased
funds for research and development of promising new
technologies, and to deploy a small number of interceptors
beginning in 2004.
The President has asked Congress for a total of $379.9 billion for
fiscal year 2004--a $15.3 billion increase over last year's budget.
That is a large amount of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. But even
that increase only moves us part of the way.
Our challenge is to do three difficult things at once:
--Win the global war on terror;
--Prepare for the threats we will face later this decade; and
--Continue transforming for the threats we will face in 2010 and
beyond.
Any one of those challenges is difficult--and expensive. Taking on
all three, as we must, required us to make tough choices between
competing demands--which meant that, inevitably, some desirable
capabilities do not get funded. For example:
--Despite the significant increase in shipbuilding, we did not get
the shipbuilding rate up to the desired steady state of 10
ships per year. Because of planned retirements of other ships,
we will drop below a 300-ship fleet during the course of the
FYDP. The Navy is in the process of transforming, and has two
studies underway for amphibious ships and for submarines--we
have increased shipbuilding in 2004, but we do not want to lock
ourselves into a shipbuilding program now until we know
precisely which ships we will want to build in the out-years.
--We have not been able to modernize our tactical air forces fast
enough to reduce the average age of our aircraft fleet.
--We have had to delay elimination of all inadequate family housing
by 2007--though we got close!
--We have not fully resolved our so-called ``high-demand/low
density'' problems--systems like JSTARS, which, because they
have been chronically under funded in the past, will still be
in short supply in this budget.
--We opted not to modernize a number of legacy programs--taking on
some near-term risks to fund transforming capabilities we will
need in this fast moving world.
--We did not achieve the level of growth in the Science and
Technology (S&T) accounts we had hoped for. Our request is
$10.2 billion, or 2.69 percent of the 2004 budget.
--We have delayed investments to completely fix the recapitalization
rate for DOD infrastructure. We still intend to get the rate
down from 148 years to 67 years by 2008, and we expect to
accelerate facilities investments in 2006 after we have made
the needed decisions with respect to the appropriate base
structure, at home and abroad. We are reviewing our worldwide
base structure, and starting the steps to prepare for the 2005
BRAC. We want to think carefully about how best to match our
base structure and force structure.
That's the bad news. But there is good news as well. In making
those difficult decisions, we believe we made better choices this year
because we followed the new approach to balancing risks that we
developed in last year's defense review--an approach that takes into
account not just the risks in operations and contingency plans, but
also the risks to our force--the people, and risks to modernization and
to the future--risks that, in the past, often had been crowded out by
more immediate pressing demands. The result, we believe, is a more
balanced approach and a more coherent program.
To help free resources, the services have stepped up, and will be
canceling, slowing or restructuring a number of programs so they can
invest those savings in transforming capabilities. For example:
--The Army came up with savings of some $22 billion over the six-year
FYDP, by terminating 24 systems, including Crusader, the
Bradley A3 and Abrams upgrades and reducing or restructuring
another 24, including Medium Tactical Vehicles. The Army used
these savings to help pay for new transformational
capabilities, such as the Future Combat Systems.
--The Navy reallocated nearly $39 billion over the FYDP, by retiring
26 ships and 259 aircraft, and merging the Navy & Marine air
forces. They invested these savings in new ship designs and
aircraft.
--The Air Force shifted funds and changed its business practices to
account for nearly $21 billion over the FYDP. It will retire
114 fighter and 115 mobility/tanker aircraft. The savings will
be invested in readiness, people, modernization and new system
starts and cutting edge systems like unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) and unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs).
In all, by retiring or restructuring less urgent programs, we
believe we can achieve savings of some $80 billion over the FYDP--money
that will be reinvested by the services in capabilities for the 21st
century.
We feel a deep obligation to not waste the taxpayers' dollars. We
need to show the taxpayers that we are willing to stop doing things
that we don't need to be doing, and take that money and put it into
investments we do need.
As you consider this budget, I am sure you will hear pleading for a
number of programs--and plausible arguments for why this or that
program should be saved or funded at a higher rate. I suspect some may
disagree with decisions that have been made, and may want to make
changes in this budget proposal. As a former Member of Congress, I
recognize that the Congress is Article 1 of the Constitution--the
President proposes and Congress disposes. But it is also important
that, as the Committee considers potential changes, it recognizes that
this budget has been crafted to balance a number of risks. And with
every change, that balance of risks is affected.
This is not to suggest that the budget before you is perfect--no
one has a monopoly on wisdom. And there are numerous examples of
instances when Congress pressed the executive branch to invest in
programs--such as JSTARS and UAVs--that later proved critical. What I
am suggesting is that if changes are made, they be made in a coherent
way--that we talk them through, and that the decisions be made with a
full understanding of the effects they may have--not only on the
program in question, but the costs in terms of the investments in other
areas that will be put off as a result.
We have done our best to develop this budget with what we believe
has been unprecedented transparency--providing detailed briefings to
those interested in defense here on Capitol Hill. Congress was not
simply presented with the President's budget--it was kept in the loop
as decisions were being made. I am told that the extent of consultation
from the Defense Department to the Congress this year has been
unprecedented. We hope that this spirit of openness and cooperation
will continue as Congress deliberates--so that the final budget is
crafted in a way that preserves the balance of risks.
Our hope is that, with this budget, we can further transform not
only our military capabilities, but also the relationship between the
Defense Department and the Congress--by establishing a new spirit of
trust and cooperation.
RESULTS
As a result of these strategic investments and decisions, we can
now see the effects of transforming begin to unfold. Consider just some
of the changes that are taking place:
--Today, the missile defense research, development and testing
program has been revitalized and we are on track for limited
land/sea deployment in 2004-05.
--Today, the Space Based Radar, which will help provide near-
persistent 24/7/365 coverage of the globe, is scheduled to be
ready in 2012.
--In this budget, we believe SBIRS-High is properly funded.
--Today, we are converting 4 Trident SSBN subs into conventional
SSGNs, capable of delivering special forces and cruise missiles
to denied areas.
--Today, we are proposing to build the CVN-21 aircraft carrier in
2007, which will include many new capabilities that were
previously scheduled to be introduced only in 2011.
--Today, instead of 1 UCAV program in development, the X-45, which
was designed for a limited mission of suppression of enemy air
defense, we have set up competition among a number of programs
that should produce UCAVs able to conduct a broad range of
missions.
--Today, we are revitalizing the B-1 fleet by reducing its size and
using savings to modernize remaining aircraft with precision
weapons, self-protection systems, and reliability upgrades--and
thanks to these efforts, we are told the B-1 now has the
highest mission capable rates in the history of the program.
--Today, in place of the Crusader, the Army is building a new family
of precision artillery--including precision munitions and Non-
Line-of-Sight Cannon for the Future Combat Systems.
--Today, we have seen targeted pay raises and other reforms help
retain mid-career officers and NCOs, so that fewer of them
leave the service while still in their prime, so the country
can continue to benefit from their talent and experience.
These are positive changes that will ensure that our country will
have the capabilities needed to defend our people, as well as a menu of
choices from which we can select to shape the direction of the
Department, as the 21st century security environment continues to
change and evolve.
DEFENSE TRANSFORMATION ACT
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we can't truly transform, unless we have the
ability to better manage this Department. To win the global war on
terror, our forces need to be flexible, light and agile--so they can
respond quickly to sudden changes. The same is true of the men and
women who support them in the Department of Defense. They also need
flexibility--so they can move money, shift people, and design and buy
new weapons more rapidly, and respond to the continuing changes in our
security environment.
Today, we do not have that kind of agility. In an age when
terrorists move information at the speed of an email, money at the
speed of a wire transfer, and people at the speed of a commercial
jetliner, the Defense Department is bogged down in the bureaucratic
processes of the industrial age--not the information age.
Some of our difficulties are self-imposed by the Department, to be
sure. Others, however, are the result of law and regulation. Together
they have created a culture that too often stifles innovation. Consider
just a few of the obstacles we face each day:
--This department spends an average of $42 million an hour, and yet
we are not allowed to move $15 million from one account to
another without getting permission from four to six committees,
a process that sometimes takes months.
--Instead of being streamlined for the fast-paced 21st century, the
defense authorization bill has grown with each passing year.
Just consider the changes over my brief career:
--When I was first elected to Congress in 1962, the defense
authorization bill was one page.
--The last time I was Secretary of Defense, a quarter of a century
ago, the 1977 authorization bill had grown to 16 pages.
--When I came back to the Pentagon for this second tour, the 2001
authorization bill had grown to 534 pages.
--I can't even imagine what it will look like in another 25 years.
--Today we have some 320,000 uniformed people doing what are
essentially non-military jobs. And yet we are calling up
Reserves to help deal with the global war on terror. The
inability to put civilians in hundreds of thousands of jobs
that do not need to be performed by men and women in uniform
puts unnecessary strain on our uniformed personnel and added
cost to the taxpayers. This has to be fixed.
--The department is required to prepare and submit some 26,000 pages
of justification, and over 800 required reports to Congress
each year--many of marginal value, I am sure many not read,
consuming hundreds of thousands of man hours to develop, and
untold number of trees destroyed.
--Despite 128 acquisition reform studies, we have a system in the
Defense Department that since 1975 has doubled the time it
takes to produce a new weapons system, in an era when new
technologies are arriving in years and months, not decades.
The point is this: we are fighting the first wars of the 21st
century with a Defense Department that was fashioned to meet the
challenges of the mid-20th century. We have an industrial age
organization, yet we are living in an information age world, where new
threats emerge suddenly, often without warning, to surprise us. We
cannot afford not to change and rapidly, if we hope to live
successfully in this new world.
The Department is already engaged in substantial transformation. We
have reduced management and headquarters staffs by 11 percent. We have
streamlined the acquisition process by eliminating hundreds of pages of
unnecessary rules and self-imposed red tape. And we have begun
implementing a new business management structure. These internal
changes are important--but they are not enough. We also need
legislative relief.
Our legislative proposal, the Defense Transformation Act for the
21st Century, would give the Department some of the needed flexibility,
and ability to more rapidly move resources, shift people and bring new
weapons systems on line more quickly, so we can adapt to changing
events.
Among the provisions in this legislation:
--We have proposed more flexible rules for the flow of money through
the Department to give us the ability to respond to urgent
needs as they emerge.
--We have proposed elimination of some of the more onerous
regulations that make it difficult or virtually impossible for
many small businesses to do business with the Department of
Defense.
--We have proposed expanded authority for competitive outsourcing so
that we can get military personnel out of non-military tasks
and back into the field.
--We have proposed measures that would protect our military training
ranges so that our men and women will be able to continue to
train as they fight while honoring our steadfast commitment to
protecting the environment.
--We have proposed measures for transforming our system of personnel
management, so that we can gain more flexibility and agility in
how we manage the more than 700,000 civilians who provide the
Department such vital support. We need a performance-based
promotion system for our civilian workforce that rewards
excellence--just like the one Congress insisted on for our men
and women in uniform.
In other U.S. government agencies, major portions of the national
workforce have already been freed from archaic rules and regulations.
We need similar relief. If the Department of Defense is to prepare for
the security challenges of 21st century, we must transform not just our
defense strategies, our military capabilities, and the way we deter and
defend, but also the way we conduct our daily business.
Transformation is not an event--it is a process. There is no point
at which the Defense Department will move from being ``untransformed''
to ``transformed.'' Our goal is to set in motion a process and a
culture that will keep the United States several steps ahead of
potential adversaries.
To do that we need not only resources, but equally, we need the
flexibility to use them with speed and agility, so we can respond
quickly to the new threats we will face as this century unfolds.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy to respond to questions.
General Pace. Sir, I do not have a statement, but I would
be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not point out that the
incredible performance of your armed forces in battle in Iraq
is directly attributable to the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the
sustained bipartisan support of the Congress. We deeply
appreciate that, sir.
If I may have the temerity to ask to put into the record
that our thoughts and prayers are with the families of all
those who lost their loved ones in this battle, sir. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Dr. Zakheim, do you have a comment?
Dr. Zakheim. No, I don't. I am ready to take questions as
they come in.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, many of the things you
addressed are really pending before the Armed Services
Committee. I hope we will address questions before this
committee that pertain to the budget that has been presented,
and I would ask Senators to limit themselves to 7 minutes in
the first round to see how well we can do. We may not get
through them all in the time that is allotted to us today.
Mr. Secretary, much of what you said is correct and I think
we all stand in awe of this generation and what they have done.
I have often compared this generation to the generation that
Senator Inouye and I and Senator Hollings were part of, that
some people call ``the greatest generation.'' But most of our
people were draftees. The people you have dealt with now are
volunteers, people that place themselves in harm's way on the
basis of their own decisions, and I think they are the finest
military force the world has ever seen.
VISITING TROOPS IN THE FIELD AND TANKER LEASING
We are all proud of them, very proud of them, and want to
do everything we can to assist you to see to it that we
maintain that force as we go out into the future. Having said
that, though, I do express again our sadness that we are not
able to go visit the war zone. We have done that on every
occasion. I remember when Senator Bellmon and I went into
Vietnam two or three times. We were under attack and bombed and
shelled and everything else. We never asked for special
protection. But in this instance we have been denied so far the
opportunity to see Iraq.
I hope that those restrictions will be lifted in the near
future. I do not ask for any commitment; just I do express that
hope.
One of the things that continues to bother me as a former
cargo plane pilot is the status of the tankers. They now
average more than 45 years in age. At least one third of them
are in the depots for repair. It was suggested to me the other
day that I should ask you and Mitch Daniels to join some of us
here and go out to Tinker and take a look at those planes that
we are trying to repair. Even after we put them through a year
of repair, they are still unfit for service. They still have
rust and every kind of deterioration in terms of their
structural capability, and yet we are insisting on putting them
back out and putting money into them to try and make them fly
some more, when they average 44 years of age.
Now, Mr. Secretary, we provided several times now for the
funds to start a tanker leasing program. I know--I hope that
you are going to be able to tell us what is going to happen to
that program now.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I
believe it is very important that members of the House and the
Senate who are on relevant committees and interested have
opportunities to visit the men and women in uniform and to
observe first-hand and fulfil their responsibilities, their
oversight responsibilities.
I have talked to General Franks about this. We have worked
out what we believe is an appropriate arrangement with the
Speaker of the House and with the leadership in the Senate and
there certainly will be an opportunity for you and your
associates to be able to go to Iraq and Afghanistan in the
period ahead.
Second, with respect to the tanker issue, everything you
have said, sir, is clearly correct. The tanker fleet is old. It
has to be replaced. It will be replaced. The lease-buy issue is
one that the Department has been wrestling with for some time
and I regret to say still is. We are plowing new ground here.
It is not something that the Department has done in the past to
any great extent. It certainly will be precedent-setting.
I felt it required appropriately a look by an outside
entity and asked one to make a study of it. That report is
back. The sheer size of this leasing proposal that was pending
is something like 125 pages, with 80 different clauses, and it
is not something that can be done quickly or easily, nor is it
something that should take as much time as it has taken.
You are right about the corrosion, you are right about the
need for replacement, and certainly the Department will be
pressing for a conclusion with respect to it. One of the things
that is taking place, I am told, at the present time by those
folks working on it--and you may want to comment, Dov--is they
are still trying to negotiate a better price, and there is some
active debate about what the appropriate price ought to be.
Senator Stevens. Well, Mr. Secretary, I only have 5
minutes. I can only say this: We suggested that leasing
proposition when we came back from Afghanistan after talking to
tanker pilots who expressed to us their fear of flying those
planes. That is almost 2\1/2\ years ago, I think. That is 2
years ago, at least.
I think we ought to put some of the people who are holding
this up in those tankers and let them fly a little bit and see
them and listen to them clank, creak. This delay is
unconscionable as far as I am concerned. I hope we can find
some way.
Again, I urge you, I ask you. We will get one of your
planes and fly down there next week and just take the people
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that are holding
this up and let them see those planes, because if they see them
and understand the concept of really metal fatigue and the
whole concept of rust and what that means to these people that
are flying them, the idea of putting money into them so they
can go out there and fly again for another 20 years is just
absurd.
SUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
I have got one other question to ask and I would like to
get down to the money if I can. I want to ask particularly
because of the problems we face now. We passed the Iraq
supplemental in record time; and that was based mostly on cost
models and upon operational assumptions. I would like to know,
do you have enough money to finish this year, fiscal year 2003?
Are we going to be able to see through the remainder of
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq with the money we have
provided you?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I guess it is now May 14th. The fiscal
year ends October 1st. We still have a number of months in
fiscal year 2003. I can say that I have not seen anything at
the moment that persuades me that we will necessarily have to
come back for an additional supplemental in 2003. Is that----
Dr. Zakheim. That is right. As things now stand, it
actually looks that the target which we submitted and that the
Congress gave us is pretty accurate. We are reviewing the
spending rates very carefully. We have 4\1/2\ months to go in
this fiscal year. We have already released over $30 billion out
of the supplemental, with more to come. But it is looking like
we are pretty much on target, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Inouye.
PASSAGE OF DEFENSE TRANSFORMATION ACT
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, the Defense Transformation
Act that you discussed in the closing moments is before the
Senate authorizing committee. I gather that the chances of
passage do not look so well.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I cannot hear you very well, sir.
Senator Inouye. If the details of that legislation are not
incorporated in the defense authorization bill, how would it
affect your program?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Let me make a couple of comments and
then have Dov make a couple of comments. One, I am told that we
have 300,000, 320,000 to be precise, men and women in uniform
doing jobs that are not jobs for men and women in uniform. They
are jobs that should be done by civilians. They are jobs that
should be done by contractors.
And we are doing that because people are rational. We have
got three choices in the Department. We can either use someone
in uniform, who you can manage; or you can use a contractor,
who you can manage; or you can use the civil service, which is
very, very difficult to manage. So people do the logical thing.
They go and put a military person into a job that is not a
military job.
Well, we are worried about the OPTEMPO. We are worried
about the fact that we have had to call up Guard and Reserve.
We are worried about the fact that we have had to have stop-
losses and we would prefer to have fewer stop-losses and fewer
Guard and Reserve activated and have them activated a fewer
number of times and be more respectful of their lives.
But with 320,000 military people doing civilian jobs, why?
Simply because the rules are so difficult, they are so
burdensome.
A second example: We cannot hire people right out of
school. It is almost impossible. Everyone else--a company can
go over and go to a job fair at a college, they can walk in and
offer someone a job. We cannot. It takes months to work through
all the paperwork, all the civil service requirements.
Now, we have had a bunch of experiments going on at China
Lake and other places through authorities that Congress gave us
and they have worked. They have done a good job. China Lake is
one of them.
In my view we need some flexibility to manage the
Department and we are wasting taxpayers' dollars because of the
absence of that flexibility in my view.
STRYKER BRIGADES
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, everyone agrees that our
military must transform. The Army has taken the lead with the
creation of the Stryker Brigades. This year the Army testified
that it needs six brigades. Do you support this?
Secretary Rumsfeld. We have supported it by putting in the
budget the money for all six Stryker Brigades. As I recall, the
decision that was made was to--the first three are already
funded and in route. The next one has been funded and approved,
as I understand it. Correct me, Dov, if I am wrong.
Dr. Zakheim. That is right.
Secretary Rumsfeld. And the next two will be subject to a
discussion as to the Army coming back and discussing ways they
think they might improve or strengthen the Stryker model for
the fifth and sixth.
Dr. Zakheim. I could add to that if I may. The first
brigade is actually undergoing a Congressionally mandated
evaluation at Fort Polk, Louisiana, for its operational
effectiveness. The second one is being fielded. It is at Fort
Lewis. The team is being fielded with the Stryker vehicles. The
Army's plan will be presented in July, so it is coming
relatively soon.
Senator Inouye. I gather that advance drafts of that plan
have been distributed and they seem to support the fifth and
sixth brigades; is that correct?
Dr. Zakheim. The funding for all of them is in the plan and
it will be for the Secretary of Defense to decide when he looks
at the Army's plan as to how and in what way the Stryker is
being improved.
LPD-17
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, if I still have time, the
Navy's LPD-17 has had some problems, cost overruns and schedule
slippage. What are your plans for this program?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Do you have that?
Dr. Zakheim. Yes, I do.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Do you want to comment on it?
Dr. Zakheim. Sure.
As you know, we essentially are gapping, as it were, not
funding an LPD-17 in fiscal year 2005. We will have two LPD-17s
in fiscal year 2006. We believe that the shipbuilding
industrial base can support the production gap.
In addition, we are talking about a move from these sorts
of ships to a new kind of maritime prepositioning ship, which
is also in the outyears. We are going to evaluate how that
transition will take place. So the line remains open, we are
funding those ships, the LPD-17, but at the same time as part
of our overall transformation we are looking at this new kind
of prepositioning ship.
Senator Inouye. What sort of ship is that?
Dr. Zakheim. They are looking at designs right now. The
concept is to incorporate some of the elements of the
amphibious type LPD-17, which simply stands for ``Landing
Platform Dock ship,'' but in addition to take account of the
prepositioning needs that were demonstrated again in Iraqi
Freedom as well as Enduring Freedom before it.
Senator Inouye. Has this type of ship served its purpose
and does it continue to do so?
Dr. Zakheim. There is a sense on the part of the Marine
Corps and the Navy that for future requirements you may need
considerably more flexibility than the LPD-17 gives you. Again,
by definition in funding one in 2004 and two more in 2006 you
are committed to those ships for 30-odd years beyond. So it is
not a question of those ships being useless or anything. The
real issue is when you go past those do you want to have a
further flexible capability than what they give you, and there
seems to be a consensus that the answer is yes and they are
looking at just how to design it.
Secretary Rumsfeld. And the Navy Department and the Chief
of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy have been
reviewing that as part of a broader look at the shipbuilding
budgets generally.
General Pace. And there is no backing off at all, sir, from
the requirement to be able to project combat power from ship to
shore. But as Admiral Clark and General Hagee and General Jones
before General Hagee have looked at this, and in looking at the
opportunities presented by the Joint Strike Fighter and the
Osprey and the potential adding of a flight deck of some
limited capability to the prepositioning ships, that opens up a
whole new horizon and they want to make sure that the
recommendations they give to the Secretary and the money that
is spent is spent on the most capable ship in the future.
Dr. Zakheim. Let me also add that we will continue to buy
these ships through fiscal year 2010, which again is an
indication that we are not giving up on a ship like this.
Senator Stevens. We are running out of time.
Dr. Zakheim. Sorry.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a question and maybe a thought, Mr. Secretary,
this morning. As we have seen in the operation in Iraq, it was
pretty evident that the technology and the training that we had
done prior to that operation really paid off. I am told that
your ability through communications, the ability of systems
that were interoperable, that it gives the striking force a lot
of flexibility even before the operation started and during the
operation, that any mission could be changed.
There is no doubt about it that it was a force--we had the
most physically fit and I think mentally alert military this
Nation has ever known and really people that understand
technology and know how to use it. We are also seeing in this
country as we train for the force that you visualize that will
be our force of the future, we are also seeing our ability to
train both in the air space and land-based facilities for our
troops and our equipment, we see that being eroded due to
encroachment, environmental laws, and a variety of other
challenges that we have in front of us.
I would wonder. You will be making the decisions of what
kind of facilities and what we are going to need to train for
the future and make that assessment, and then probably would
start dealing with those challenges ahead. Can you tell us if
there is a process in place now where you are making those
determinations based on what we have experienced in the Middle
East, and at such time as when Congress will be advised or
assessed of what your needs will be in the future areas of
training and new technologies?
TRAINING RANGES AND FACILITIES
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, thank you. You are right that
the armed forces of the United States are living in the world
and they have training ranges and facilities, and as the
world's rules and requirements change and evolve the
restrictions grow and the ability to function is limited. We
currently have proposals in the transformation legislation
before the Congress that would provide some relief from some of
the laws that are hampering defense training and that type of
activity.
For example, we have been delayed over 6 years in
deployment of a surveillance towed array sensor system, low-
frequency active sonar system, which is needed against ultra-
quiet diesel submarines. It is part of the Marine Mammal Act.
We proposed last year several adjustments. They tend not to
really be directed at any of the laws that exist, but rather at
the legal interpretations that have evolved over the decades
since those laws were passed that we feel we need some freedom
from.
Do you want to comment, Pete, on this?
General Pace. Sir, thank you.
Senator, we want to be good stewards of the environment and
we believe that we can do both, be good stewards of the
environment and train. One of the provisions is for this
National Training Center that will be both live fire
environments, such as TwentyNine Palms and the National
Training Center and Nellis Air Force Base, and the virtual
environment, that you can pull together people from throughout
the entire Nation without having to move anywhere to do a very,
very robust exercise.
We are looking at that, sir. We do have a process we are
working through the Defense Department to highlight those
things that are current constraints, but also to be able to
project ways that we can protect the environment and train.
Senator Burns. Well, General Pace, you know as well as
anyone else that Camp Pendleton, parts of Camp Pendleton have
come under fire, that we cannot train in that we used to use
many years ago, or even in modern day, your training out there.
That sort of concerns us.
We look at air space use, especially in the southwestern
part of the country, where you have a lot of commercial
flights, where we see a restricting of air space both in the
space and altitude in which we can train. And I an wondering if
those assessments are not going on now, that we will be able to
be sharp as we were in this 21 days in the Iraqi operation. If
we cannot train and we cannot train under conditions like we
are going to have to fight, then I worry about those kind of
conditions.
We can talk about equipment, we can talk about money and
that, but if we cannot train our troops that is something that
we have got to look at very seriously. I would also add that
maybe my home State of Montana might have something to offer--
strictly parochial.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Byrd? Senator Hollings?
Senator Hollings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, that is an outstanding statement and I
congratulate you on bringing Defense into the new century. What
happens--and the reason I take the committee's time here to ask
about this little installation down in Charleston, back in 1992
at the Base Realignment and Closure Commission there was one
thing that both George Bush Senior and Clinton could agree on
and that was we are not going to close the Portsmouth Navy
Yard. I mean, we got the run-up there in that primary.
So they closed Charleston, which had won all the NAVALEX
and everything else. But at the time I debated and argued to
have NAVALEX, that you would remember as the former Secretary
back in the 1970s, and NAVALEX was combined into SPAWAR. They
combined Pawtucket, Maryland, Nebraska Avenue where Secretary
Ridge is right now on Nebraska Avenue, Norfolk, and Charleston.
The reason for the question, of course, or comment is an
admiral now has asked for a study to find about the cost of
moving it. I hope we get that study, because the Secretary of
the Navy has just completed a cost efficiency study by Booz-
Allen-Hamilton of 15 navy engineering centers and they found
that the SPAWAR facility down in Charleston was ranked number
one in overall efficiency.
We do not receive appropriated funds. What we do is we
design, build, test, and support computer, command and control
systems. There are a bunch of little small contractors, and
since the big Navy yard was closed the rent is cheap. They love
it down there and they have got room to move and expand, and
they serve Army, Navy, Air, Marines, but they serve the White
House, the Secret Service, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), and everything else. It is all contract. It has the
joint use that Secretary Rumsfeld is insisting on.
If you could come visit us down there, you will see it, and
I think you can use that as an example of succeeding in this
joint use effort.
Otherwise, Mr. Secretary, with respect to rebuilding Iraq,
do you look upon that as a military or a contract operation?
REBUILDING IRAQ
Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, I think I would rather say what I
think of it as, rather than either-or. First of all, I think it
is ultimately a task for the Iraqi people. I do not think
anyone can rebuild another country for a person. It is up to
them to do that. They are going to have to invest their time
and their energy and their funds in seeing that that country
rebuilds after decades of leadership by a vicious despot who
did not invest in the people, did not invest in the
infrastructure. He was building palaces and building weapons
and putting money in his own accounts outside the country.
So it is going to take some time. It is probably, second,
going to be a task for the international community to create--
to help the Iraqi people do what needs to be done. It will take
time.
Third, I do not think it can be done unless the country is
in a reasonably secure and permissive environment, and that is
what we need to help with.
Senator Hollings. That is the main point. It has got to
start off military, because you must establish law and order.
Even after law and order is established, I look upon it and
remember the countries of Greece and Portugal coming into the
Common Market and the others, Germany, Italy, and all, taxed
themselves $5 billion over 5 years so they could develop the
entities of free speech, free press, a respected judiciary,
property ownership, and all those kind of things, but first
thing was to establish law and order.
Otherwise, if you begin with the people and the people
themselves doing it, I agree with you generally, if you allow
that you are going to end up with an Islamic democracy. It will
be quite some time before we get one man, one vote in downtown
Baghdad, and the military is going to have to establish order.
I had this experience with all of the demonstrations and
everything else: Salus populi suprema lex, the safety of the
people is the supreme law.
When you have got all kind of entities demonstrating,
looting, stealing, and everything else of that kind, you have
got to establish the safety of the people.
Secretary Rumsfeld. You are absolutely right. Unless it is
a reasonably secure environment, nothing else happens.
Senator Hollings. Right.
Secretary Rumsfeld. It just does not work.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir, thank you very much.
Senator Shelby.
IMPROVING INTELLIGENCE
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Rumsfeld, I want to first talk a little about
intelligence community cooperation, DOD with the intelligence
community. Could you give us a little analysis of how far the
Department, that is the Department of Defense, has come since
September 11th in improving your own intelligence capabilities
and cooperating with other intelligence agencies, and what this
budget would do to continue that work?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, let me answer the second part
first, the cooperation. I suppose nothing is ever perfect in
life. We are all human beings and we are not perfect. On the
other hand, having been in and around government for a lot of
decades, I honestly believe that the linkages between the
Director of Central Intelligence and Central Intelligence
Agency and the intelligence agencies that reside in the
Department of Defense and the combatant commanders is I would
say better than ever in my knowledge.
It is--I meet with George Tenet probably several times a
week, but we have lunch once a week, and we have been able to
knit it together at the top. General Franks was able to do that
in the region and is currently doing it in Iraq. It is almost
not quite seamless between the two.
Senator Shelby. It is better than it has been, is it not?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Absolutely, absolutely.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Secretary Rumsfeld. And we work hard at it, and I think it
is much better.
How much progress are we making generally in the
intelligence community? That is a tougher question. I think
time will tell. We are doing some big things. As we rewrite war
plans and contingency plans and think of them in the 21st
century with the changed circumstances, there are things that
can be done in intelligence that will inform those plans and
enable us to do things differently.
If we have in one case, for example for the sake of
argument, 2 weeks warning instead of 2 days' warning, or 2
months' warning instead of 2 weeks' warning, it can affect how
we arrange ourselves. We are into that, but we have not
completed it. We are working hard at it.
Senator Shelby. But the intelligence initiative we are
talking about, that is central to what you plan to do and how
you do it, is it not?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Absolutely.
DOD-NASA PARTNERSHIP
Senator Shelby. The National Aerospace Initiative. Mr.
Secretary, you have been outspoken on the importance of space
to military operations and in your support of the National
Aerospace Initiative. While the Air Force is partnering with
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on
various technology development initiatives that support both
their shared and unique mission objectives, I think we can and
should do much more to support the National Aerospace
Initiative.
Would you elaborate if you could on DOD's partnership with
NASA in this regard? Do you see it growing or not growing?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I do not know, to be very direct. The
Department has had multiple linkages with NASA dating back to
the time when I was on the Space Committee in the Congress in
the 1960s, and they have shifted as the focus of our space
efforts shift. They each have a distinctive role, the civilian
side and the military side.
But we have over the decades, the Department has benefited
by the relationship and certainly NASA has benefited by the
relationship. How it will evolve in the future I think really I
am just not in a position to say.
Senator Shelby. Would you talk briefly, if you would, about
using space superiority to fight smarter and what space-based
radar will add to the Department's war-fighting capability? How
important is space to all of this? I would say very important,
but I would like to hear you.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Indeed it is.
Dov just reminds me here that this budget does provide $118
million for the National Aerospace Initiative to continue the
development of the integrated approach.
In the information age, space plays a critical role and it
will increase, not decrease, over time. The need for
information and the leverage it provides and the force
multiplier it provides through improved situational awareness
and through the ability to interconnect the different services
and indeed different countries' services into combined joint
efforts, space plays a critical linking role there. So you are
absolutely correct.
Dr. Zakheim. Sir, as you know, some of our sensors are
affected by weather. To answer your question about space-based
radar, that would give us 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week
capability to see what we want, when we want.
Senator Shelby. Very important, is it not?
Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir.
UNMANNED VEHICLES
Senator Shelby. Secretary Rumsfeld, lastly, the Predator
and the Hellfire missile. A lot of us view that as a real
achievement, you know, integrating the Hellfire missile onto
the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle. Do you see that growing
in the future, unmanned vehicles, weaponizing them and so
forth?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I do. I think that the things that
unmanned aerial vehicles--indeed, I would go so far as to say
unmanned vehicles; they may be aerial, they may be surface,
they may be subsurface, they may be a variety of things--we
will see evolving over the decades ahead in ways that we
probably do not even imagine today.
We have been significantly advantaged in the past 2\1/2\
years by the availability of unmanned aerial vehicles.
Senator Shelby. And a lot of that was put together very
quickly with the help of our organic labs, was it not?
Secretary Rumsfeld. It was, and indeed, as I mentioned in
my opening statement, with some prodding from the Congress.
Senator Shelby. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Stevens. Senator Hollings--no, Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you, General Pace and
Dr. Zakheim. I note in yesterday's Washington Post the
following headline: ``Baghdad Anarchy Spurs Call for Help.'' I
read excerpts therefrom: ``Baghdad residents and U.S. officials
said today that the U.S. occupation forces are insufficient to
maintain order in the Iraqi capital and called for
reinforcements to calm a wave of violence that has unfurled
over the city, undermining relief and reconstruction efforts
and inspiring anxiety about the future.''
[The information follows:]
[From the Washington Post, May 13, 2003]
Baghdad Anarchy Spurs Call For Help; Iraqis, U.S. Officials Want More
Troops
(Peter Slevin, Washington Post Staff Writer)
Baghdad residents and U.S. officials said today that U.S.
occupation forces are insufficient to maintain order in the
Iraqi capital and called for reinforcements to calm a wave of
violence that has unfurled over the city, undermining relief
and reconstruction efforts and inspiring anxiety about the
future.
Reports of carjackings, assaults and forced evictions grew
today, adding to an impression that recent improvements in
security were evaporating. Fires burned anew in several Iraqi
government buildings and looting resumed at one of former
president Saddam Hussein's palaces. The sound of gunfire
rattled during the night; many residents said they were keeping
their children home from school during the day. Even traffic
was affected, as drivers ignored rules in the absence of Iraqi
police, only to crash and cause tie-ups.
The calls for more U.S. troops to police the city coincided
with the arrival of L. Paul Bremer III, the Bush
administration's new civilian administrator assigned to run the
Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian
Assistance. The U.S. occupation authority, which had previously
been headed by retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, has
struggled to restore Iraqi institutions since Hussein's
government collapsed April 9 in the face of a U.S. military
invasion.
Bremer, who met with senior staff members tonight inside
the 258-room Republican Palace, pledged that he and Garner
would work together for an ``efficient and well-organized''
transfer of power, with Garner assisting him for an
undetermined period. He described his own work as a ``wonderful
challenge'' and said the U.S. task is to ``help the Iraqi
people regain control of their own destiny.''
But the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, expressed
disappointment with efforts so far to bring democracy to Iraq.
He told the British Parliament that ``results in the early
weeks have not been as good as we would have hoped.'' Straw
also said the lack of security in Baghdad has been
disappointing.
An office and warehouse belonging to the aid group CARE
were attacked Sunday night. In two other weekend incidents, two
CARE vehicles were seized by armed men, the organization
reported today, asking the U.S. occupation forces to ``take
immediate steps to restore law and order to Baghdad.''
``The violence is escalating,'' said Anne Morris, a senior
CARE staff member. ``We have restricted staff movement for
their own safety. What does it say about the situation when
criminals can move freely about the city and humanitarian aid
workers cannot?''
Baghdad residents have been increasingly preoccupied by
violence and the uncertainty it has produced, slowing relief
and rebuilding efforts. One U.S. reconstruction official said
tonight, for example, that as the Americans seek to distribute
salaries and pensions, 20 bank branches have been unable to
open without U.S. protection in the absence of a credible Iraqi
police force.
``Security is the biggest problem we have,'' the official
said. ``The banks don't feel comfortable opening, and I agree
with that.''
Another official said foreign companies have showed
interest in installing a badly needed cell phone network, but
remain unwilling to do so without a safe environment for
workers. The security threat has also limited the ability of
reconstruction workers to move through the city and interact
with Iraqis. Civilian staff members still have instructions to
wear body armor and helmets and travel with military escorts.
Food warehouses, hospitals and government offices have
reported security problems, with administrators pleading with
U.S. forces to do more. A senior staff member with the U.S.
reconstruction office said the responsibility for stabilizing
the situation lies with the U.S. military, which President Bush
assigned to run postwar Iraq. Any order to increase manpower
would have to come from Washington.
``Any time you have a security vacuum,'' the official said,
``the only people who are going to be able to fill it are the
military.''
U.S. commanders have described Baghdad's security as their
top priority and have assigned several thousand troops to guard
200 sites and patrol neighborhoods. But they have also said
they do not have enough troops to police the sprawling city or
guard every facility that could be targeted by looters.
Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of ground troops in
Iraq, said the roughly 150,000 soldiers under his command are
focusing on many assignments simultaneously, including hunting
for weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's missing leaders
while also imposing order on a country the size of California.
``Imagine spreading 150,000 soldiers in the state of
California and then ask yourself could you secure all of
California all the time with 150,000 soldiers,'' McKiernan told
reporters last week. ``The answer is no. So we're focused on
certain areas, on certain transportation networks we need to
make sure are open.''
The Pentagon announced early this month that an additional
4,000 soldiers were being dispatched to Baghdad, bringing the
total in the city to 16,000. The composition of the force will
shift as combat units head home and the number of military
police officers grows from 2,000 to about 4,000 by mid-June.
McKiernan emphasized the importance of Iraqis taking charge
of their city. So far, perhaps half the city's police force has
showed up for vetting and training. But relatively few have
returned to active work. All 60 of the city's police stations
were looted--five main buildings are occupied by families of
squatters.
There is no working communications system, and only a small
number of police cars were not ruined by looters during the
postwar rampage. Police officers, prohibited by U.S. forces
from carrying anything other than a sidearm, are wary of
confronting antagonists who can outgun them. The overall
situation is further complicated by a disabled court system and
a lack of functioning jails.
Carjackings have become particularly frequent. A furniture
salesman, Abdulsalam Hussein, said he watched through the
picture window of his store as gunmen chased down a Peugeot
sedan on a busy square, ordered the occupants into the street
and sped away. ``They had weapons,'' he said. ``No one could do
anything to help.''
On Rashid Street today, a U.S. Army patrol endured a busy
day in the section of the city soldiers call Looterville. After
chasing down two looters inside a telecommunications building,
set alight Sunday night, several soldiers from the 3rd Infantry
Division returned to their Humvees with sweat running down
their dusty faces in rivulets.
``I don't see it getting better. We can't be everywhere,
can we?'' said Pfc. Jacob Weber, 21. ``I feel like a cop, but
I'm not a cop.''
Across the Tigris River, another 3rd Infantry
reconnaissance unit waded into a dispute over a shooting,
seized an old pistol and warned the participants to settle
their argument by calmer means. The troops headed wearily back
to their base, only to stop within several hundred yards of it
to investigate reports that gunmen were preventing people from
putting out a fire near the gutted Culture Ministry.
``We're like cops in Baghdad now,'' said one officer in
helmet and armored vest.
``Iraqi Vice,'' deadpanned Sgt. Corey Tondre.
Senator Byrd. I was interested in your reference to the
lessons that we need to have learned from the past and your
comment that we need to apply the lessons from the experience
in Iraq. It seems that we are learning the same lesson that
Hannibal learned when he went through the entire length of
Italy in 16 years. He learned that he needed an occupation
force. He needed a force that could stabilize.
He had the speed. He was a great general and I think he
was--it was stated by Napoleon that Hannibal was the greatest
general of antiquity. So he could level the cities, he could
take the cities, but he could not hold them because he did not
have the forces to occupy and to stabilize. As a result,
although he had numerous victories throughout the 16 years that
he was in Italy, he simply did not have the forces to keep the
cities, and as a result city after city, such as Capua, went
back over to the Romans after a while.
It seems we are having that same problem in Iraq. The news
reports out of Iraq are using words such as ``turmoil,''
``chaos,'' and even ``anarchy'' to describe the situation in
Baghdad. At this point there is little evidence that the United
States had in place any coherent plan for the reconstruction of
Iraq following the end of combat.
I fear that we may see a repeat of the situation in
Afghanistan, where our forces worked hard to contain the chaos
in Kabul, only to see the outlying cities fall back toward
warlord control and turmoil.
So I think we have other lessons to learn besides those
that you have appropriately listed. We must learn from our
mistakes and not be doomed to repeat them. Going into Baghdad,
the military had the aim of overthrowing the existing
government. Going into Baghdad, we were warned by U.N. agencies
and nongovernmental organizations about the lack of water and
the unsanitary situation in the city. We knew that medical
supplies were scarce. We knew that military action would likely
lead to mob action.
I hope that the recent shakeup in the civilian leadership
of the U.S. occupation authority will help the situation and
will not amount to merely rearranging the deck chairs on the
Titanic. But for the time being, it is the U.S. military that
has the responsibility of maintaining order in Baghdad.
What specific and immediate steps are you taking as
Secretary of Defense to improve the security situation in
Baghdad?
SITUATION IN IRAQ
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, let me comment on a number of
pieces of that. First of all, I think the characterization of
``anarchy'' is not accurate. It is a headline writer's phrase
and it certainly grabs attention. But we were on the phone with
the people there and the circumstance is something other than
anarchy.
You are quite right, you do not need to learn that lesson
that it is important to stabilize. That lesson has been learned
throughout history. And General Franks and his team had plans,
have plans, and have put in place plans to provide for the
security in that country. It is important to note several
things.
Number one, every jail in that country to my knowledge was
emptied. So on the street are looters, hooligans, and bad
people. They have to be rounded up and put back in. That takes
a little time. You do not do that in 5 minutes. If we emptied
every jail in the United States of America today, you would not
in 50 days or 40 days or 30 days or however many days since
that war has ended--what is it, 20? 20 days, I guess, 3 weeks--
you would not be able to round up all those criminals and bad
people and put them away again.
There are also Baathists there. Not everyone was captured
or killed. And they do not wish us well. They still are part of
the old regime, and they have to be rounded up and identified.
Next, we do have a good force there in the country. I
forget what it is, but United States is probably 142,000, and
coalition forces are probably another 20,000 plus. They have
recruited and put back on the streets in that country I am
going to guess close to 20,000 Iraqi police people. We have had
donors conferences and force generation conferences in England
and elsewhere to get coalition countries to come in and supply,
provide additional forces.
We have, if I am not mistaken, plus or minus 15,000
additional U.S. forces that are due to arrive in Iraq over the
next 7 to 20 days. The deployment of those forces and how they
are actually utilized in Baghdad--and you asked, do we have a
plan. The answer is yes. We were briefed on it again today and
it is being implemented.
My personal view is that the idea of chaos and turmoil and
anarchy in the city is, as I say, an overstatement. We were
told today that maybe two-thirds to three-quarters of the city
is stable. Now, that is not permissive; it is stable. Another
portion of it, particularly in the north, is less so, and most
of the city at night the hooligans are out and the criminals,
trying to loot and do things.
We have had people shot, wounded, and killed in the last 48
hours there in Baghdad. It is a problem. It is critically
important, as Senator Hollings said, that the one thing that is
central to success is security. We have a full court press on
that. The forces there will be using muscle to see that the
people who are trying to disrupt what is taking place in that
city are stopped and either captured or killed.
Senator Byrd. How many U.S. troops are currently in
Baghdad? Do you expect to increase that number? And are there
any other coalition forces currently in Baghdad?
FORCES LEVELS IN BAGHDAD AREA
General Pace. Sir, if I may, the current number of
coalition forces and U.S. troops in the greater Baghdad area is
about 49,000. There are additional troops arriving as we speak.
General Franks and his commanders are reviewing the situation
on the ground to see how they might reset themselves in the
city to be able to provide the kind of patrolling and presence
that is necessary to provide the stability they need.
Senator Byrd. Can you speak to the number, the increase in
forces?
General Pace. Sir, right now you have the First Armored
Division is arriving as we speak and that is an additional
20,000 troops who are arriving right now, sir.
Senator Byrd. So that would bring it up to 69,000?
General Pace. If General Franks and his commanders
determine that that is where they should go, yes, sir.
Secretary Rumsfeld. But it is up to the combatant commander
to decide how he deploys those troops and he has not to my
knowledge made a final judgment.
General Pace. He has not, sir.
MR. JAY GARNER
And sir, we are out of time, but I would be wrong if I did
not point out that Jay Garner is a great American doing a great
job, and the term ``shakeup'' with regard to him and his
administration and what he has been doing really does him a
disservice. This new civilian going over has always been part
of the plan. I should defer to the Secretary on this, but Jay
Garner under the U.S. military command that he has been working
under has done a fabulous job.
Senator Byrd. My time is up. Let me ask one further
question. What commitment has the United States received to
date for peacekeeping forces from other nations?
Secretary Rumsfeld. First let me just underline what
General Pace said about General Garner. This is a first-rate
individual. He has been working since late last year. He has
done a spectacular job out there. He has put together a team of
people and they are living in very difficult circumstances.
He is not being replaced. From the very outset, it was
clearly understood that at some point a senior civilian would
be brought in, and Ambassador Bremer is that individual. They
are working closely together and it is unfortunate when the
implication is suggested that there is some sort of a shakeup
because there is a problem. There is no shakeup. This has been
part of the plan since the very outset.
COMMITMENTS OF PEACEKEEPING FORCES
I cannot answer your question about how many foreign troops
have agreed. There are I believe already something like eight
or ten countries that have indicated their willingness to send
troops. Some of them, it depends on their parliament approving
it. Some of them, it may depend on having a United Nations (UN)
connection of some sort, which is now being worked on in New
York.
But the talk was of--how many divisions, do you recall?
Dr. Zakheim. Sir, two divisions initially, between now and
the next several months.
Senator Byrd. Would you please list those?
Senator Stevens. Your time has expired. I am sorry,
Senator.
Senator Byrd. Yes, I understand.
Would you please list those countries for the record?
Secretary Rumsfeld. If they have publicly so stated, we
will be happy to.
[The information follows:]
The following is a list of countries who have publicly provided
significant contributions to coalition operations.
international support and coalition contribution to operation iraqi
freedom and post-war iraq
Countries supporting Coalition operations: 66.
Troops in the Coalition: more than 40,000.
Aircraft in the Coalition: 190, including ship-based helicopters.
Ships in the Coalition: 58.
Significant Coalition Ground Contributions
Albania--Deployed an Infantry Company in Northern Iraq.
Australia--Deployed Special Operations Forces (SOF).
Bulgaria--Prepared to deploy a light Infantry unit.
Czech Republic--Deployed a Nuclear, Biological, Chemical--
Consequence Management (NBC-CM) unit to Kuwait.
Republic of Korea--Deploying a Construction and Engineering Support
Group to Iraq to conduct infrastructure reconstruction and repair.
Italy--Prepared to deploy a Mechanized Infantry Brigade.
Kuwait--Committed Peninsula Shield Forces for the defense of
Kuwait.
Lithuania--Deployed a cargo handling team to Kuwait.
Netherlands--Deployed Patriot batteries to Turkey, to support NATO
Article IV defense of Turkey during hostilities.
Poland--Deployed a Coalition NBC-CM unit to Jordan; deployed Polish
SOF; preparing to deploy a division and assume operational
responsibility of one sector in Iraq.
Romania--Deployed an NBC-CM unit to Kuwait, to respond to any Area
of Responsibility-wide WMD event; maintains additional units on a
Prepare to Deploy Order, to respond to component needs within the Iraqi
Theater of Operations.
Slovak Republic--Deployed an NBC-CM team to Kuwait, to support AOR-
wide response to a WMD event.
Ukraine--Deployed an NBC-CM Battalion to Kuwait, to support AOR-
wide response to a WMD event.
United Kingdom--Deployed Special Operations Forces; UK forces were
directly responsible for coalition successes in Basrah and southern
Iraq.
Significant Coalition Air Contributions
Australia--Provided 14 fighter aircraft, three helicopters, and two
aircraft for airlift.
United Kingdom--Provided 66 fighter aircraft, 14 tanker aircraft,
41 helicopters, 10 reconnaissance aircraft, four AWACS aircraft and
four aircraft for airlift.
Significant Coalition Naval Contributions
Australia--Deployed three ships (two frigates and one support ship)
to conduct Maritime Interception Operations in the Persian Gulf
enforcing U.N. sanctions against Iraq; deployed two P-3 aircraft to
conduct Maritime Patrol mission in support of OIF.
Denmark--Deployed one coastal submarine and one frigate in the
North Arabian Gulf.
Spain--Deployed one frigate and one support ship to the North
Arabian Gulf to support their Landing Platform Vessel (LPD) with
embarked medical unit.
United Kingdom--Deployed the largest number of coalition vessels in
support of OIF, with a maximum of 31 vessels. These forces included
destroyers, frigates, aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier, supply
ships, mine counter measure forces, and submarines.
Significant Coalition Humanitarian Assistance/Medical Contributions
Australia--Delivered two C-130 aircraft full of medical assets to
Talill, Iraq.
Czech Republic--Deployed 50-bed Level III Field Hospital to Basrah;
deployed six water purification units to Iraq to areas with urgent
potable water requirements. Czech forces will train local Iraqi
personnel to operate these units, and leave the units in Iraq.
Denmark--Deployed a three man surgical team to Jordan.
Italy--Deploying a Level III field hospital, with associated
security personnel (Carabinieri and Army), water, sanitation, and civil
engineering specialists.
Republic of Korea--Deployed a Medical Support Group, consisting of
a Level II+ Field Hospital to An Nasiriyah. Hospital has 60 beds.
Kuwait--Donated medical supplies to Umm Qasr; Kuwait flew the first
non-U.S./Australian/British military aircraft into Baghdad
International Airport, delivering a Field Hospital with 40 beds.
Lithuania--Deployed four medical personnel with trauma and
orthopedic surgery specialties to Umm Qasr, where they are integrated
in the deployed Spanish Field Hospital.
Spain--Deployed one medical facility (Level II+, 14 beds) embarked
on an LPD and one deployable Field Hospital (Level II+, 40 beds) to
North Arabian Gulf and Umm Qasr, respectively. To date, they have
treated in excess of 1,800 non-enemy prisoner of war personnel and
incorporated Lithuanian medical personnel in Spanish facility at Umm
Qasr. A Marine platoon and engineer unit are supporting humanitarian
reconstruction in the Umm Qasr and Basrah areas.
Senator Stevens. Very well.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PERFORMANCE OF ARMY PATRIOT PAC-3 SYSTEM
Mr. Secretary, the recent experience in Iraq indicated that
the Army Patriot PAC-3 system successfully defended our forces
against Iraqi missile attacks. My question is whether or not
your assessment is consistent with the reports that were made
available to us in the press that this system worked as it was
intended and expected to work, and does the budget contain
funds to continue to build systems like this and others that
might protect our forces and our country against even longer-
range missiles?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The budget does have, as I note here,
some $736 million for PAC-3, $561 million of which is for
procurement and $174 million for research, development, test,
and evaluation.
My preliminary impression is identical to yours. I know
that the lessons learned will be coming back with greater
specificity, but from what you hear anecdotally there is no
question but that the PAC-3 was effective. I should also add,
however, that we do have to do a better job of deconflicting.
You may recall that there were some incidents where PAC-3s
actually intercepted U.S. aircraft and friendly aircraft. How
that--what those lessons are and how we can improve that--it
has always been true in every conflict that those things
happen, but our goal obviously is to do it perfectly, and in
that case we did not.
Pete?
General Pace. Yes, sir. United Kingdom (U.K.) aircraft,
sir.
Senator Cochran. General Pace, I understand that the Medium
Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), may offer significant
enhancements over the PAC-3, but because of funding constraints
and other considerations it is not to be fielded until fiscal
year 2012. Is this an accurate assessment of when we will see
this system deployed and what is the outlook for deployment of
other systems that build upon the PAC-3's successes?
General Pace. Sir, there is about $280 million in this
particular budget for the medium-range missile. I do not know
the date. As you stated, I will have to take that for the
record. But I can reinforce the fact that the PAC-3 system and,
in fact, all the Patriot systems in Iraq and Kuwait were--first
analysis is that every troop concentration was under an
umbrella of a missile system and that no missile got into any
of those umbrellas.
[The information follows:]
The current fielding schedule for the Medium Extended Air Defense
System (MEADS) is First Unit Equipped in fiscal year 2012. However,
recent Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) direction to combine the PATRIOT
and MEADS programs should provide a significantly increased Theater Air
and Missile Defense capability earlier than fiscal year 2012. The DAB
decision to combine the two programs is based upon the successes of the
PAC-3 missile as the primary interceptor and the desire to field the
MEADS capability to the Services and Allies as rapidly as possible.
MISSILE DEFENSE
Senator Cochran. Well, I want to congratulate you and the
Secretary in the leadership that is being provided to ensure
that we can continue to build upon those successes of missile
defense. We know that Testbed Alaska is under construction now
and the intent is to deploy a system that can defend against
much longer range missiles in the future.
Do you think the budget request for those longer range
systems and the construction schedule is sufficient to meet our
needs for defense capability for our homeland?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, I know you have been long
active in this important area. With the end of the Anti-
Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the ability for the first
time to go out and actually test different ways of doing
things, we were able to move into a period that has contributed
to our knowledge and to the country's knowledge in these
technologies. That is a good thing. It is a good thing from the
standpoint of each possible alternative of boost and mid-range
and terminal. It is a good thing from the standpoint of the
system you mentioned for Alaska. It is also a good thing from
the standpoint of sea-based systems.
My feeling is that General Kadish has done a terrific job
in that role in my view, has got a pretty good balance in his
proposals as to where we ought to put our money to gain
additional knowledge and, as you point out, to also develop
this beginning of a capability to intercept relatively low
numbers of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM's).
SHIP LEASING AND DEFINING REQUIREMENTS
Senator Cochran. On another subject, I know that both the
Navy and the Army have been experimenting with leased vessels
to define the requirements of the Littoral Combat Ship in the
case of the Navy and the Theater Support Vessel that the Army
considers important for its purposes. I understand too the Army
is considering leasing a lot more of these vessels. They are
catamaran-type vessels, high-speed vessels.
We have shipbuilding firms on the Mississippi Gulf Coast
that are very capable of building cost-effective ships for our
military and I wonder whether you will look at this leasing
plan and see whether or not it might be more appropriate to
build these ships rather than to lease foreign vessels for
experimentation and analysis.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Let me have Dov answer that.
Dr. Zakheim. One of the reasons, Senator, that these leases
are being looked at is because they are still trying to define
exactly what kind of platforms they have in mind. The Littoral
Combat Ship is a good example. I know down in Mississippi you
have a tremendous composite facility which has come up with a
completely new type of composite ship.
The issue really is defining requirements, and until they
have got them nailed down--and as you know, the Navy has been
working on that for its part and the Army for theirs--in order
to just get a sense of what requirements might be needed, they
are leasing. I do not believe that that is the long-term
intention.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Interesting listening to this and interesting how much we
have improved in the high tech area of our military. Mr.
Secretary, you and I have talked before about such things as
using drones and all, but I think we are in absolute agreement
on the fact, especially for surveillance and everything else,
it is a lot easier to stick something up there that, if it does
get shot down, we have lost a drone, we have not lost a person.
It can stay longer and you have more flexibility.
We also--I know this committee funded an Advanced Data Link
that allowed target information to go to our aircraft quickly.
That was an initiative that I had worked on. This committee had
funded it. I hear that, from pilots over there, that the
Gateway made a real difference and I want to compliment those
who used it.
In Iraq we confirmed the total force concept. We had the
Guard, the Reserves, the Active force fighting side by side.
The commanders tell me they were an integral part of our
military victory. I am concerned, however, that benefits for
our reservists have not changed. For example, about 20 percent
of reservists do not currently possess adequate health
insurance. I am told this undermines readiness, undermines
recruitment, and so on, retention.
TOTAL FORCE POLICY AND TRICARE FOR RESERVISTS
Would you support legislation to make reservists eligible
for Tricare on a cost-share basis?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator----
Senator Leahy. And I just say, I ask that--I am the Co-
Chair of the Guard Caucus and it is a bipartisan group. We have
a lot of members who are interested.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I have discovered that I best not
answer questions like that until I look at the numbers and
costs and see what one has to give up to have something like
that.
Senator Leahy. Would you do that and submit it to me?
Secretary Rumsfeld. We will be happy to take a look at it
and see what the costs are. I would add this, that you are
quite right, however; the total force concept works. It has
worked in the conflict. It is working today. But one of the
delays in calling people up was that, you are right, their
teeth needed to be fixed and various other things that they had
not paid attention to.
It may very well be at some point that there would be some
advantage in having certain elements of the Guard and Reserve
more ready, that is to say having had their teeth checked and
having had those kinds of physical checks so that there is not
a delay and a big paperwork rush when you are trying to get
people on active duty.
Senator Leahy. I am also concerned about the health
insurance because there is a long hiatus and they may be
without it. I would be glad to work with your staff on this,
but this is a growing concern. Those of us in the caucus from
both parties are concerned about it. We hear from our home
States and all.
I think it is something, we are pushing for legislation on
this. I think it is something that can be done that would
ultimately be a very cost-effective thing. I realize this is
not a question where you have the answers on the top of your
head, but would you direct your staff to work with mine so we
can share this information with the whole Guard Caucus?
Secretary Rumsfeld. We would be happy to dig into it. Thank
you.
[The information follows:]
The Department has over the past 2 years used existing legislative
authority to ensure equality of benefits under TRICARE for the
activated Reserve and active duty force and their families.
TRICARE implemented its demonstration authority and provided
immediate relief to activated Reserve family members by waiving the
requirement that they obtain a non-availability statement from a
Military Treatment Facility; by waiving the requirement that they meet
their statutory deductible under TRICARE Standard; and by paying up to
the legal liability limit to non-participating providers, thereby
relieving them of the need to pay anything above their normal cost
share.
Recently, the Department changed its policy to allow the activated
Reservist's family member residing in the catchment area of Military
Treatment Facilities to be eligible for TRICARE Prime after the
Reservist has been activated for 30 days, as opposed to the previous
180 days.
Congress last session provided the TRICARE Prime Remote for Active
Duty Family Member (TPRADFM) benefit to reserve family members, but
only if they ``reside with'' the reserve member. The Department is
interpreting this language liberally to allow the family members to be
eligible for TPRADFM as long as they reside with the Reservist at the
time orders are received, rather than requiring the family to
continuously reside with the member.
The Department, however, does not support legislation that would
make Reservists or their family members eligible for TRICARE when not
on active duty. The GAO has estimated the cost of providing the TRICARE
benefit for Reservists who are not on active duty at approximately $2
billion per year.
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ
Senator Leahy. Why haven't we found the WMD?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Locating hidden WMD in a country the
size of Iraq will be difficult and time consuming. Voluntary
disclosure by Iraqi citizens will probably prove to be the best
sources of evidence. Finding documents will aid in the search,
however, and interviewing program personnel is critical for
locating WMD.
Senator Leahy. Secretary, were you surprised we have not
found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Not really. I have believed all along
that the inspections, the U.N. inspectors, had very little
prospects of finding anything by discovery. I have always
believed that they would be--they or the people on the ground,
in this case us, will have the best prospect of finding the
weapons programs and documentation and the weapons themselves
through people who have been involved in those programs and
come up and tell us where to look.
The government lived many lies, but one of the lies they
lived for decades, at least better than a decade, was the
ability to fool the inspectors. They actually arranged
themselves so that they could live with the U.N. inspectors.
Senator Leahy. No, I understand that, and I have read a
number of the reports, as you have, reports we cannot go into
in open session. But we are on the ground now. We have gone to
a number of the areas, gone extensively into a number of the
areas that we had felt and our military and our intelligence
had felt would be areas of weapons of mass destruction and have
not discovered anything.
I wonder, if those weapons are there, why they--and if they
were, they were not used against our troops. I am very thankful
for that, as are you and General Pace and everybody else. But I
wondered why, why they were not.
I am also concerned, if they were there, especially in the
areas that we had said that we wanted to look at and now have
looked at, is there any possibility that they have seeped out
and are now in the control of terrorists whose interests are
inimical to us?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I certainly would not say that
something like that is not possible. With porous borders--and
that country I suppose had borders pretty much like we do with
Canada and Mexico. There are plenty of things that move back
and forth across those borders in Iraq that----
Senator Leahy. You probably do not want to go too, too far
with comparing Iraq's and Syria's borders with ours with Canada
and Mexico. We are a little bit friendlier with those two
countries, I hope.
Secretary Rumsfeld. My goodness, yes.
Senator Leahy. I live only an hour's drive from Canada.
Secretary Rumsfeld. We have wonderful people on both sides
trying to maintain the border. But the fact is that things move
across those borders, and they are moving clearly across the
Iranian border, the Syrian border, into Iraq and out of Iraq. I
do not think that I could say that, with certainty, that things
were not moved out, either by the Government of Iraq or by
others.
Senator Leahy. But you do not have any indication that they
had set up with the intent of using such weapons against our
forces when we began to attack?
Secretary Rumsfeld. There was--I am trying to think what I
can say in an open session and I guess there is not much I can
say in an open session.
Senator Leahy. Well then, perhaps what you may want to do
is submit in the normal classified fashion a response on that
one.
Secretary Rumsfeld. The fact is we do see intel chatter
that suggests that things might have moved, but----
Senator Leahy. I am talking about the fact of why they did
not use it against us.
Senator Stevens. Your time has expired.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, could I request the staff so
cleared for such information follow up on that last question in
a classified portion? Thank you.
[The information follows:]
It is unclear why WMD was not used. The possibilities include, that
the Iraqis were too busy moving the WMD for purposes of flight or
hiding that they were unable to use it in combat, that no orders for
WMD use came due to quick regime collapse, that Iraqi soldiers refused
orders to use WMD, or that the Iraqis destroyed the WMD prior to
coalition troops arrival.
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary, I did not come to the
hearing this morning as familiar with what happened to Hannibal
and the Romans, but let me tell you I came here just as
concerned as Senator Byrd about the stability or lack of
stability in the daily lives of the people of that country, and
I remain genuinely concerned that we are in a situation where
we may have won the war and we lose the battle.
So I cannot stress enough that we do whatever is necessary
to bring law and order to that country and that we establish
some kind of a plan quickly for the orderliness of that
society. I understand that we were surprised by a number of
things, such as the condition of their infrastructure. We
assumed that it was better than it is. It is breaking down in
places and at intervals that we had not expected, and that
causes confusion, causes concern, and ultimately blaming
Americans if things are not going right.
In that regard, I wonder why your answers continue to be
that this will be handled by the distinguished General who won
the war. I wonder why it is his job to keep that situation
going and why there is not some other kind of order that is
going to be established quickly that is not under his direct
command. If you might answer that for me in a moment, I would
appreciate it.
Secondly, it seems to me that it is absolutely imperative
that the United States maintain order, regardless of how
difficult it is, because without it there is a real chance that
the people of that country will assume that the victory that we
claim is not a victory at all. Could I have your comments on
that quickly, and I have two other very brief questions.
U.S. COMMITMENT AND COMMAND ARRANGEMENTS
Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes. First, the President has said
publicly that the United States and coalition forces will put
whatever number of forces are needed for as long as they are
needed, and there is no disagreement about the importance of
providing security.
Second, the command arrangements are as follows. The
combatant commander reports to me and I report to the
President. He has the responsibility for security in that
country. The humanitarian side of that and the non-security
side, the non-military side, is now in the hands of the
individual who has been mentioned previously, Ambassador Jerry
Bremer, and he has under him all of those things other than
security, and he reports to me and I report to the President.
The infrastructure, as you properly point out, was badly
degraded over the decades. The power situation, for example, in
Baghdad is so fragile that getting it back working 100 percent
of the city 100 percent of the time is not a simple matter, and
it takes some time. For example, prior to the war only 60
percent of Iraqis had reliable access to safe drinking water.
Ten of Basras 21 potable water treatment facilities were not
functional before the war.
Now, as I said earlier, you empty all the jails and you put
a bunch of hooligans out and you look at an infrastructure that
was not working before the war, and then everyone says: Well,
my goodness, it is chaos, it is turmoil; what is the matter
with you? You have been there for 21 days and you have not
solved all the problems.
I think that they are doing a terrific job. They will
continue to do a better job. The circumstances of the people in
that country are better than they were before the war. They are
going to get better every day. We are finding mass graves,
thousands of human beings that were killed by that government.
What should we do? Would you rather have a policeman here or
someone down there guarding those graves? Would we rather have
someone here?
There are lots of priorities, and we cannot make a country
that has been badly treated and abused and a people that have
been badly treated and abused for decades, we cannot make it
right, we cannot make it like the United States, in 5 minutes,
and we know that. We have got wonderful people out there doing
a darn good job and their circumstances are going to get better
every single day.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary, I wholeheartedly agree
with you and I am not arguing with you. I am merely suggesting
for the public record that if there is one thing we are good at
it is establishing order and establishing a way of putting
things into a sense of order and developing construction
techniques and construction formats that are credible and that
people will believe and can see. And I merely urge that these
happen quickly. I have not heard much about that. I assume that
I will, and I thank you for your answer.
The second question has to do with one that has bothered me
in terms of informing the public of something we did that was
rather spectacular. Our ability to target our weapons was a
spectacular achievement. It is a combination of technology,
much of which is secret, much of which we cannot divulge. But I
have wondered whether or not it is possible that you could have
a neutral group evaluate how we went about, what care we took,
how much emphasis, energy, time, money, and resources we put
into this episode, and have it as some kind of a feature to
show the world what we have done.
So far it is just something that we can see in terms of the
effect. It would seem to me it would make an incredible story,
put forth by credible writers, as to what we had to go through
to get there. I can imagine the hours spent in trying to
determine which target versus another target. I can imagine
time spent looking at a building to see who occupied it and
when so we would know whether or not to strike it or not
because the occupants are innocent people. In fact, I happen to
know those kinds of decisions were made.
It seems to me that to get that out in a tabloid form where
everybody could understand and see it would be a remarkable
positive for American involvement in this particular war. I
would like your comments and I thank you for your testimony.
CAREFUL TARGETING IN IRAQ
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, you are certainly obviously
very knowledgeable and exactly correct. The amount of--the
hundreds of hours and the hundreds of people that were involved
in looking at targets and making judgments about which targets
would give the greatest advantage with the least potential for
collateral damage; what time of day to strike a target where
there would be the fewest innocent people in any area; what
direction the weapon should be directed so that it would avoid
civilian areas; what type of weapon to use; how to use that
weapon; how to fuse it.
All of those things were gone into with enormous care and
detail. And you are right, it would be a story that would
reflect very well on the United States and on the people
involved.
Senator Domenici. Would you mind taking a look at whether
that could be done?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I will certainly take a look at whether
it could be done.
Senator Domenici. I do not mean to burden you with all the
other things you have, but it seems to me to be public
relations, a very, very positive kind of thing.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR
Mr. Secretary, I wanted to take this discussion in a
slightly different way and I wanted to talk about the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator. I read the nuclear posture review
when it came out in 2002 and saw where, if that were put into
actual public policy, there would be a substantial departure
from where this Nation in the past was going with respect to
nuclear weapons.
Then as I looked at the doctrines of unilateralism and
preemption and see the authorization that has been requested
for $15 million to continue the study of the Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrator (RNEP), the likelihood is that that
authorization will pass and that we will be faced with an
appropriation of money as well.
The way I see it, development of the RNEP represents a
blurring of the line between conventional and nuclear weapons
that may very well undermine our efforts to limit
proliferation, and which may give nuclear armaments a role in
this new United States doctrine of preemption. So I am
obviously very concerned about it and wonder why, with the
massive conventional weaponry that we have at our disposal,
whether it be a daisycutter or a conventional bunkerbuster or
the other things that we have, why is it necessary at this
particularly tenuous point in time to begin a new effort with
respect to nuclear weapons which can only in my view take us
down a disastrous course?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, let me make a few comments on
some of the things you said so that the record is very clear.
You indicated that there is a proposal that you think is going
to pass to develop a tactical nuclear weapon, I believe you
said.
Senator Feinstein. An authorization for $15 million for the
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Right. And I think that is not
accurate. I think that there is a proposal to fund a study, not
the development, not the production, but a study. Let me tell
you why. And you smile, but it is a serious matter that we do
not have in the inventory the ability to deal with an
underground, deeply buried target.
We are looking and studying a variety of ways that that
might be done, one of which is the one you are mentioning,
which is a study, not the development, not the building, no
major departure as you suggested.
I would say this, that I do not think it would blur--
studying the possibility of developing in several different
ways, one of which is the one you mentioned, an ability to hit
a target that is deeply buried is not going to in my view blur
the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. You
are right, if you study it someone might say, well, then you
could build it some day. And that is true, you could, you could
decide it. But that is a totally different issue and it is not
part of what is before the Congress, as your statement
suggested.
Why do I not think that it would blur it? Nuclear weapons
were used once, in 1945, and they have not been fired since in
anger. That is an amazing record for human beings. Never in the
history of mankind have there been weapons that powerful or
anything approximating it, that distinctly different, that have
not been used. They have not been used.
Now, what does that mean? It means at least civilized
countries, democracies, the ones that have those weapons thus
far, and the few that are not democracies that have them, have
made a conscious decision that there is a big difference in
crossing that threshold. The United States has been at war in
Korea, we have been at war in Vietnam, we have been in war lots
of places since 1945, and they have never been used.
No President is going to think that the line is blurred
suddenly because of a study to see if we can develop an ability
for a deep earth penetrator, in my view. Am I correct in----
Senator Feinstein. May I ask you further on that?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Sure.
Senator Feinstein. According to the press reports, the
nuclear posture review puts forward several scenarios in which
the United States would consider a first use of nuclear
weapons. I can mention them here if you wish. And when that
comes out in 2002, although it was somewhat debunked by the
administration, a year later we find that the studies are
beginning to develop new tactical nuclear weapons.
Yes, nuclear weapons were only used once before, but they
were used by the United States, and now we have concern about
India and Pakistan, we have serious concern about North Korea,
and our efforts have been to limit the proliferation of nuclear
weapons. To me, it is counterproductive to our overall purposes
of limiting proliferation to begin studies that take us into
the area of the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Would you comment?
Secretary Rumsfeld. You bet. I have to again correct what
you said. You say we now found out that the United States is
beginning to develop tactical nuclear weapons.
Senator Feinstein. No, I did not. I beg your pardon.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Oh, I misunderstood, then.
Senator Feinstein. No, no. I say we now find that a study.
I mean, I accept your word. I have no reason not to accept your
word that this is a study.
Secretary Rumsfeld. My point is we have tactical nuclear
weapons, theater nuclear weapons. We have had them for decades.
They exist. We have lots of them. We have a fraction of those
that----
Senator Feinstein. Can we confine it to the Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrator.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I did. I pointed out it is a study and
it is not the development of a tactical nuclear weapon, as you
suggested. It just is not. We have lots of studies and we
should do studies. We have lots of war plans and contingency
plans, and we should have those. We do not use them all.
Obviously, the job of the Department of Defense is to be
prepared to defend the American people, and that is what we do.
We plan, we study things, we try to develop different kinds of
capabilities from time to time.
But any development program would have to come before this
body.
Senator Feinstein. No, I understand that. It is just in the
public policy that one might look at nuclear weapons. If we are
trying to discourage their use, now that we have this well-
established doctrine of preemptive action, unilateral action,
and you add to this possible scenarios where nuclear weapons
could be used, why does that not encourage other nations to
become nuclear in response?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, first let me say one thing. You
mentioned unilateral action. In the Iraq effort there were 49
nations involved. I keep reading in the press about unilateral
this and going it alone that. It was balogna. There were 49
countries in one way or another assisting in that effort. It
seems to me that that is just a fact.
If you think about the proliferation problem, it is a
serious problem, and I agree completely with you and I worry
about it a great deal. The fact is we could have 50 percent
more, even 100 percent more, nuclear nations in the next 15, 20
years, and that is not a happy world to live in. It is not a
good thing.
The idea that our studying a deep earth penetrator,
studying a nuclear deep earth penetrator, is going to
contribute to proliferation I think ignores the fact that the
world is proliferating. It is happening. It is happening
without any studies by us. It is going on all around us. North
Korea will sell almost anything it has by way of military
technologies for hard currency. That is what they do.
I think that any implication that a study in the Department
for that would contribute to proliferation simply is not
consistent with the fact, because we have got a world that is
filled with proliferation. It is pervasive.
Senator Stevens. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. We will now go to the second round and
limit it, if it is agreeable, to 5 minutes. I have agreed that
the Secretary and General and Deputy Secretary would be able to
leave at 12:30.
Let me start off with just one statement, Senator, Senator
Feinstein. The implications of the Senator's questions are that
Harry Truman was wrong. Two of us sitting here were part of the
2-million-man force that was in the Pacific that might have had
to be used to invade Japan. I think Harry Truman goes down in
history for having the courage to make that decision. Not that
I think any future President will make the same decision, but
if in that same position I hope we have the weapons and I hope
we have the President who has the courage to make the decision
for our national survival.
My question to you now, though, Mr. Secretary--that took 5
minutes? We have a situation on these weapons of mass
destruction. Several of us were among those that were briefed
by your intelligence people, the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA), and others on the probable existence of those weapons. I
think it is absolutely necessary we follow every possible
avenue to get them.
SOLICITING INFORMATION ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
My question is, have you advertised a reward for those
people who might have that knowledge? Any one of those people
who come forward and gives us the knowledge of the existence of
those is dead unless we take care of them. I hope we are
advertising a substantial sum of money for creating a new life
if they come forward and help us get that information.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I have not seen radio or leaflets or
specific documents that do that. I do know that we have asked
that that be done and that there are reward systems and that
people are being encouraged to come forward, and that I have
said publicly to the Iraqi people that their circumstance will
be much better if they come forward.
The problem of amnesty is a difficult one because of the
fact that the Iraqi people may decide to make judgments about
Iraqi people who served Saddam Hussein's regime. So it is a
tricky business.
Senator Stevens. Well, we moved this gentleman who came
forward on Private Lynch and brought him to this country
immediately. I think we have that power now. I hope we use it
in terms of this search for these weapons.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree, it is extremely important.
CALLUP ON RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL
Senator Stevens. Let me ask one last question so others may
have some time. I know that we have taken into the regular
service, I guess we have called up, guardsmen and reserve
people. We are now, I am told, demobilizing 50,000 reservists
and guardsmen per month, but we are still calling other people
up.
What can we see in terms of this process of demobilization
as far as the Guard and Reserve is concerned?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, let me say a couple of things.
First of all, we are not demobilizing 50,000 a month. I do not
know where that came from.
Senator Stevens. That was a statement that was made to us
during the supplemental on the record here, that we would
demobilize 50,000 a month.
Secretary Rumsfeld. We would is what it said, I think. You
said we are, I thought.
Senator Stevens. That was the aggressive assumption that
was given to us at the time, that we would demobilize 50,000 a
month.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I think that may have been an
assumption in a proposal that suggested at that point where it
was possible to do so from a security standpoint on the ground
you would then begin demobilizing. Thus far, what we have
returned to the United States both Active, Guard, and Reserve
are essentially Navy and Air Force personnel. Practically no
Army or Marines have been brought back.
General Pace. Correct, sir. The projection, sir, in that
budget supplement was about we thought perhaps 90 days of
combat. That turned out to be not the right number. We thought
there would be 50,000 per month, because we had to have some
kinds of projections so we could prepare a budget supplemental
that had some validity to it. That is where the 50,000 per
month comes from.
As we sit here, the services are going through their own
analyses and will present to the Secretary later this week or
the beginning of next week their proposals on how to
reconstitute the force, Active and Reserve, in a very
systematic way that allows us to have the force on station that
is needed today and allows us to regenerate our long-term
capability.
Senator Stevens. Okay. I do not want to take the time for
it now, but that assumption was the assumption for our
supplemental. I started today by asking you about have you got
enough money. That is tied into that matter. If we are not
going to demobilize them, then we do not have enough money to
keep them much longer. Would you give us a statement for the
record of what we can see in terms of that demobilization, how
it affects the money that you have still got available?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes, sir, we will do that. I will just
say briefly, what we did was we made a set of assumptions and
said they were only assumptions, and that if it played out this
way this is roughly what it would cost. And then we said, if
this were longer, this would be shorter.
[The information follows:]
The fiscal year 2003 Supplemental provided $13.4 billion to the
Department of Defense in Active and Reserve Military Personnel Pay.
Presently, U.S. Central Command's stability operations plan for Iraq is
still evolving because of the dynamic environment inside the country.
The final plan could require a greater than planned presence, including
the Reserve Component. The current projection is that the Services will
fully execute the funding appropriated in the Military Personnel
Accounts. It remains our goal to reduce the numbers of our Reserve
Component on active duty as quickly as possible, while at the same time
not jeopardizing our commitment to Operation Iraqi Freedom and the
Global War on Terrorism.
Senator Stevens. Right.
Secretary Rumsfeld. And therefore it balanced. And we
thought that, regardless of whether the assumptions proved to
be exactly right, which as Pete points out they are not right,
nonetheless the money might be roughly the same. And at least
at this moment, the Comptroller believes that is the case.
Senator Stevens. But it looks to me like both are longer,
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, the war was shorter.
Dr. Zakheim. The war was shorter and in addition, if you
keep the people out there, then you are not spending the money
that we did assume and budget to bring them back. So there
really is an offsetting factor, and we are still pretty
confident in the number that we got from you for the
supplemental.
Senator Stevens. I would like to see a paper on it if we
can.
Secretary Rumsfeld. And sir, if we were continuing the war,
instead of like 90 days, think of the ammunition we would be
using and the cost of replenishing all of that. So there were
so many variables that I think we are probably in the ballpark.
FORCE LEVELS IN IRAQ THEATER
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, if the information is not classified, can
you give us the statistics on the number of troops, Army, Navy,
Air Force, and Marines, in theater at the height of the battle
3 weeks ago?
Dr. Zakheim. Sir, I can give you a rough guesstimate and
give you the exact numbers for the record. But right now Army
is at about 160,000, the Marine Corps is at about 65,000, the
Navy and Air Force are both at about 30,000 each, sir.
Secretary Rumsfeld. That is in the theater, not in Iraq.
Dr. Zakheim. In the theater. That adds up today--I do not
know these numbers, but I do know that the overall number today
is right at about 309,000, of which United States in country,
correct number, is approximately 142,000.
Senator Inouye. Is it correct that the Marines sent about
60 percent of their available combat forces there?
Dr. Zakheim. I think that math is right, yes, sir. They had
66,000 of their operating forces there. That sounds about
right.
Senator Inouye. And the Army sent the equivalent of four
divisions?
Dr. Zakheim. That sounds right, sir.
Senator Inouye. And the Navy sent the equivalent of six
carrier battle groups?
Dr. Zakheim. Five, sir.
Senator Inouye. Five.
I ask this because this was the bulk of our military, was
it not, Mr. Secretary? We have ten divisions available in the
Army. Sixty percent of the Marines were there, 5 carriers out
of 12 that are available.
My question is, with that type of commitment and
assignment, should we be discouraging some of our fellow
Americans from considering ourselves invincible? Soon after the
battle they were talking about going to Syria and possibly
North Korea.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes, I see your point.
I would like to answer for the record the answer as to
whether it was the bulk, because the Reserve call-up was not
the bulk, and therefore if we took the totality of the United
States armed forces I think I would guess that it was not a
majority.
General Pace. That is true, sir.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Second, you are certainly right that--I
should add, they were only there for a relatively short period
of time. There was a gradual buildup and a gradual drawdown,
with the Air Force and the Navy moving out within some cases a
relatively short period of time.
But you are right, no nation is capable of doing everything
on the face of the Earth at every moment, and certainly those
people in the Department of Defense who worry with these things
every day and recognize the costs and the circumstance of our
forces understand that fully.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The word that I used earlier, Mr. Secretary, was
``shakeup.''
ASSIGNMENT TO AMBASSADOR BREMER
Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes.
Senator Byrd. And you seemed to take some--not necessarily
I would say umbrage, but you sought to differ that
classification. Let me read from the Philadelphia Inquirer of
May 13 as follows: ``The new U.S. civilian overseer, former
diplomat L. Paul Bremer, who arrived yesterday to take over the
Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance from
retired Army Lieutenant General Jay Garner, is facing his own
housecleaning. Barbara Bodine, the State Department official
overseeing the reconstruction of Baghdad, was reassigned after
3 weeks on the job and at least five other senior members of
the ORHA [Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian
Assistance]''--``of the ORHA staff also will be returning home,
a senior U.S. official said yesterday.''
So I offer that for the record in support of the word which
I used, that being ``shakeup.'' Now----
[The information follows:]
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 13, 2003]
U.S. Hints at Boost in Forces Amid Iraqi Troubles
(By Maureen Fan, Andrea Gerlin and Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson; Inquirer
Staff Writers)
Turmoil yesterday continued to dog Iraq and the American
effort to rebuild the country, and the United States' top
uniformed military officer hinted that restoring order may
require more American troops than originally planned.
Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, said that security and infrastructure problems
were the two major issues facing Iraq and that U.S. troops
would have a significant role until Iraqis could run their
police force independently and basic services were returned.
Additional military units headed to Baghdad--namely the
First Armored Division based in Germany--were intended to
replace the Third Infantry Division and other units that fought
the war, but Myers yesterday said only that they ``may''
replace units now in Iraq.
Myers also said that other countries had offered troops to
buttress the American presence. He declined to be specific and
said that their ``exact disposition'' had not been determined.
Myers' comments illustrated the problems facing the United
States as it tries to put Iraq back on its feet without relying
on either a lengthy American military occupation or recycled
bureaucrats from Saddam Hussein's regime.
The difficulty was made clear again yesterday when Iraq's
U.S.-approved health minister resigned after questions were
raised about his Baath Party pedigree.
The new U.S. civilian overseer, former diplomat L. Paul
Bremer, who arrived yesterday to take over the Office of
Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) from retired
Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, is facing his own housecleaning.
Barbara Bodine, the State Department official overseeing the
reconstruction of Baghdad, was reassigned after three weeks on
the job, and at least five other senior members of the ORHA
staff also will be returning home, a senior U.S. official said
yesterday.
In the Shiite holy city of Najaf, meanwhile, a tearful
homecoming for the head of Iraq's largest opposition group came
to an abrupt end last night when dozens of followers of a rival
cleric shoved their way toward the balcony on which the newly
returned leader stood, prompting his bodyguards to hurry him
indoors for fear that he might be assassinated.
The bright spot in the day was an announcement that U.S.
forces had captured Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha, the British-trained
microbiologist known as ``Dr. Germ'' for her work developing
biological weapons for Hussein. U.S. officials also said they
had seized the former chief of staff of the Iraqi armed forces,
Ibrahim Ahmad Abd al-Sattar Muhammad al Tikriti, but a Pentagon
official cautioned that his identity had not been verified.
The abrupt resignation of the health minister, Dr. Ali
Shinan--whom critics accuse of corruption and diverting medical
supplies at the expense of poor Iraqis--underscored the first
challenge for the U.S. rebuilding effort: figuring out how to
restore services and chart a new course for Iraq without
relying on former Baathist officials. The task is complicated
by the fact that Baath Party membership was virtually a
condition of employment for anyone who wanted a government job
in the last three decades.
``We need to move humanitarian assistance,'' said the
ORHA's Steve Browning yesterday after touring the 1,000-bed al
Yarmouk Hospital. ``We need to move medical supplies. We need
to get people back to work. We need to make salaries. We need
to produce petrol. We need to produce electricity. We need to
get the sanitation systems working.''
The chaos in Najaf highlighted another obstacle to U.S.
reconstruction efforts, a growing power struggle within Iraq's
majority Shiite Muslim community. Since he returned to his
homeland Saturday after 23 years in exile in neighboring Iran,
Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al Hakim, the head of the Supreme
Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, has repeatedly
called for an end to the struggle for religious control that
has emerged since Hussein's fall.
The most visible instigator in this war for Shiite hearts
and minds is Najaf cleric Moqtader al Sadr, the youngest son of
Muhammad Sadiq al Sadr, a powerful marjah, or senior spiritual
leader, who was slain by Hussein in 1999. Followers of the
marjah and his son disrupted Hakim's homecoming at Grand Imam
Ali Shrine yesterday, holding up posters and a painting of the
senior Sadr, whose name they chanted as they beat their chests.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Could I comment on that?
Senator Byrd. Oh, yes. How much time do I have?
Senator Stevens. About 3\1/2\ minutes, sir. It depends on
when the Secretary wants to leave.
Senator Byrd. Oh, he is in no hurry to leave.
He is in a fighting mood, I can see that.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, let me comment on that
article, from whatever paper it was. Because something is in
the press, of course, does not make it so.
Senator Byrd. The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Right. Now, first of all, just some
facts. Number one, he was not sent out there as part of a
shakeup. He was sent out there as presidential envoy. He was
not sent out there to replace Mister--General Garner as head of
the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. He
was sent out there as a presidential envoy.
The individual you mentioned who was reassigned had not
been there 3 weeks. I can remember seeing her in December or
January, which is months ago, when I visited their office in
the Pentagon, and then again when I saw them off in the parking
lot of the Pentagon to see them away, which was in I believe
December or January. So it is a lot more than 3 weeks.
There are a number of things in that article with which I
would differ.
NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES IN IRAQ
Senator Byrd. For months, Mr. Secretary, the administration
warned of the potential nuclear capabilities of Iraq. Indeed,
one of the main justifications for U.S. action in Iraq was to
ensure that nuclear weapons and material did not fall into the
hands of terrorists. It has been widely reported that U.S.
troops in Baghdad have secured some buildings, including the
oil ministry. But according to a story in the Washington Post
on May 10, our forces failed to prevent looting at seven
nuclear facilities.
I quote from the article: ``It is not clear what has been
lost in the sacking of Iraq's nuclear establishment, but it is
well documented that looters roamed unrestrained among stores
of chemical elements and scientific files that would speed
development in the wrong hands of a nuclear or radiological
bomb. Many of the files and some of the containers that held
radioactive sources are missing.''
The administration argued that war against Iraq was
necessary to prevent the spread and development of nuclear
weapons, and yet by failing to protect these sites we may have
actually facilitated the spread and development of nuclear
weapons. I understand the importance of protecting the oil
ministry so that the daily running of Iraq could continue. But,
given that one of the reasons for invading Iraq was to prevent
the spread of nuclear materials and capabilities, why were
these sites not protected, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, I do not believe anyone that I
know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear
weapons. So the statement I think you read, that we have warned
of potential nuclear capability and weapons and materials in
the hands of terrorists, in terms of their having them now I do
not know anyone who suggested that that was the case.
The Central Intelligence Agency I know has assessed that
they had a nuclear program and assessed that they had chemical
and biological weapons, a slight difference from the article.
LOOTING IN IRAQ AND PROTECTING SITES
As to looting, my understanding is that a number of sites
were located by U.S. forces, coalition forces, on the ground,
they were looked at and a judgment was made that they should go
to a different site and look at those other sites. In some
cases, before they got there things were looted. In some cases,
possibly after they got there and went to another site things
may have been looted.
It is not possible to have enough forces in a country
instantaneously to guard every site before somebody can get
into it. I do not know about the choice between the oil
ministry and some site that that article may be referring to. I
do know that they had a lot of tasks to do. They had to win the
war, they had to deal with death squads of Fedayeen Saddam,
they had to deal with Baath Party members in civilian clothes
that were trying to kill them, and all in all I think they did
a darn good job.
We have no evidence to conclude, as that article suggests
might have happened, that, in fact, nuclear materials did leave
and get into the hands of people. I do not have evidence that
it did or did not. That is the best I can do.
Senator Byrd. Why was protecting these well-known nuclear
facilities not at least as high priority as protecting the oil
ministry?
Secretary Rumsfeld. My impression is from what I know, and
I would have to check, that a number of sites were protected.
There are something like at the present time--the number
changes every month or every week, but I believe there are
something like 578 suspected weapon of mass destruction sites.
What does that mean? Does it mean they are all sites where
something--no, it just means that there was a scrap of
information here that suggested that somebody might have been
doing something there and you ought to check it out.
But there are hundreds of these possible sites. We also
have intelligence that suggested that they took the
documentation and a number of the materials, dispersed them and
hid them, in some cases in private residences. So how does any
force of any size instantaneously get to all of those locations
and provide perfect security for them so someone cannot loot
them? I think it is an unrealistic expectation.
Senator Stevens. Senator, I am sorry. I have got a bunch of
appointments and we guaranteed the Secretary we would be
through here at 12:30. He has, as I understand it, to go to the
White House for a meeting. So with your cooperation, I would
like to let him go.
Senator Byrd. Is this a filibuster you are shutting off?
Senator Stevens. No. You are not filibustering yet,
Senator. I have seen you filibuster. This is not that.
Senator Byrd. Well, we will be talking with the Secretary
again. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. We appreciate your cooperation.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent
that the article from the Washington Post of Tuesday, May 13,
entitled ``Baghdad Anarchy Spurs Call for Help,'' that it be
included in the record in its entirety?
Senator Stevens. It will be.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
THE HURRICANE HUNTERS
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, I understand the Hurricane Hunters
based at Keesler Air Force Base were recently deployed to the Pacific
operating out of Elmendorf, Alaska in support of Winter Weather
Reconnaissance missions for the National Centers for Environmental
Prediction. Similarly, a detachment of the Hurricane Hunters was
recently deployed to Guam to perform weather reconnaissance in support
of current operations. Can you provide the Subcommittee with an update
on their deployment and the unique capability the Hurricane Hunters
provide to our ability to predict weather around the world?
Answer. Pacific Air Forces requested weather reconnaissance
assistance to cover the period of transition between the failing Geo-
stationary Meteorological Satellite GMS 5 and its replacement by the
Pacific Geo-stationary Operational Environmental Satellite GOES 9.
During the satellite transition, contingency bomber and fighter forces
were also deployed to Anderson AFB, Guam in support of Pacific Command
(PACOM) requirements. In order to ensure optimum utilization of the air
assets, since the deployment coincided with the typhoon season, WC-130
aircraft and personnel from the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron
(WRS) were requested and subsequently deployed to Guam. The WC-130
capability filled the gap and performed the needed mission admirably.
Shortly after the departure of contingency bomber and fighter forces,
the 53rd WRS redeployed from Guam on 6 June 2003.
Their presence allowed PACOM to operate in the Pacific area of
responsibility while avoiding inadvertent typhoon evacuation of the
bomber and fighter forces, enhancing the ability to maintain needed
force presence and deterrence throughout the contingency. The unit was
deployed for approximately 30 days and performed over 100 hours of
tropical cyclone reconnaissance providing weather forecast centers
world-wide (Joint Typhoon Warning Center, National Center for
Environmental Prediction, Air Force Weather Agency, Fleet Numerical
Meteorology and Oceanography Center, United Kingdom Meteorology Center,
and others) with previously unavailable data over the western Pacific
ocean.
The WC-130 aircraft and crews provide a unique capability to gather
meteorological data from remote and over water locations from the
surface up to the operational capabilities of the aircraft, 30,000 feet
or so. They accomplished this by collecting information from the
aircraft's special instruments called dropsondes and by airborne
meteorological observations. The dropsondes collect wind direction and
velocity, pressure altitude, air temperature, relative humility and
position every one-half second as it descends by parachute.
Initial assessments of WC-130 data seem to indicate an enhanced
ability to determine tropical cyclone location and forecast tracks in
three separate storm events. WC-130 data fixed storm locations by as
much as 80NM from satellite-derived storm locations. Data from the WC-
130 missions increased definition of developing storm characteristics
and intensities (not well defined by satellite coverage). The WC-130
data provided relevant and accurate information to military decision
makers. A comparison study is now underway to determine how and to what
degree WC-130 data improved overall typhoon model forecasts for the
area of responsibility. The technical data will be assessed and
reported through United States Pacific Command upon completion.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, as part of the fiscal year 2004
budget process, I understand you have approved an initiative to
transfer the weather reconnaissance mission presently performed by the
Hurricane Hunters from the Department of Defense to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Considering recent
deployments directly supporting current military operations, I am
concerned with the ramifications of this proposed transfer. How will
the military support missions be performed if this weather
reconnaissance mission is transferred to NOAA?
Answer. The recent deployment of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance
Squadron (WRS) at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi is the only
instance of unit activation for military weather support since the
mission transferred from the active component to the Air Force Reserve
in August of 1990. Currently, there is no equivalent military
capability that exists to conduct the military weather mission
performed by the 53rd WRS.
After the weather reconnaissance mission is transferred to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there are two
separate and distinct ways for the Department of Defense to achieve
this type of weather reconnaissance support. First, if the President
declares the situation a national emergency, he has the power to
transfer resources and officers from NOAA to the Department of Defense.
This is provided in 33 USC 3061. The second way is to request NOAA to
perform the mission within their resources without being mobilized.
This second process could be outlined in the construct of the
memorandum of agreement for the mission transfer.
UAVS
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, when General Myers last appeared
before this Subcommittee, he referred to the need for persistent, long-
loiter intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles such as Global Hawk have proven to be
extremely valuable to our operations. Are we moving fast enough to
procure systems such as Global Hawk and other necessary UAV systems?
Answer. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Department deployed
over 10 different UAV systems to support military operations. This was
the widest use of UAVs in any operation to date; they not only provided
persistent surveillance and broad area search but also target
identification and designation for weapons employment plus battle
damage assessment following a strike. UAVs were even, themselves,
strike platforms; Predator flew in an armed reconnaissance role with
Hellfire missiles engaging and destroying a number of tactical targets.
Global Hawk also showed its ability to provide persistent surveillance.
A single prototype flew over 350 hours in direct combat support and
located over 300 Iraqi tanks, about 38 percent of all the known armor
assets of Iraq military. We are procuring Air Force Global Hawk and
Predator UAVs at about the right pace when the additional components of
communications, command and control and training are included.
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, when General Myers last appeared
before this Subcommittee, he provided testimony indicating the
establishment of NORTHCOM has significantly improved the preparedness,
responsiveness and integration between the U.S. military and other
federal agencies defending the homeland. Considering this integration
between the military and the Homeland Security Agency, do you believe
integration would be enhanced if the military and the Homeland Security
Agency used common UAV platforms, such as Global Hawk, in their
operations?
Answer. The Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland
Security, at the request of Senator Warner, Chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, are jointly examining the potential utilities
of unmanned aerial vehicles for homeland security missions. When the
examination is completed, the results will also be provided to the
Subcommittee.
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, I understand the budget request
contains funding for one LPD-17 amphibious ship in fiscal year 2004,
but no LPD in fiscal year 2005; this appears to be an inefficient
program profile. Admiral Clark and General Hagee have both indicated
that they could use that ship sooner than later. Can you share your
thoughts on the LPD-17 program profile and requirements?
Answer. Yes. This is not an issue of when we need the ships but
rather one of balancing requirements with limited resources in view of
industrial base and program realities. I believe that everyone agrees
that replacing the LPD-4 class earlier rather than later is a good
thing. However, during last year's budget review, the Navy concluded
that leaving a gap year in fiscal year 2005 was appropriate for the
time being because insufficient production data was available to
justify adding more LPD-17 workload. Significant design problems led to
a number of delays and cost increases--a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach--up
to that point. They had four ships on contract with the lead ship still
in early production and virtually no construction completed on the
other three--and plans to award a fifth ship in the second half of
fiscal year 2003. In short, the Navy had a lot of ships on contract or
committed with no empirical data that proved the LPD-17 production
schedule was back on track. Since the gap was an fiscal year 2005
issue, they had another opportunity to revisit the issue and make
adjustments with the benefit of more production data. I reviewed the
Navy's plan and I agreed with their approach.
My understanding today is that production on the LPD-17 is
progressing well and that the design is proving to be stable. As a
result, the Navy has made this issue a priority as part of their
program/budget review process. I also intend to conduct a thorough
review of this issue this fall as the Department finalizes the fiscal
year 2005 budget.
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, as you know, and have known for
several years now, the current rate of shipbuilding is not sufficient
to meet the established goal of a 375-ship Navy. In fact, it will fall
far short of even a 310-ship Navy, and require enormous investment in
the out years simply to catch up. If more funding were available for
shipbuilding, how could it be most effectively spent in the near term?
Answer. Because of industrial base reasons and the fact we are in a
transition period in shipbuilding--at the end of the production of DDG-
51 and at the beginning of several new ship classes--more funding added
to shipbuilding in fiscal year 2004 would not be prudent. We currently
have DDG-51s, LPD-17s, and T-AKEs already on contract or budgeted in
sufficient numbers to load the shipyards to their capacities. Adding
additional funds to put more ships on contract will not result in ships
being built earlier. Similarly, the long lead-times and the limited
industrial base for nuclear components preclude the possibility to
increase Virginia class submarine production before the fiscal year
2007 timeframe. And finally, the kind of ships we need to start
building (and in large numbers for some) to cope with the threats of
the 21st century--DD(X), LCS, MPF(F), CVN-21 and LHA(R)--simply are not
yet ready for production.
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, I understand you would like to
consolidate the Active, National Guard and Reserve Military Pay
Accounts into one Account that would be managed by the Active
components. Do you think that we can make a significant change like
this without jeopardizing the integrity of the Guard and Reserve
Military Pay Accounts?
Answer. I have proposed the consolidation of 10 Military Pay
appropriation accounts into 4. However, I have not proposed that the
consolidated accounts be managed by the Active components. The
consolidation does not affect the Military Services Title 10
responsibilities. Further, I don't see the consolidation as threatening
the integrity of the Guard and Reserve Military Pay Accounts at all.
The revised structure consolidates all Guard and all Reserve funding
into single budget activities (one for the Reserves and a separate one
for the Guard). The consolidation of personnel appropriations is
designed to streamline and optimize funds management and eliminates the
need to reprogram funds within the Reserve Components by eliminating
the $10 million reprogramming threshold currently imposed on Reserve
Component programs. The new structure merges the existing two budget
activities for the Reserve and National Guard Personnel funding into
one budget activity for each Reserve Component. Over time, the Reserve
Components' evolving role has made the two budget activities less
meaningful and executable.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Question. What have you learned from the mobilization of the
reserve component for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom?
Where do you need to improve and what do you need to do it?
Answer. The force structure and the timing of the use of the
Reserve Components need adjustment. Due to post Viet Nam adjustments
and the ``Peace Dividend'' of the 1990's many military capabilities
necessary to prosecute military actions of modest scale were placed
entirely or predominately within the Reserve Components. This limits
the flexibility necessary for the use of military force in a post cold
war environment, particularly in the war on terrorism.
Force structure and the timing of the use of the Reserve Components
are both under review. Active/Reserve Component changes are up for
revision (September 2003) with more to soon follow. Review of Operation
Plans that contemplate the early use of Reserve Component forces is
also under review, with Combatant Commanders tasked to review and
revise their plans, reducing the necessity for early mobilization of
the Reserve Components.
Question. Do we have the right mix of skill sets in the active and
reserve component? Do we need more troops in the active component?
Answer. The mix of skill sets in the Active and Reserve Components
is currently being examined in several forums. The Operational
Availability Study, the OSD AC/RC Mix study, as well as individual
Service studies are all looking at the right mix of Active and Reserve
capabilities to ensure that the needs of the National Security Strategy
are met through the key factors of availability, responsiveness,
agility, and flexibility. The studies are ongoing, but initial results
indicate some capabilities need to be addressed.
I do not believe that additional active end strength is required to
meet the national strategy. Instead, more progress needs to be made on
distributing our skill mix to optimize our force capabilities within
existing end strength.
We will be examining the possibility of rebalancing capabilities
within war plans and between the Active and Reserve Components. While
recent mobilizations have highlighted shortages in certain capabilities
that stressed Reserve forces, there are multiple solutions to address
those issues.
In addition, over 320,000 military manpower spaces have been
identified as performing duties in specialties or situations that can
potentially be performed by other kinds of personnel. I have directed
my staff to conduct an in-depth review of these positions to determine
how many can be reasonably converted to civilian performance, thus
freeing military manpower to meet our most pressing demands.
Application of a variety of actions including innovative management
techniques for the Reserves will maximize the efficiency of our
existing forces and may therefore require very little changes to
existing force structure.
Question. Should U.S. Forces be based overseas in new locations to
better train and respond to today's threats? What is the right level of
troop strength overseas?
Answer. Both these questions are under intense review by the
Department. These are exactly the kind of new assessments we must do to
take account of everything we know about 21st century threats.
Question. Were more private contractors (and contractor employees)
involved with Operation Iraqi Freedom than Operation Desert Storm?
(Please provide as exact count as possible for each category.) How were
private contractors used? What impact does the use of private
contractors on the battlefield have for Transformation?
Answer. Contracting for these services was done by a wide variety
of Civilian Agencies, Defense Agencies, Military Departments and
individual military commands. In addition, contracts and orders under
existing contracts for support to deployed forces covered effort both
in the country of operations and at other locations including the
United States. At present there is no unique identifier in the
contracts data system to allow for identification of an effort to a
particular military deployment. Therefore, it is not possible to
develop this data without having the Military Departments conduct a
long and expensive manual data call.
Contractors were used to provide the following services: laundry
and bath facilities; clothing exchange and repair; food service;
mortuary affairs; sanitation services; billeting/facilities management;
moral, welfare and recreation facilities; information management;
personnel support; maintenance; transportation; medical services;
engineering and construction; signal support; power generation and
distribution; automation operations; and physical security.
The use of contractors on the battlefield is not new. The military
has always used contractors to support its operations. The military
will continue to use contractors to obtain capacity that the military
does not possess, to facilitate faster movement into an area of
operations, to reduce soldier OPTEMPO or deployment time, and to
maximize combat forces when force size is constrained. Where these
issues arise during the transformation process, the use of contractors
will be one tool available to resolve the issue.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. What funds from the fiscal year 2003 Supplemental
Appropriations Act have been obligated to date? What is the timeline to
distribute the remainder of the funds provided in the Supplemental, and
how much of the Supplemental do you estimate will be carried over into
fiscal year 2004?
Answer. As of May 30, 2003 total obligations from funds made
available in fiscal year 2003 for the Global War on Terrorism and
Operation Iraqi Freedom totaled $31,243 million. It is projected that
approximately $4 billion of the $62.6 billion appropriated in the
fiscal year 2003 Supplemental will be obligated in the early part of
fiscal year 2004.
Question. What are the Department's total cost projections in
fiscal year 2004 for keeping troops in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom or any subsequent missions in Iraq? In the President's pending
budget request for fiscal year 2004 sufficient to cover these costs?
Answer. A drawdown of troops in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
is currently underway. I expect the drawdown will continue through the
middle of the next fiscal year. Presently, CENTCOM's stability
operations plan for Iraq is still evolving because of the dynamic
environment inside the country, and may require a significant presence
of our forces. The numbers of troops and pace of demobilization not yet
been finalized. Therefore, the cost of supporting Operation Iraqi
Freedom troops has not yet been determined. The President's pending
budget request does not specifically include funds to support Operation
Iraqi Freedom troops. During fiscal year 2004 we will assess our
funding requirements and determine the means by which we can finance
Operation Iraqi Freedom costs. It remains my goal to reduce the numbers
of deployed troops as quickly as possible, while at the same time not
jeopardizing our commitment to Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Global
War on Terrorism.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
DEPLOYMENT OF NATIONAL GUARD
Question. My office has heard reports that the 157th Military
Police Company of the West Virginia National Guard has been deployed
almost continuously since September 11 attacks, and has recently
shipped out for a six-month deployment overseas. While the members of
this unit are proud to serve their country, and they have served both
in our homeland and around the world with great distinction, their
families are increasingly being strained by what seems like a
neverending string of mobilizations for citizen-soldiers.
Secretary Rumsfeld, what steps are being taken to minimize the
back-to-back deployments of members of the Reserves and the National
Guard?
Answer. I signed out a letter on July the 9th to the Secretaries of
the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and the Under Secretaries of Defense directing them to rebalance the
forces. In that letter I enumerated three principal objectives that I
wanted to achieve:
--Structure active and reserve forces to reduce the need for
involuntary mobilization of the Guard and Reserve, and
structure forces to limit involuntary mobilization to not more
than one year every six years.
--Establish a more rigorous process for reviewing joint requirements;
ensuring force structure is appropriately designed.
--Make the mobilization and demobilization process more efficient.
I levied actions that I expect to be completed, and an aggressive
set of milestones for the responses. I assure you that I am as
concerned as you are and will strive to ensure the continued judicious
and prudent use of our valuable Guard and Reserve forces.
Question. Congress enacted a $100-per-day extended deployment pay
in 1999 to encourage shorter tours for our military personnel. This pay
was suspended shortly after the September 11 attacks. Does your budget
request contain any compensation to help Service members and their
families who experience back-to-back deployments? Will these proposals
help the families of those who have been deployed since September 11,
2001, or will the compensation only apply to future deployments?
Answer. The Department submitted a proposal for the fiscal year
2004 Authorization Bill that would compensate members for both
excessively long deployments and frequent deployments, with
compensation at an appropriate scale. The proposal also includes Guard
and Reserve members who have been called up for more than 30 days for a
second time in support of the same contingency operations. Both the
Senate and House Armed Services Committees have similar PERSTEMPO Pay
provisions in their respective fiscal year 2004 authorization bills.
The Military Departments did not project funding in the fiscal year
2004 budget for this payment since the current National Security waiver
allows the SECDEF to suspend PERSTEMPO payments during a National
Emergency. The Department is committed to paying qualified members
PERSTEMPO pay once the National Security waiver is lifted.
The Military Departments are also working initiatives to lessen the
adverse impacts of high individual TEMPO. Those initiatives focus on
providing predictability in deployments; optimizing time required for
pre-deployment training work-ups and post-deployment maintenance; and
implementing organizational initiatives, such as the Air Force
Aerospace Expeditionary Forces.
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Question. The OMB scores agencies on how well they comply with the
President's Management Agenda. Agencies are encouraged to submit
management plans to the OMB, and to meet the competitive sourcing
targets outlined in the President's budget. The OMB has informed me
that these plans, while submitted to the OMB for approval, can be
released to the public at the discretion of the agency heads.
If the Congress is to appropriate $380 billion to the Defense
Department to employ 636,000 civilians and 2.4 million military
personnel, I expect that you would first provide the Congress with a
copy of any management plan or competitive sourcing plan that the
Defense Department submits to the OMB.
Secretary Rumsfeld, when do you expect to submit your next
management plan to the OMB, and how soon can you make that plan
available to the Appropriations Committee?
Answer. OMB will receive the competitive sourcing management plan
with the fiscal year 2005 budget. OMB must approve the submission,
which will then be included in the President's budget submission.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, before the war, we all read the
assessments that Iraq possessed large stocks of weapons of mass
destruction and that the military was prepared to use them in the event
of attack. Thankfully, no attacks were made against our forces, but we
still have not been able to locate any of these weapons stocks. Has DOD
completed an intelligence assessment of why these predictions proved
incorrect? Can the department provide the Committee with a detailed
briefing about these reviews? Additionally, can you provide the
Committee with a detailed briefing about the possibility that some of
these weapons of mass destruction have fallen into the hands of forces
hostile to us?
Answer. DOD continues to investigate the extent of Iraq Weapons of
Mass Destruction programs and stockpiles. The Iraq Survey Group has
been established to coordinate the search for WMD in Iraq. In late
July, the Intelligence Community provided to Congress every publication
from 1992 to the present on Iraqi WMD programs and on its threat
assessments. Additionally, numerous Intelligence Community and DOD
officials have been to brief or testify before Congress on this issue.
IRAQ
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, I am told that the contract with
Kellogg Brown & Root on fixing Iraqi oil facilities is classified.
Giving a major contract in secrecy to a company with close ties to the
administration will only increase suspicions of those inclined to think
we are in Iraq to benefit American companies rather than the Iraqi
people.
Why is the contract with Kellogg Brown & Root classified (if that
is correct)?
Answer. The contract with Brown & Root Services, a division of
Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), was awarded March 8, 2003, to support the
DOD mission of repair and continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil
infrastructure. The contract was classified because it was issued
before the war started, when the mission was classified because the
planning and limited activities being undertaken had to be integrated
with CENTCOM's military planning for the war effort. This included
plans for military action to protect parts of the oil infrastructure
against potential sabotage in the event of war. Disclosure, before the
commencement of hostilities, of plans to repair and maintain continuity
of oil operations would have run a serious risk of compromising the
related military planning activity. Additionally, the contractor for
repair and continuity of operations had to be ready to commence work
immediately upon notice to proceed, but it was not known in advance
when the commencement of work might be required, since that would
depend on the timing of the military campaign and how events unfolded
on the ground as the campaign progressed. Therefore, it was not
possible to award an unclassified contract prior to hostilities without
jeopardizing the success of the mission.
On March 6, 2003, the Department declassified only the fact that it
had plans for extinguishing fires and assessing damage to oil
facilities in Iraq. The fact that the Department was planning for the
possibility that it would need to repair and provide for continuity of
operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure remained classified until
March 22, 2003. This prevented earlier acknowledgement or announcement
of potential requirements to the business community.
The government's strategy has been to compete the execution effort
at the earliest reasonable opportunity consistent with the needs of the
mission. The declassification of the mission has enabled the Department
to plan a full and open competition in which the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will solicit competitive proposals to provide the broad range
of services that may need to be performed to support this mission in
the months ahead. The contracts awarded as a result of this competition
will replace the contract now in place with KBR.
Question. How many other contracts addressing reconstruction in
Iraq are classified, and what is the total potential value of those
contracts?
Answer. Contracts or task orders supporting the DOD mission of
repair and continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure
were classified because they were issued before the war started, when
the mission was classified because the planning and limited activities
being undertaken had to be integrated with CENTCOM's military planning
for the war effort. This included plans for military action to protect
parts of the oil infrastructure against potential sabotage in the event
of war. Disclosure, before the commencement of hostilities, of plans to
repair and maintain continuity of oil operations would have run a
serious risk of compromising the related military planning activity.
Additionally, the contractor for repair and continuity of operations
had to be ready to commence work immediately upon notice to proceed,
but it was not known in advance when the commencement of work might be
required, since that would depend on the timing of the military
campaign and how events unfolded on the ground as the campaign
progressed. Therefore, it was not possible to award an unclassified
contract prior to hostilities without jeopardizing the success of the
mission.
On March 6, 2003, the Department declassified the fact that it had
plans for extinguishing fires and assessing damage to oil facilities in
Iraq. The fact that the Department was planning for the possibility
that it would need to repair and provide for continuity of operations
of the Iraqi oil infrastructure was classified until March 22, 2003.
This prevented earlier acknowledgement or announcement of potential
requirements to the business community.
The contractual actions related to the oil infrastructure mission
are as follows:
--Planning Effort--done under a Task Order issued November 11, 2002,
under the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP)
contract. The value of the task order is approximately $1.8
million.
--Pre-positioning Effort--done under a letter contract issued
February 14, 2003. The value of the letter contract is $37.5
million.
--Continued Pre-positioning, and subsequent Execution Effort--done
under a contract awarded March 8, 2003. As of May 27, 2003,
five task orders had been placed under this Indefinite
Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract. The first four
task orders are classified since they were issued prior to
March 22, 2003. The fifth task order, issued May 4, 2003, is
unclassified. The total estimated cost of the five task orders
placed under that contract was, as of May 27, 2003,
$184,786,000. The total value of the contract will be the sum
of the values of the orders placed under it. Since assessments
of the condition of the infrastructure are still being done, it
is not possible to predict with precision all work that will be
required to complete the mission. The ID/IQ contract enables
the government to obtain the services it needs once specific
requirements are identified. The Corps of Engineers will limit
orders under this contract to only those services necessary to
support the mission in the near term.
The government's strategy has been to compete the execution effort
at the earliest reasonable opportunity consistent with the needs of the
mission. The declassification of the mission has enabled the Department
to plan a full and open competition in which the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will solicit competitive proposals to provide the broad range
of services that may need to be performed to support this mission in
the months ahead. The contracts awarded as a result of this competition
will replace the contract now in place with KBR, and task orders will
then be issued under the competitively awarded contracts.
Question. Do we know whether Iraqi WMD have been given to terrorist
groups since the war began?
Answer. There is no credible indication former regime members have
provided chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons or
components to terrorist organizations since the war began.
Question. How long will it take to search for WMD in Iraq? When
will we know the extent of WMD in Iraq before the war?
Answer. On both questions, it is impossible to predict. However, I
am confident that we indeed will find evidence of prohibited activity
related to weapons of mass destruction.
Question. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has the responsibility to ensure
nuclear materials in Iraq are safeguarded and the right to inspect
nuclear facilities. When will you let IAEA inspectors back in?
Answer. All of Iraq's nuclear material under NPT safeguards is
located at the Baghdad Yellow Cake Storage Facility (Location C). From
June 7 to 23, 2003, the IAEA conducted a Physical Inventory
Verification (PIV) inspection of Location C with support from Coalition
forces. All of the proliferation sensitive and virtually all of the
other material subject to NPT safeguards was accounted for. Location C
has been resealed, and its perimeter is being guarded by U.S. military
forces. What has been referred to as ``looting'' at this site appears
to have been limited to the theft of items such as steel barrels or
furniture, not nuclear material.
Pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483, the Coalition
Provisional Authority is responsible for the disarmament of Iraq.
MISSILE DEFENSE
Question. You plan to field a limited ground-based mid-course
missile defense system by the end of 2003-2004.
When do you plan to begin operational tests on this system?
Answer. In January 2003, the President decided to capitalize on the
demonstrated capabilities of the GMD element. His decision to allow
concurrent defensive capabilities and continuing developmental testing
is the basis for the Initial Defensive Capability (IDC) planned for
September 30, 2004.
MDA has established a joint organization, the Combined Test Force
(CTF), to integrate the objectives of the operational tester--the
warfighter--and the user into all developmental activities. Planning
for formal operational testing continues; however, no final decision
has been made regarding when to begin such testing.
Question. When do you plan to test this system at night? When do
you plan to test the system against a tumbling target? When do you plan
to do a test with one or more decoys that resemble the target?
Answer. Integrated Flight Test-10 (IFT) was planned to be a
nighttime intercept; however, the EKV failed to separate from the
booster, and an intercept was not attempted. MDA is currently looking
at revising a future flight test to make up this missed IFT-10
objective.
GMD flight test complexity continuously increases as additional
functionalities are added. Target signatures, countermeasures, and
flight dynamics are in concert with the current threat estimates.
Question. When do you plan to test the system against a target
without a beacon or GPS transponder? When do you plan to test the
system without advance target trajectory and characterization
information?
Answer. The beacon is one of several artificialities to be deleted
from the test program as the system matures and additional elements
come on line. The actual point in the test program at which beacons or
GPS data will no longer be used has not yet been determined. The C-Band
beacon is currently required for range safety and truth data purposes
until the various system radars are fully developed. Due to the lack of
an X-Band Radar (XBr) or Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR) in the mid
Pacific, target RVs in current flight tests are equipped with a C-Band
beacon which is tracked by the FPQ-14 range radar in Hawaii to generate
the weapons task plan and to give the interceptor a box in space at
which to aim. The flight test program to date has focused on proving
and refining hit-to-kill technology, the cornerstone of GMD's mission.
Providing the exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) with target trajectory
and characterization information in advance allows us to develop this
essential capability without having to wait until necessary BMDS radars
and other sensor are in place. The GMD flight test program is
constantly under review and evolving as we gain more experience and
knowledge.
IFT-21 is planned to be a ``pop quiz'' test. Current plan for IFT-
21 is to withhold the exact launch time until the day of test.
Additionally, the target type will be known, but the target complex
will not be known a prior; however, all components in the complex will
have been previously characterized and flown in a flight test.
It is important to note however, that, in the event of a hostile
missile launch, the BMDS will have targeting information in real time.
The Block 2004 system will have hostile missile launch early warning
and cueing from space-based infrared satellites. The predicted time and
location in space where the intercept will occur is calculated in real-
time from data provided by tracking radars (i.e., Cobra Dane, Upgraded
Early Warning Radars, the Navy's Aegis cruisers and destroyers, and the
Sea-Based X-band radar). Based on this real-time information, targeting
data is selected from a database and uploaded to the interceptor prior
to launch.
Question. Will any of these tests occur before deploying the
system?
Answer.
Re: operational tests (OT).--Formal OT will not occur before
September 30, 2004.
Re: night test.--MDA is currently examining this issue and hopes to
include this objective in an upcoming flight test.
Re: decoys that resemble the target.--Target signatures,
countermeasures, and flight dynamics are in concert with the current
threat estimates.
Re: without C-Band transponder & GPS.--The C-Band beacon is
currently required for range safety purposes and truth data, and as
such, it cannot be eliminated from testing; however, it is one of the
artificialities that will be removed by development and construction of
the BMDS Test Bed.
Re: without advance target trajectory and characterization
information.--No. IFT-21, the first pop quiz, is currently scheduled
for 2Q fiscal year 2006.
Question. When will the X-band radar be operational? When will the
SBIRS-Low and SBIRS-High be operational? How will the missile defense
system track and discriminate targets without these key components?
Answer. The Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) will be integrated into
the Block 2004 BMDS Test Bed during 4Q fiscal year 2005.
SBIRS Low [renamed Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS)]
is an R&D effort to demonstrate the value of midcourse tracking to the
BMDS. No decision to field an operational system has been made. The
first two R&D satellites will be field in fiscal year 2007 to support
the Block 2006 test bed and demonstrate closing the fire control loop
with BMDS interceptors.
Please note SBIRS-High is a USAF program. The following response
has been provided from USAF. The SBIRS-High development will field
incremental increases in military utility for each of its mission
areas--missile warning, missile defense, technical intelligence, and
battlespace characterization. SBIRS supports MDA IDO requirements
within the fiscal year 2005 BMDS need. Interim support will be
available beginning October 4 and fully integrated support is scheduled
to be in place April 2005. Major milestones related to certification of
missile warning messages will be leveraged by SBIRS High missile
defense supporting capabilities beginning with HEO certification in
fiscal year 2005, GEO certification in fiscal year 2007, and multi-
satellite certification in fiscal year 2009. SBIRS-High will be fully
capable at Increment 2 completion in fiscal year 2010.
The critical functions to be performed by an XBR are to detect,
acquire, track, and discriminate. Other radars--including the Cobra
Dane at Shemya, Alaska; the Beale UEWR in California; and the Navy's
Aegis--contribute to the performance of these functions to a greater or
lesser degree. Discrimination is the function, which most depends on
the XBR, but even this function is duplicated, specifically by the
EKV's on-board sensors and computer. Even with a system including an
XBR, the final discrimination and target selection will be performed by
the EKV.
IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT (IAAP)
Question. The fiscal year 2001 defense authorization bill and the
fiscal year 2002 defense appropriation bill required the Department to
determine exposures at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) and to
notify current and former employees of the Army side of the plant of
possible exposures to radioactive or hazardous substances. The
appropriations reports from those years funded a health study of Army
workers at IAAP, including screening of all workers for chronic
beryllium disease. A report dated August 20, 2002, from Deputy
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz included a letter to the employees, and said
that medical surveillance of former workers at IAAP should begin in
December 2002.
How many workers at IAAAP have been sent the required notification?
Answer. None. The Army received the final version of the security
release at our meeting May 23, 2003. When contacting the Department of
Energy (DOE) cohort in December 2001 and January 2002, the Army
included President Clinton and Secretary Richardson's release to speak
regarding nonclassified issues. Through this process, the Army
contacted 2,954 former DOE workers or survivors of workers for whom the
Army had a known address. In conjunction with this mailing, the Army
contacted an additional 7,786 employees we had assumed were DOD
employees to give them an opportunity to indicate to us if they had
worked on line 1. The Army has not yet sent out the Secretary of
Defense security release notice signed by Mr. Wolfowitz. The Army is
planning to send that out as a separate mailing along with our cover
letter and work history questionnaire. Certainly anyone we contact by
mail in the meantime will be given the notification.
Question. What is the status of the health screening, including for
chronic beryllium disease? What is the current timeline for the
project?
Answer. The American Institute of Biological Sciences review should
take eight weeks. The Army will need to resubmit the revised protocol
to the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board for review of the
modifications.
They may suggest a full board review, which could take a week to
one month. Once approved, gearing up should go quickly. The Army
anticipates starting screening of the current workforce of about 1,000
at a rate of about 250 per month so it would take about four months.
The Army predicts a late September or early October start date for
screening. Concurrently we are pursuing access to the IH data to
finalize the work/medical history questionnaire and get it in the mail
to begin working with the former workers in March of 2004. The Army can
screen former workers at a rate of 100 per month at startup. This
screening of former workers can be ramped up depending on the total
number to be screened and the extent of screening to be performed, all
based on the protocol currently under review.
Question. A recent report to Congress on cleanup activities at the
IAAP suggested that only paperwork would take place this year
(including important groundwater modeling), and said that further soil
cleanup has been delayed due to insufficient funding. Contrary to a
July 11, 2002, letter to me from Office of Management and Budget
Director Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Phase 4 soil cleanup is not
scheduled to be completed until 2004 and 2005, with further cleanup
activities extended many years after that.
What is needed to accelerate cleanup at IAAP? How much funding is
needed to complete Phase 4 soil cleanup?
Answer. The Army recently conducted a Program Review of the IAAP
restoration program and concluded that the installation met several
criteria that made it an ideal candidate for implementation of a
performance-based contract strategy. We do not believe that we can in
fact accelerate the work effort in fiscal year 2004. The conversion to
a performance-based contract is planned to begin in fiscal year 2004
and is expected to improve schedule implementation and control
financial liabilities. The implementation of this new contract vehicle
is fully expected to accelerate the work efforts once in place.
The current planned funding level of $150,000 for fiscal year 2004
will be sufficient to complete the Phase 4 soils effort. This
information, of course, is based on what is currently known about the
sites. Conditions may change once actual soil removal begins this
fiscal year, however, substantive changes in cost are not expected.
Question. Has inclusion of IAAP in the FUSRAP program delayed or
accelerated cleanup of contaminants at the plant?
Answer. The inclusion of IAAP in the FUSRAP has not delayed the
cleanup of contaminants at the plant. Acceleration of the cleanup can
be achieved if the FUSRAP cleanup execution schedule is concurred with
by the regulators and stakeholders (USEPA Region VII project manager,
Iowa Department of Health, and other concerned/interested
stakeholders), and all the stakeholders work as a team to achieve the
cleanup effort. Phase 4 and 5 soils clean up would have been delayed
until fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008 start date without FUSRAP
designation.
Question. You have proposed specific exemptions for the Department
from several environmental laws. IAAAP is a Superfund site, and
provides habitat for one known endangered species, but I have had
trouble getting answers on the implications of your proposal for this
plant.
Would any of the exemptions you have proposed apply to part or all
of the IAAP site?
Answer. There are five proposals included in DOD's Readiness and
Range Preservation Initiative. These five proposals are essential to
range sustainment and reaffirm the principle that military lands,
marine areas, and airspace that have been set aside for military use
exist to ensure military preparedness, while ensuring that the
Department of Defense remains fully committed to its stewardship
responsibilities. The five provisions:
--Authorize use of Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans in
appropriate circumstances as a substitute for critical habitat
designation under the Endangered Species Act;
--Reform obsolete and unscientific elements of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, such as the definition of ``harassment,'' and
add a national security exemption to that statute;
--Modestly extend the allowable time for military readiness
activities like bed-down of new weapons systems to comply with
Clean Air Act;
--Limit regulation of munitions on operational ranges under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) if and only if those munitions and their
associated constituents remain there, and only while the range
remains operational; and
--Limit regulation of munitions on operational ranges under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) if and only if
those munitions and their associated constituents remain there,
and only while the range remains operational.
Because IAAP provides habitat for one known endangered species, the
Endangered Species Act proposal could apply if U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service were to propose any installation lands as critical habitat. The
Marine Mammal Protection Act proposal is not applicable. The Clean Air
Act proposal could apply to any new military readiness activities
planned for IAAP in the future. The proposal would allow three years
for those activities to meet the requirements of section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. The CERCLA and RCRA proposals would apply to only
operational ranges at IAAP.
Question. Would your proposal remove part or all of the IAAP site
from the Superfund program?
Answer. No, Defense Department proposals for Readiness and Range
Preservation would not remove IAAP from the Superfund Program. DOD's
RCRA and CERCLA legislative proposals clarify when RCRA and CERCLA
apply at the military's operational ranges. IAAP is addressing
contamination from ammunition assembling operations, which is distinct
from operational range activities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
932ND AIRLIFT WING
Question. The Air Force is currently in the process of retiring the
C-9 aircraft used for aero medical evacuation. Scott Air Force base has
both an active and a Reserve wing, the 932nd Airlift Wing, which have
carried out this mission.
I am very concerned that C-9s will be retired and the Reservists'
mission mostly disbanded. These Reservists have served for a many
years, and are part of the community. Several hundred Reservists will
be left with no mission, and they are unlikely to move to find another
Reserve mission. I think our Reservists deserve better treatment.
The statistics that I have seen show that the peacetime domestic
aero medical evacuation mission has been reduced because TRICARE allows
many military patients to be cared for at local medical facilities.
Yet, even by the beginning of the war with Iraq, the C-9s were quite
busy--the 932nd Airlift Wing has flown 70 percent of its flying hours
over only 6 months of the fiscal year--as of March 31, 2003 the 932nd
flew 1,888 hours of a 2,700 hour program. I am concerned that this unit
is being disbanded based on peacetime, not wartime need. I understand
that some of these flying hours were for mixed transportation missions.
I would like to work with you in finding a solution to retain the
932nd Airlift Wing at Scott Air Force Base. I suggest the following
alternate plan:
--Phase out the C-9s instead of precipitously retiring them over the
next 5 months.
--Use fewer C-9s, but use those that have recently come out of depot,
saving operating costs.
--Use C-40 aircraft in the future for a mixed mission of cargo and
passenger transport, as well as patient movements to replace
the C-9 aircraft.
Mr. Secretary, will you work with me on this plan or some other
plan so that the 932nd Airlift Wing is not left without a mission?
Answer. On behalf of the Secretary of Defense, thank you for your
concerns regarding the Air Force's readiness capability for aeromedical
evacuation and 932nd Airlift Wing.
The C-9A has been a valuable asset in the Air Force inventory, but
under our new aeromedical evacuation concept a dedicated platform is no
longer required. Extending the airplane's service beyond the end of
fiscal year 2003 would require the use of operations and maintenance
funds dedicated to higher priorities. We acknowledge the contributions
of the active duty, reserve, and civilian personnel who have served so
nobly in support of the aeromedical evacuation mission and we are
diligently examining other options for these airmen. However, we must
balance the impact of these aircraft retirements against the demands to
provide for the national defense. Competition for funding is
particularly keen, and priority will be given to requirements
supporting reconstitution from recent contingency operations as well as
transforming the Air Force. Resources used to extend the C-9s would be
particularly difficult to justify since a dedicated aeromedical
evacuation platform is no longer needed.
I appreciate your continued support as the Air Force works to
modernize our air and space capabilities. Our goal is to balance
prioritized requirements with available resources to produce an
efficient, cost-effective Air Force. We value your interest and support
in this important endeavor.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. For fiscal year 2004 the administration is seeking $379.9
billion for the Defense Department and has projected an average
increase of roughly $20 billion per year over the next five years, a 32
percent increase above current levels. These dramatic increases do not
fully cover actual combat and peacekeeping operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Since these operations are not fully covered in the budget, what do
you believe the full costs will be to maintain robust and effective
peacekeeping forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for the coming year?
Answer. We cannot yet estimate those costs for the coming year. As
soon as we do have an estimate, we will need to discuss with the
President how to cover those costs.
HIGH ALERT STATUS NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Question. Under the recently approved Moscow Treaty, the United
States and Russian Federation have agreed to reduce each nation's
nuclear arsenal by 3,200-3,700 nuclear warheads. These weapons, even
while designated for destruction, continue to operate on ``high alert
status.''
Do you believe these weapons can and should be removed from ``high
alert status'' pending their elimination?
Answer. Under the recently approved Moscow Treaty, the United
States and Russian Federation have both agreed to reduce their number
of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700-2,200 by
December 31, 2012. The nuclear weapons stockpile's composition, size,
and warhead configuration (Active or Inactive) will be determined as
part of the periodic assessment process established by the Nuclear
Posture Review (NPR). Operationally deployed nuclear warheads remain at
an alert status consistent with national security requirements.
Dealerting (removing from ``high alert'') concepts have been
studied in great detail over the years. Our heavy bombers were removed
from nuclear alert a decade ago. Other dealerting proposals have been
judged not to be in the United States' interest and in many cases could
add instability under certain circumstances.
With regard to concern about accidental or unauthorized launch by
U.S. forces, our Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and
Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) are highly secure.
With regard to concerns about accidental or unauthorized a launch
by foreign forces, the NPR that was sent to Congress in January 2002
specifically reviewed dealerting and reaffirming the decision of the
previous administration not to dealert U.S. ballistic missile forces.
Question. If they were removed from ``high alert status'' what are
the potential cost savings?
Answer. There are numerous options for removing nuclear systems
from alert, but none of the options would result in meaningful cost
savings.
Most of the costs for strategic nuclear systems are derived from
the infrastructure investment in delivery systems and their associated
warheads, and from the manpower costs necessary to maintain and operate
these systems safely.
De-alerting these systems, whether it is by something as complex as
physically removing the warheads from the delivery systems or something
as relatively simple as removing a critical component in the firing
sequence, would not reduce the infrastructure or operating costs.
However, some dealerting proposals could require the expenditure of
additional money (1) to construct devices that would limit the ability
to launch a bomber or ballistic missile while allowing for its lawful
and timely execution under Presidential direction, or (2) to provide
for additional manpower required for verification of the dealerting
concept were it to be employed.
ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR
Question. As the United States attempts to diplomatically engage
countries such as India and Pakistan to convince them to relinquish
their nuclear ambitions, why should the Congress authorize $15 million
to study a weapon such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which
could undermine our efforts to limit proliferation internationally?
Answer. Studying the feasibility of using an existing weapon to
place at risk hard and deeply buried targets associated with weapons of
mass destruction will not undermine our efforts to limit proliferation
internationally. Nations seek and develop nuclear capabilities to
address their regional security concerns, not because the United States
has nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons readiness and capabilities will
continue to play a key role in U.S. national security policy and
strategy well into the future. Today, as well as in the future, the
United States cannot predict with confidence what nations or non-state
actors may pose a threat to our vital interests or those of our allies.
The United States must possess forces sufficient to dissuade and deter
any potential adversary armed with WMD. Studies aimed at finding cost-
effective ways to place facilities associated with WMD at risk--like
the RNEP study--are fully consistent with maintaining an effective
deterrent.
In the 1960s, there were five nuclear weapons states: the USSR,
Britain, France, China, and the United States. Today, at least 12
states possess nuclear weapons. Others are seeking nuclear weapons. The
United States is making every effort to dissuade these nations from
acquiring WMD. The U.S. nuclear deterrent plays a role in this effort
by assuring our allies and friends that the United States intends to
maintain its forces to deter any future aggression and persuade
potential aggressors to halt developments.
As the United States reduces the number of strategic, operationally
deployed, weapons by two-thirds by 2012, we increasingly will have to
look at options for more effective weapons for deterrence and achieving
our defense goals, including programs like RNEP--a study of two
existing gravity bombs repackaged to enhance survivability against hard
and deeply-buried facilities. We have not abandoned conventional
weapons to deal with the WMD facilities; rather, we have enhanced our
conventional capabilities. We will need both advanced conventional and
nuclear options to furnish the options we need to meet our defense
policy goals.
UTILITY OF ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR CLASS WEAPONS
Question. What military utility does this new class of weapons
have?
Answer. Nuclear weapons have been and likely always will be viewed
as necessary to dissuade and deter the worst of threats to U.S.
national security, particularly the threat of weapons of mass
destruction use against us or our friends and allies. Those who may
contemplate aggression against U.S. territory, troops, allies, and
friends have learned from past conflicts and adapted new defensive
postures against our weapon systems used a decade ago in Desert Storm.
The war with Iraq demonstrated the effectiveness of U.S. technology.
Technology, however, is perishable. New weapons, tactics, and
technologies must be fielded to ensure the continued effectiveness of
U.S. forces and our ability to deter weapons of mass destruction use.
We must assure that potential adversaries cannot create a sanctuary by
building hard and deeply buried facilities. We need to furnish
effective options for the President to hold at risk confidently the
most protected of capabilities that threaten U.S. territory, forces,
allies, and friends--which may only be possible with RNEP-like
capability.
The capability technically of a conventional bomb to achieve the
structure shock effects necessary to destroy a growing class of hard
and deeply buried targets is limited. It can be enhanced by obtaining
exquisite intelligence on, proper delivery to, and targeting of key
points such as target facility entrances, vents, and other nodes for
functional disruption. However, as the depth of these targets
increases, the ability to hold them at risk decreases to a point where
conventional weapons are no longer effective even when the precise
location and nature of the facility is known. If RNEP delivery, impact,
and penetration are made comparable to today's conventional bombs,
ground shocks produced by the nuclear blast are propagated hundreds of
feet into the earth to address deeply buried facilities in regions
where conventional weapons have no capability.
Question. In the fiscal year 2004 budget, there is a request for an
exemption of further operational testing of the ballistic missile
defense system. In March, the Undersecretary of Defense, Edward
Aldridge announced, ``It was not our intent to waive operational
testing.''
If the intent was to not exempt testing prior to fielding the
weapons system, what was the purpose of the exemption request?
Answer. The question refers to proposed section 8061, which reads
in full:
``Sec. 8061. Funds available to the Department of Defense under the
heading, ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide''
may be used to develop and field an initial set of missile defense
capabilities, and such fielding shall be considered to be system
development and demonstration for purposes of any law governing the
development and production of a major defense acquisition program. The
initial set of missile defense capabilities is defined as `Block 04'
Ballistic Missile Defense system fielded in fiscal year 2004 and 2005.
Subsequent blocks of missile defense capabilities shall be subject to
existing laws governing development and production of major defense
acquisition programs.''
The Department's version of section 8061, quoted above, confirms
the developmental nature of the initial set of missile defense
capabilities. Because Block 04 remains in system development and
demonstration, the use of Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
funds to pay for the development and fielding of the system is
appropriate, and the Department ultimately must complete operational
test and evaluation of the system.
Question. Does testing under the guidelines of the Testing and
Evaluation department negatively impact the program?
Answer. No, the program is not negatively impacted by DOT&E testing
guidelines. MDA and DOT&E have established an effective working
relationship. DOT&E is a member of the Missile Defense Support Group
and provides testing advice to the Director, MDA and to USD (AT&L).
Additionally, DOT&E produces a congressionally directed annual report
on the status and effectiveness of the MDA test program.
TESTING
Question. Recently, the Missile Defense Agency cancelled Integrated
Flight Test-16, which was dubbed the ``dress rehearsal for
deployment.'' This test was intended to increase the agency's knowledge
regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of GMD's initial defensive
capability. In addition, three more test scheduled for the coming years
have also been canceled bringing the total number of canceled tests
disclosed this year to nine.
Do you believe the system has received sufficient testing to be
proven feasible and effective enough to be deployed?
Answer. MDA is confident that the overall BMDS test program is
scoped to provide an effective defense against ballistic missiles of
all ranges. Additionally, MDA is always reexamining the GMD flight test
program to ensure that proven critical components and technologies will
be resident in the Block 2004 BMDS Test Bed.
Question. Our experiences in Operation Enduring Freedom and now
Operation Iraqi Freedom have demonstrated the need for strategic lift
able to access all theaters of the battlefield, regardless of the size
and quality of available airstrips.
With the armed forces relying on the C-17 to fulfill many of these
missions, are there sufficient numbers of C-17's in the inventory to
fulfill your requirements? If not, how many additional aircraft will be
needed?
Answer. The Mobility Requirement Study 2005 (MRS05) established an
airlift capacity requirement range between 51.1 and 54.5 Million Ton
Miles per Day (MTM/D). Further evaluation during the Quadrennial
Defense Review established the objective capacity at 54.5 MTM/D. This
airlift capacity requirement includes strategic airlift, intratheater
airlift, special operations, EUCOM requirements, as well as other CINC
requirements. The current C-17 program achieves an inventory of 180
aircraft in fiscal year 2008. At that time, the fleet will be at the
desired capacity.
F-22
Question. Economic conditions in the former Soviet bloc may
stimulate the proliferation of advanced military technology,
particularly in regard to surface-to-air missiles and tactical aircraft
like the Mig-29 and Su-27. Even though our current fighter aircraft
have been successful in defeating various air defenses, they may not be
capable of being modified to the extent needed to provide the stealth
and other combat capabilities needed to cope with air defenses many
countries may possess in future conflicts.
Do you believe aircraft like the F-22 will be able to fill this
role, ensuring air superiority and fulfilling the fighter/attack role
in the decades to come?
Answer. Yes. The F/A-22 is designed from the ``ground up'' to have
the unique capability to operate in the presence of and suppress or
destroy these anti-access adversary systems as required. The F/A-22's
fundamental attributes of stealth, supercruise, advanced
maneuverability, lethality, and integrated avionics will ensure Air
Dominance in this decade and the decades to come. In future conflicts
the aircraft will be essential for successful initial joint forcible
entry and follow-on operations. The F/A-22 is a benchmark for
Department of Defense and Air Force transformation efforts.
Question. DOD Directive 1344.7 governs personal commercial
solicitation on military installations. The Directive protects Service
members from unfair business practices. I understand that DOD is in the
process of amending the Directive. I am concerned that the changes
being considered should not unnecessarily restrict the access of
Service members to beneficial insurance and financial planning
services. I understand the Department is committed to working with
affected parties, including the insurance and financial services
companies that solicit business on-base to develop new policy.
Can you offer your assurance DOD will consult with affected parties
prior to issuing any proposed draft regulation to ensure the service
members continue to have access to competitive insurance and financial
planning products and services?
Answer. The Department intends to host two public fora to allow for
comments by all those affected by the policy. The Department first
intends to host a forum at which the public may express views about the
current commercial solicitation policy. These comments will be
considered in preparing the draft for publication and public comments
as a proposed rule in the Federal Register. After publication, the
public will be invited to comment on the draft at an additional forum.
The Department will carefully consider the written and oral comments on
the proposed rule in promulgating the final rule.
PERCHLORATE
Question. We have now written to you on three separate occasions
since November of last year impressing upon you the urgency for the DOD
to take an active leadership role in mitigating the contamination of
drinking water by perchlorate, a chemical used in most DOD missiles and
munitions.
What steps are you taking to respond to our domestic public health
problem that is a legacy of DOD operations over the past half century?
Answer. The Department's goal has been and continues to be support
of a national process leading to mitigation of risks from perchlorate.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently engaged in a
process of investigation intended to arrive at an acceptable level of
perchlorate in the environment. The Department, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy
(DoE) and non-governmental organizations have been actively working
with the EPA over the past several years to develop scientifically-
defensible decisions regarding perchlorate use, assessment, and
cleanup. Since 1997, the Department has spent $2 million on research to
assist the EPA in determining whether low-level perchlorate exposure
poses a risk to the American public. In addition, the Department has
invested considerable resources in the development of environmental
treatment technologies for perchlorate, and has issued several
significant research grants to identify possible substitutes for
perchlorate in military applications. The Department is committed to
using the best available science to inform public policies and
decisions. The Department believes that the research undertaken by DOD,
NASA, and EPA to evaluate the potential risks associated with
perchlorate is a clear indication of that commitment. Pending
promulgation of a cleanup standard, the Department will continue to
work directly with state and local officials on the best strategies to
safeguard our public water supplies.
Question. You have argued for a transformation of the military; a
clear need is transformation of the policies and actions that endanger
our citizens as a result of practices of the DOD. Currently, the policy
of the DOD towards the need for you to clean up a legacy of
environmental pollution appears to be old fashioned thinking and not
that of a modern defense establishment.
When will you change the policy at the DOD and take positive
action?
Answer. The Department is committed to fulfilling the public's
trust for protecting and restoring the natural and cultural resources
on lands managed by DOD. The Department has an exemplary record of
environmental stewardship and faithfully complies with all
environmental laws and regulations. In addition, the Department has
gone beyond legal requirements by funding and providing to EPA and
state regulators important research that helps define the effect of
perchlorate on human health. DOD has also conducted a number of surveys
to ascertain perchlorate occurrence at DOD facilities since 1998, and
issued policy allowing DOD components to sample for perchlorate at
facilities where there is a reasonable basis to suspect both a
potential presence of perchlorate and a pathway that could potentially
threaten public health. My office is currently in the process of
developing a more robust policy, which will be used for program
planning and prioritization in advance of promulgation of a standard.
The Department and EPA, in partnership with NASA and DOE, continue to
work together to address unresolved science and science policy issues.
The National Academy of Science is now scheduled to review the
underlying science issues for a proposed standard. We have also
conducted extensive studies in the technology required to cleanup
perchlorate. These studies have developed technologies for and
supported their use by U.S. industries. Several of these technologies
are currently in use. DOD believes that information collected on
potential presence of perchlorate and our long history of cooperation
with EPA on resolving health science issues has served to augment and
accelerate the EPA's regulatory process which will lead to an eventual
standard.
Question. I am very frustrated by the lack of response and absence
of leadership on the part of the DOD and I would like to see this
changed. My staff is prepared to work with your department and other
agencies to find a solution.
Whom is the point of contact for my staff to follow-up with to work
towards resolving the problem of an absence of leadership within the
DOD?
Answer. The Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health, Mr. John Paul Woodley is
available to discuss the Department's position on this issue.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, General Pace,
and Secretary Zakheim. The subcommittee will reconvene
Thursday, May 15, to consider testimony from public witnesses
concerning the President's budget request. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., Wednesday, May 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:47 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Burns, and Inouye.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN IKE PUZON, U.S. NAVY RESERVE
(RETIRED), DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, THE
NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns [presiding]. I am not the chairman of this
subcommittee. I am just another one of the hired hands. And it
is terrible that you get scheduled on a day where we have vote-
a-rama. It is not fair to you, it is not fair to us, it is not
fair to anybody. So we will all go out and eat worms.
This is the first time that I have participated in this
part of the Defense appropriations process, so I feel ill-
equipped and ill-prepared, unwashed and uneducated about this
whole thing. But I am going to start it. We will be having
votes every 10 minutes and that is just not fair. But
nonetheless, your testimony will be taken and I am sure it will
be reviewed as this committee is pretty good about those
things.
I am Senator Conrad Burns and of course our chairman and
our ranking member will be back as soon as they cast their
votes. I have already voted on this first one, but you have to
watch those lights pretty closely. You know, if you miss one
vote, well, that shows up in a 30-second spot the next time you
run for reelection.
We thank you for your patience and your indulgence with the
inconvenience of this. We would like to start off with Captain
Ike Puzon, United States Navy Reserve, Retired. He is Director
of Legislation for the Naval Reserve Association. Captain,
thank you for coming this morning. We look forward to your
testimony.
Captain Puzon. Thank you, sir. On behalf of my colleagues,
we thank you for being here, and if we can strike quick while
no one else is here we will appreciate that.
Senator Burns. Good.
Captain Puzon. Thank you, sir, and the distinguished
members of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the staff,
for having us. It is an honor and a pleasure to be here before
you representing 22,000 members of the Naval Reserve
Association on behalf of over 86,000 members of the Naval
Reserve, especially during these times of increased usage of
the Guard and Reserve.
I am sure you have already heard in the past several weeks
and months what a magnificent job our Guard and Reserve has
done, what their families have done, and what their employers
have done in responding to the commitment that the Department
of Defense has asked these members to do. It is still important
to focus on the members today of these units in the Guard and
Reserve and the Naval Reserve, as well as the active duty
members.
The challenges that our Reserve, Guard, and active
components of the military face are gigantic, as you know,
during these times of increased threat to our national
security. It is encouraging that we have been so successful,
but it is really no surprise because of the people.
The focus of what we do next is blurred by constant
deployments, constant recalls, increased usage of equipment and
Guard and Reserve, and of course modern technology. In my mind,
the center stage should always be the people, both Active,
Reserve, and Guard, and also modern technology. I think in
today's age--good morning, sir.
Senator Stevens [presiding]. Good morning.
Captain Puzon. All too often the technology charisma
overrides the need for people.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Captain Puzon. Yes, sir, good morning.
I recently studied for the Secretary of Defense in the 21st
century and 2025 what technology would make a difference in
2025. Of the group that I was with in the study, we always came
back to was what people we would have in 2025.
Naval Reserve, as you know, are people. They are training,
they are responding, they are waiting, and they are deploying.
What the Guard and Reserve and the Naval Reserve in particular
provides has been discussed several times. Operational
readiness, stand-alone missions, parallel capability, and surge
capabilities have been talked about.
Yet in current operations and performance I think we need
to look at transforming our program and planning documents and
our appropriations process and our vision in the Navy. That
includes what I call, in a sports metaphor, an all-pro team of
experts. These are expert warfighters. They are not just
experts from a Reserve component, and they have proven that. We
need to include them in all planning documents.
This Reserve force is ready to go, it is ready to fight. It
is ready and it is capable units and individuals. I like to
talk to them and refer to them as all-pro military experts.
Some call them ordinary people doing extraordinary work and
extraordinary things. I just refer to them as an all-pro team
ready to go when you need them.
In some cases in the past, as you know, only Congress has
recognized that the Naval Reserve needed equipment and
personnel benefits to keep the force healthy and parallel. We
are at that time again where you the Congress must provide that
guidance. Due to affordability issues that you are very aware
of and without a doubt have been in constant awareness of, the
Congress must step in at this time and provide some guidance
and vision for the Naval Reserve. Because of the cuts that are
pending in 2004, fiscal year 2004, we will see this decrease in
our force structure.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain Ike Puzon
Chairman, Senator Inouye, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the 22,000 members of the Naval Reserve
Association, and the 86,000 active Naval Reservists and the mirrored
interests of all members of the guard and reserve components, we are
grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony.
A popular fad in the press is to write about the plight of the
mobilized Reservist. These articles emphasize the anxiety of being away
from work and or family. As was stated in Wall Street Journal, ``The
activation of tens of thousands of military reservists is beginning to
interrupt careers and disrupt workplaces on a scale not seen in more
than a decade.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Massive Call-Up of Reservists disrupts Careers, Workplaces;
Kemba J. Dunham, Kris Maher and Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal, Feb.
18, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the press today, a climate of despair is painted about the
Reservist. Focus is on the needless hardship for members of the Guard
and Reserve, for their families and for their employers. The Naval
Reserve Association would like to dispel this Myth. In defense of the
Reservists, our indication is that there are a statistical few that
complain about their circumstances. Portrayed as a predicament by the
press, most Reservists, instead, view mobilization as an opportunity to
serve their country. Reservists are serving their country in uniform
proudly, and are not complaining. They do have concerns similar to
anyone in or out of uniform, who is deployed quickly and unexpectedly.
Reservists from any service have shown us time and time again that
they'll volunteer when asked, despite the impact of their personal and
professional life. This service beyond self is not appreciated by many
on the Active side or in DOD. Recent documents show that the Reserve
Components are not integrated into the Vision of future conflicts, and
Homeland Security.
Since 1990, the Active Duty services have grown languorous from a
diet of contributory assistance, recall, and mobilization support. The
number of contributory man-days has risen from 1 million in the late
1980's to nearly 13 million a year over the past few years. Rather than
confront budget appropriators, the Active Components have been content
to fill their force shortfalls with Reserve manpower.
If there is a raw nerve among Reservists, it is caused by how
individuals are being utilized, and how often that individual and the
unit is being called up. And, why aren't they being used. Pride and
professionalism is a large factor in the profile of a Reservist, as it
is with any member of the Armed Services. They want to be used how they
have been trained, and they want to complement the Active Forces. Too
often, they have been called up to do a marginal job, or stand weekend
or night watches allowing active members time off. In situations like
this, we often hear from our members that the active duty personnel of
a particular command are not working overtime. The model used by the
Navy calls for active duty personnel to be working a sixty hour work
week before Reservists would be involuntarily recalled to active duty.
Quite often, the requirement for recall is nothing more than to fill in
the gaps in existing active duty manning. Recall and proper use of
reservists needs constant monitoring and attention. We agree that
transformation of legacy personnel manpower programs is overdue. But,
Reserve Component involvement in personnel transformation is mandatory.
Another raw nerve among Reservists is attempts by the Navy to deny
individuals their full entitlements. Over and over, Reservists are
asked to make a voluntary mid to long term commitment of combining
drills with multiple sets of 29 day orders. There is an institutional
bias to issuing Reservists one set of orders for longer than 30 days
thereby denying them greater entitlements. We strongly believe that
this is an injustice to the individual and his/her employer that
Congress should question. Recent testimony by the Under Secretary of
Defense indicates some entitlements may change, however, a continuum of
entitlements for all Armed Services members is due in today's military.
Over a year ago, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs meet with the Military Reserve Associations and asked how
frequently is it acceptable to recall Reservists? His hope was an
answer measured in years that could be programmed into a formula.
Reservists are not inventory numbers, but individuals, and they belong
to warfighting units.
In today's American way of war, the way a Reservist is used and
recalled is vital to successful military operations, and essential to
gaining the will of America. As Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz has said, ``How we manage our Reserve Components will
determine how well we as a nation are prepared to fight, today and
tomorrow.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Remarks by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, to the
Reserve Officers Association 2002 National Conference, Philadelphia,
PA, June 20, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question we are asking is: ``Are today's DOD legislative
initiatives taking us in the right direction for a sound Military and a
strong National Defense, and meeting the National Security Strategy?''
The ultimate question for the Department of the Navy: ``What is your
Vision for use and equipping of the Naval Reserve Force?'' We hope that
DOD is learning lessons from the past to avoid repeating mistakes in
the future, and the Naval Reserve Association stands ready to assist in
turning lessons learned into improved policy. If current DOD and DoN
planning and resource documents are used, there will not be a Naval
Reserve Force in the next ten years. If there initiatives are followed,
there will be a pool of people somewhere--if they stay--that the Navy
can call upon to fill gaps created by the next asymmetric conflict. The
Naval Reserve Force has shown, time and again, when engaged--they are
the All Pros that are as professional or better than any force. The
recent VFA deployment is only one such example.
Our Key message for all to remember: One: Our nation needs a Naval
Reserve Force--with Air and Surface assets to go fight and win our
nations conflicts, it should be a center piece of our National Security
Strategy. Two: As a nation, we must start now to recapitalize these
forces, to remain relevant. Three: With the people and pay and benefits
at the center, the Naval Reserve Force can play a key role in Homeland
Security.
Again, thank you for this opportunity. Details of specific concerns
by our Association on DOD initiatives follow, we hope you can help
address them:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INITIATIVES
Roles and Missions
A Pentagon study has highlighted that the Guard and Reserve
structure, today, is an inherited Cold War relic. As a result, the
Guard and the Reserve organization has become the focus of
``transformation.'' While it won't be denied that there could be a need
for change, transformation for transformation sake could be
disadvantageous. Visionaries need to learn lessons from the past,
assimilate the technology of the future, and by blending each,
implement changes that improve warfighting. Transformation is needed to
move forward and ensure a Total Force that includes a strong Guard and
Reserve.
The Reserve Component as a worker pool
Issue.--The view of the Reserve Component that has been suggested
within the Pentagon is to consider the Reserve as of a labor pool,
where Reservist could be brought onto Active Duty at the needs of a
Service and returned, when the requirement is no longer needed. It has
also been suggested that an Active Duty member should be able to rotate
off active duty for a period, spending that tenure as a Reservist,
returning to active duty when family, or education matters are
corrected.
Position.--The Guard and Reserve should not be viewed as a
temporary-hiring agency. Too often the Active Component views the
recall of a Reservist as a means to fill a gap in existing active duty
manning. Voluntary recall to meet these requirements is one thing,
involuntary recall is another.
The two top reasons why a Reservist quits the Guard or Reserve is
pressure from family, or employer. The number one complaint from
employers is not the activation, but the unpredictability of when a
Reservist is recalled, and when they will be returned.
100 percent mission ownership
Issue.--Department of Defense is looking at changing the reserve
and active component mix. ``There's no question but that there are a
number of things that the United States is asking its forces to do,''
Rumsfeld said. ``And when one looks at what those things are, we find
that some of the things that are necessary, in the course of executing
those orders, are things that are found only in the Reserves.''
Position.--America is best defended through a partnership between
the government, the military and the people. The Naval Reserve
Association supports the continued recognition of the Abrams Doctrine,
which holds that with a volunteer force, we should never go to war
without the involvement of the Guard and Reserve, because they bring
the national will of the people to the fight. While a review of mission
tasking is encouraged, the Active Component should not be tasked with
every mission, and for those it shares, no more heavily than their
Reserve counterparts. Historically, a number of the high percentage
missions gravitated to the Reserve components because the Active Forces
treated them as collateral duties. The Reserve has an expertise in some
mission areas that are unequaled because Reservists can dedicate the
time to developing skills and mission capability, and sharing civilian
equivalencies, where such specialization could be a career buster on
Active Duty.
Augmentees
Issue.--As a means to transform, a number of the services are
embracing the concept that command and unit structure within the
Reserve Component is unnecessary. Reservists could be mustered as
individual mobilization augmentees and be called up because often they
are recalled by skills and not units.
Position.--An augmentee structure within the Naval Reserve was
attempted in the 1950's/1960's, and again in the 1980's. In one word:
Failure! Reservists of that period could not pass the readiness test.
The image of the Selected Reservists, sitting in a Reserve Center
reading a newspaper originates from the augmentee era. Some semblance
of structure is needed on a military hierarchy. Early on, Naval
Reservists created their own defense universities to fill the training
void caused by mission vacuum.
Combining Active and Reserve Appropriations
Issue.--The fiscal year 2004 Defense budget request makes it clear
that OSD intends to consolidate all pay and O&M accounts into one
appropriation per service. These consolidations would require various
legislative changes before they would become law. The rationale for the
consolidations is to provide greater flexibility for the Active chiefs
to move monies from the Reserve and Guard pay accounts to fund Active
component pay and O&M shortfalls. Managing fewer appropriations would
also make managing pay and O&M easier.
Position.--The Naval Reserve Association strongly opposes the
proposed consolidation of all Guard, Reserve and Active pay into one
service pay appropriation. We similarly oppose the proposed
consolidation of all Guard, Reserve and Active operations and
maintenance accounts into one service O&M appropriation. While we
support seeking efficiencies wherever possible, we view the proposed
``business'' consolidation as ill conceived, misrepresented as
inefficient, and as an attempt to reduce Congressional oversight. We
oppose it for a variety of other reasons, as well.
Under current law, the Reserve chiefs are the directors for their
respective Reserve pay and O&M appropriations. Public Law 90-168, as
amended by the fiscal year 1997 NDAA, vested in the Reserve Chiefs full
management and control of their respective Reserve financial resources.
Consolidating Reserve and Active pay into one appropriation would
divest the Reserve chiefs of this authority and preclude their
executing the programs and responsibilities, and maintaining the
readiness mandated by Congress.
Much of the Guard and Reserve annual training occurs during the
fourth quarter of a fiscal year, the same time frame when the Active
components are most likely to run short of funds and to desire to use
Reserve pay and O&M to fund their own shortfalls. Allowing the Active
components the ``flexibility'' to use Reserve funds whenever they need
to pay Active component bills means that somewhere a Reserve soldier
will not be paid or a Reserve unit, Reservist will not be trained for
mobilization or receive the specialized training needed for promotion,
and ultimately retention. The Active Component will have flexible
funding at the cost of Reserve Readiness.
Inferred changes to DOPMA and ROPMA
Issue.--It has been suggested within a DOD Roles and Missions study
that promotions in the Reserve Component need not be tied to Active
Duty promotion rates. It was further stated that allowing a skilled
Reservist to remain at a certain mid-grade rank enlisted or officer
rank longer would allow that individual to perform a vital mission
longer.
Position.--While NRA might support a change to the ``promote up or
out'' policy; we in no way endorse having the Selected Reserve become
an advancement wasteland.
Issue.--Secretary Rumsfeld has also publicly stated that he has the
Personnel & Readiness office looking at how DOD can get the benefit of
people in a specific job longer, and how we can have people increase
the number of total years they serve if they want to. He is willing to
extending military careers beyond 60 years of age.
Position.--While current policy permits individual waivers to
retain certain skill sets, the Naval Reserve Association feels that
authorizing changes to the length of tenure would have a negative
impact and a rippling effect. History has shown time and again, if
senior leaders are not encouraged to retire, there will be a retention
collapse in the middle ranks, which erodes the long-term future of a
component force. Few are so skilled, that a junior member can't fill
the position with similar qualifications.
Pay and Compensation
Issue.--A premature release of information in the form of a Naval
Reserve survey, revealed a DOD initiative to end ``two days pay for one
days work,'' and replace it with a plan to provide 1/30 of a Month's
pay model, which would include both pay and allowances. Even with
allowances, pay would be less than the current system. When concerns
were addressed about this proposal, a retention bonus was the suggested
solution to keep pay at the current levels.
Position.--Allowances differ between individuals and can be
affected by commute distances and even zip codes. Certain allowances
that are unlikely to be paid include geographic, housing, education
benefits, travel and adjustments for missing Healthcare.
The Naval Reserve Association holds reservations with a retention
bonus as a supplemental source. Being renewed annually bonuses tend to
depend on the national economy, deficit, and political winds. Further,
would this bonus just be grandfathered to current Reservists, with some
future generation forfeiting the bonus as an income source?
As one Reservists said, ``With the nonreimbursed expenses for
commuting and training, I could afford to drill at one days pay.''
Healthcare
Healthcare readiness is the number one problem in mobilizing
Reservists. The governments own studies show that between 20-25 percent
of Guardsmen and Reservists are uninsured.
We applaud the efforts of the TRICARE Management Activity. TMA has
a strong sense of which the customer is. They emphasize communications,
and are proactive at working with the military associations. NRA would
like to see a continued effort at:
--Ensuring quality coverage for mobilized Reservist to provide
continuity of healthcare.
--Seeking consistency of how TRICARE is implemented for mobilized
Reservists and families between regions, and
--Establishing a TRICARE Health plan for uninsured drilling
Reservists, similar to the successful SELRES Dental Program.
Business Initiative
Issue.--Many within the Pentagon feel that business models are the
panacea to perceived problems with in military structure.
Position.--Reservists have the unique perspective of holding two
careers; many with one foot in business and one foot in the military.
The Naval Reserve Association suggests caution rather than rush into
business solutions. Attempted many times in the past, business models
have failed in the military even with commands that proactively
support.
Among the problems faced are:
Implementing models that are incompletely understood by director or
recipient.
Feedback failure: ``Don't tell me why not; just go do it!''
The solution is often more expensive than the problem. Overburdened
middle management attempting to implement. Cultural differences.
While textbook solutions, these models frequently fail in business,
too.
Retirement: Age 55
Issue.--A one sided debate is being held through the press on
whether changes should be allowed to Guard and Reserve to lower the
retirement payment age. At a recent Pentagon press conference, Thomas
F. Hall, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said
he has ``thought a lot about'' lowering reserve retirement age. Hall
said it would be ``expensive'' and might encourage Reservists to leave
the workforce at too young an age. The Defense Department is now
studying the issue to be part of a report to Congress next year.
Position.--Over the last two decades, more has been asked of
Guardsmen and Reservists than ever before. The nature of the contract
has changed; Reserve Component members would like to see recognition of
the added burden they carry. Providing an option that reduces the
retired with pay age to age 55 carries importance in retention,
recruitment, and personnel readiness.
Most military associations are hesitant to endorse this because
they envision money would be taken out of other entitlements, benefits,
and Guard and Reserve Equipment budgets. The Naval Reserve Association
suggests an approach to this issue that would not be that
``expensive.''
The Naval Reserve Association recommends for discussion/debate that
Reserve Retirement with pay prior to age 60 be treated like taking
Social Security retirement early--if you elected to take it at say age
55, you take it at an actuarially reduced rate.
Most of the cost projected by DOD is for TRICARE healthcare, which
begins when retirement pay commences. Again, if one takes Social
Security before reaching age 65 they are not eligible for Medicare. NRA
suggests that TRICARE for Reservists be decoupled from pay, and
eligibility remains at age 60 years. With Social Security as a model,
Reservists understand the nature of offsetting payments. The real
expense in this proposal would be the administrative startup costs and
whatever would be lost in interest crediting in the retirement trust
fund.
Retention concerns should be set aside. Commissioned officers
typically reach ROMPA limits at age 53. While enlisted are allowed to
drill to age sixty, many in the Navy are limited by High Year Tenure
policies that take them out of pay before then. When this happens, many
submit their retirement without pay requests. By age 50, an enlisted
has either already retired or is career.
At a minimum, hearings should be held to broaden the debate.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY INITIATIVES
Temporary Recall of Reserve Officers (Three Years or Less)
Issue.--To properly match the Reserve officer's exclusion from the
active duty list as provided for by 10 U.S.C. 641(1)(D) with a
corresponding exclusion from the authorized grade strengths for active
duty list officers in 10 U.S.C. 523. Without this amendment, the active
component would have to compensate within their control grades for
temporary recalled Reserve officers who are considered, selected and
promoted by RASL promotion selection boards. This compensation causes
instability in promotion planning and a reduction in ``career'' ADL
officer eligibility and promotion for each year a Reserve officer
remains on ``temporary'' active duty. Therefore, Naval Reservists are
temporarily recalled to active duty and placed on the ADL for
promotional purposes. End result--failure of selection due to removal
from RASL peer group.
Position.--Strongly support grade strength relief for the small
percentage of Reserve officers who would possibly be promoted while
serving on temporary active duty. Granting relief is a Win-Win
situation. By removing the instability in promotion planning for the
active component, Reserve officers can be issued recall orders
specifying 10 U.S.C. 641(1)(D) allowing them to remain on the RASL for
promotion purposes.
Equipment Ownership
Issue.--An internal study by the Navy has suggested that Naval
Reserve equipment should be returned to the Navy. At first glance, the
recommendation of transferring Reserve Component hardware back to the
Active component appears not to be a personnel issue. However, nothing
could be more of a personnel readiness issue and is ill advised.
Besides being attempted several times before, this issue needs to be
addressed if the current National Security Strategy is to succeed.
Position.--The overwhelming majority of Reserve and Guard members
join the RC to have hands-on experience on equipment. The training and
personnel readiness of Guard and Reserve members depends on constant
hands-on equipment exposure. History shows, this can only be
accomplished through Reserve and Guard equipment, since the training
cycles of Active Components are rarely if ever--synchronized with the
training or exercise times of Guard and Reserve units. Additionally,
historical records show that Guard and Reserve units with hardware
maintain equipment at or higher than average material and often better
training readiness. Current and future war fighting requirements will
need these highly qualified units when the Combatant Commanders require
fully ready units.
Reserve and Guard units have proven their readiness. The personnel
readiness, retention, and training of Reserve and Guard members will
depend on them having Reserve equipment that they can utilize,
maintain, train on, and deploy with when called upon. Depending on
hardware from the Active Component, has never been successful for many
functional reasons. The NRA recommends strengthen the Reserve and Guard
equipment in order to maintain--highly qualified trained Reserve and
Guard personnel.
Closure of Naval Reserve Activities
Issue.--A proposal has been made, suggesting that a large number of
Naval Reserve Centers and Naval Air Reserve Activities be closed, and
that Naval Reservists could commute to Fleet Concentration Areas to
directly support gaining commands and mobilization sites.
Position.--The Naval Reserve Association is opposed to this plan
for the following reasons.
--The Naval Reserve is the one Reserve component that has Reserve
Activities in every state. To close many of these would be
cutting the single military tie to the civilian community.
--The demographics of the Naval Reserve is that most of the
commissioned officers live on the coasts, while most of the
enlisted live in the hinterland, middle America. The Naval
Reservists who are paid the least would have to travel the
farthest.
--The active duty concept of a Naval Reserve is a junior force, a
structure based upon enlisted (E1-E3s) and officers (O1-O2's)
billets that can't be filled because the individuals haven't
left the fleet yet. When the Coast Guard ``transformed'' its
Reserve force, it was a forced a restructuring that RIFFed many
senior officer and enlisted leadership from the USCGR ranks,
and caused a number of years of administrative problems.
--If training at fleet concentration centers was correctly
implemented, the Navy should bear the expense and burden of
transportation and housing while on site. Additionally, at
locations such as Naval Station Norfolk, the overlap of Active
Duty and Reserve training has shown an increased burden on
Bachelor Quarters and messing facilities. Frequently,
Reservists must be billeted out on the economy. With these
extra costs, training would prove more expensive.
--Such a plan would devastate the Naval Reserves; retention would
plummet, training and readiness would suffer.
Replacement of Full Time Staff (TARs) with Active Duty ``Station
Keepers''
Issue.--Another suggested initiative would to the replacement of
Full Time Staff (TARs) with Active Duty ``Station Keepers''.
Position.--This has failed in the past, because the Active Navy
doesn't commit its best or it's brightest to administer Reservists. It
is not viewed as career enhancing, and those who complete the
assignments tend to do poorly before competitive promotion boards. The
assignments tend to often gravitate to unqualified second and third
string players who are dead-ended in their careers, and Reservists
retention, recruitment, readiness and morale tend to suffer.
CONCLUSION
The Four ``P's'' can identify the issues that are important to
Reservists: Pay, Promotion, Points, and Pride.
--Pay needs to be competitive. As Reservists have dual careers, they
have other sources of income. If pay is too low, or expenses
too high, a Reservist knows that time may be better invested
elsewhere.
--Promotions need to be fairly regular, and attainable. Promotions
have to be through an established system and be predictable.
--Points reflect a Reservist's ambitions to earn Retirement. They are
as creditable a reinforcement as pay; and must be easily
tracked.
--Pride is a combination of professionalism, parity and awards: doing
the job well with requisite equipment, and being recognized for
ones efforts. While people may not remember exactly what you
did, or what you said, they will always remember how you made
them feel.
If change is too rapid in any of these four, anxiety is generated
amid the ranks. As the Reserve Component is the true volunteer force,
Reservists are apt to vote with their feet. Reservists are a durable,
and are the ``All Pro Team'' resource only if they are treated right.
Current conditions about the world highlights the ongoing need for the
Reserve Component as key players in meeting National Security Strategy,
we can't afford to squander that resource.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I hate to interrupt
you here now. We have been given a problem. There will be 30-
plus votes on the floor today. They occur every 10 minutes. So
we have to go back and forth to vote. We will have to limit you
in time, and what we are going to try--Senator Inouye, Senator
Burns, I do not know how long you are going to be here, but we
are going to try to rotate so one of us is here at all times.
But we will have to keep moving because it is going to be a
difficult time.
So I appreciate your courtesy. I do want to say this to
everyone. I am going to say, whoever is here is going to say
who is the next witness. For instance, the next one is Ms.
Holleman, and after that is Mr. Butler. We want you to know who
is coming up next so we can determine if that person is not
here and call up the next person before the next witness.
Is Mr. Holleman here now? Ms. Holleman. Pardon me.
Captain Puzon. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. I appreciate your courtesy.
Good morning, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF DEIRDRE PARKE HOLLEMAN, ESQ., CO-DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL MILITARY AND VETERANS ASSOCIATION,
AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE
RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION
Ms. Holleman. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burns, it is
an honor for me to be here to testify on behalf of the National
Military and Veterans Alliance. The alliance is an umbrella
group made up of 26 military, retiree, veterans, and survivor
associations, with almost 5 million members. Our concerns are
many, but our time is brief, so I will just touch on a few
issues.
It is crucial that military health care is fully funded.
These past few months have shown the important part the direct
health care system plays in our military readiness. We must
continue to be fully funded and the equipment and other
supplies that have been used supporting our deployments in Iraq
and Afghanistan must be replaced.
Additionally, the purchased health care system is essential
to provide the services necessary to maintain a satisfied,
healthy, and vigorous military family, whether active duty and
their families, retirees, or survivors. It also helps to
promote necessary retention.
In the last several years it has been this subcommittee's
concerns and actions that stopped the constant funding
shortfalls that have occurred for many years, and we are truly
grateful. We ask that you continue to make sure that there is
full funding in fiscal year 2004 for all parts of the defense
health care budget.
The alliance is also deeply concerned about the changes
that are going to occur shortly in the Tricare resource sharing
program. Through this program at the present time approximately
3,500 health care professionals work at the Medical Treatment
Facility (MTFs), treating approximately 2 million patients
every year. With the advent of the Temporary National Economic
Committee (TNECs), all these contracts will end and new ones
will have to be negotiated, presumably through the MTFs. It is
crucial that there is no break in services caused by this
contractual change. The alliance asks that this subcommittee
provide sufficient transitional funding and direction to this
valuable program so this valuable program can continue without
interruption.
With all the improvements that the military health care has
seen in the last few years, one program has been ignored,
Tricare Standard. Over 3.2 million military retirees under the
age of 65 and their families are covered by Standard. At this
time very little thought is given to them. Tricare Standard
beneficiaries should be contacted yearly and informed about
their program and any recent changes that have occurred. No
such contact occurs at this time.
It is especially important for the TRICARE Management
Activity (TMA) to contact grey-area retirees when they reach 60
years old to tell them of their automatic qualification and
benefits. They are not contacted now and often these retirees
needlessly retain and pay for private health care insurance.
Most importantly, we hope that Tricare Standard will start
to help recruit providers and help beneficiaries find them. At
this time there is no requirement to do either and therefore
Standard is becoming a more and more illusory benefit. The
alliance requests that both sufficient funding and direction
are given to improve this important program.
The Military and Veterans Alliance thanks you for having
this hearing and listening to our concerns. Our written
testimony deals with many additional areas. We hope that you
will consider those points when finalizing your appropriations
bills this year.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your
attention.
Senator Stevens. Thank you for your courtesy. It is nice to
see you here today.
Ms. Holleman. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deirdre Parke Holleman, Esq.
INTRODUCTION
Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the
National Military and Veterans Alliance (NMVA) is very grateful for the
invitation to testify before you about our views and suggestions
concerning defense funding issues.
The Alliance was founded in 1996 as an umbrella organization to be
utilized by the various military and veteran associations as a means to
work together towards their common goals. The Alliance's organizations
are: American Logistics Association, American Military Retirees
Association, American Military Society, American Retiree Association,
American World War II Orphans Network, AMVETS National Headquarters,
Catholic War Veterans, Class Act Group, Gold Star Wives of America,
Korean War Veterans Foundation, Legion of Valor, Military Order of the
Purple Heart, National Association for Uniformed Services, National
Gulf War Resource Center, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, Naval
Reserve Association, Non Commissioned Officers Association, Society of
Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces, Society of Military Widows,
The Retired Enlisted Association, TREA Senior Citizens League, Tragedy
Assistance Program for Survivors, Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees,
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America.
The preceding organizations have almost five million members who
are serving our nation, or who have done so in the past and their
families.
The overall goal of the National Military and Veteran's Alliance is
a strong National Defense. In light of this overall objective, we would
request that the committee examine the following proposals.
current and future issues facing uniformed services health care
The National Military and Veterans Alliance must once again thank
this Committee for the great strides that have been made over the last
few years to improve the health care provided to the active duty
members, their families, survivors and Medicare eligible retirees of
all the Uniformed Services. The improvements have been historic.
TRICARE for Life and the Senior Pharmacy Program have enormously
improved the life and health of Medicare Eligible Military Retirees
their families and survivors. DOD's new Medicare Eligible Retiree
Health Care Fund has been put into place. This addition should help
stabilize funding for military health care in the future. Additionally,
reducing the catastrophic cap, improving the TRICARE Prime Remote
program and making other TRICARE improvements have improved the
situation of numerous other TRICARE beneficiaries. It has been a very
successful few years. But there are still many serious problems to be
addressed:
An Adequate Health Care Budget
As always, the most pressing issue facing military health care is
an adequate Defense Department Health Care Budget. This is again the
Alliance's top priority. With the additional costs that have come with
the deployments to Southwest Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq, we must all
stay vigilant against future budgetary shortfalls that would damage the
quality and availability of health care.
Improving Tricare Standard
While great steps forward have been made in health care for those
uniform services' beneficiaries covered under TRICARE Prime and TRICARE
for Life, TRICARE Standard has withered on the vine. TRICARE Standard
has truly become the stepchild of military health care. The Alliance
asks that this Committee financially support this final group of
forgotten beneficiaries. Some improvements in the situation can be
easily accomplished, others will indeed be difficult.
There should be a requirement that all TRICARE Standard
beneficiaries be contacted at least once a year with information of the
changes in the program and benefits. The Alliance believes that there
is no other health care plan in the country that does not contact its
beneficiaries on at least an annual basis. The TRICARE Management
Activity (TMA) is considering plans to improve communications between
TRICARE Prime and its beneficiaries. Including TRICARE Standard in such
a plan would be an easy improvement.
An additional population needing to be contacted is the ``gray
area'' Reservists when they reach age 60 and finally qualify for
retirement pay. Too often, this group of retirees is unaware of the
automatic enrollment, and individuals carry unneeded medical coverage.
They should be informed of the TRICARE Standard as a benefit, and what
it covers.
NMVA requests appropriations funding to support TMA making these
contacts.
A much harder improvement in TRICARE Standard involves creating
initiatives to convince health care providers to accept TRICARE
Standard patients. TRICARE reimbursement rates are tied to Medicare
reimbursement levels. It is well known that health care providers are
dissatisfied with TRICARE reimbursement levels. The Alliance was
pleased and relieved by the Administration's and Congress' recent
corrections and improvements in Medicare reimbursement rates. This
correction in the Medicare program will also be a great help to the
TRICARE Program.
Yet this is not enough. The history of low and slow payments in the
past for TRICARE Standard as well as what still seems like complicated
procedures and administrative forms makes it harder and harder for
beneficiaries to find health care providers that will accept TRICARE.
Any improvements in the rates paid for Medicare/TRICARE should be a
great help in this area. Additionally, any further steps to simplify
the administrative burdens and complications for health care providers
for TRICARE beneficiaries hopefully will increase the number of
available providers.
The Alliance asks the Defense Subcommittee to include language
encouraging continued increases in Medicare reimbursement rates.
One key tool in making low-cost MTF care available to military
beneficiaries has been the resource sharing program: putting civilian
health care professionals and support personnel into military hospitals
and clinics. Currently, there are 3,500 people working and providing
services in MTFs serving approximately 2 million patients annually.
The Alliance is concerned that a gap exists in the transition of
this program from its current configuration to that of the new
generation of T-Nex contracts. All current agreements must end with the
current contracts, yet there is no clear guidance on how the Services
will continue the resource share program, nor when the individual MTFs
will be able to renew access to the current resources to implement this
program.
The National Military Veterans Alliance request that this committee
provide transitional funding to insure uninterrupted service between
contracts.
Tricare Retiree Dental Plan (TRDP)
The focus of the TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan (TRDP) is to maintain
the dental health of Uniformed Services retirees and their family
members. Several years ago we saw the need to modify the TRDP
legislation to allow the Department of Defense to include some dental
procedures that had previously not been covered by the program. Adding
these procedures was necessary to fulfill the intent of the TRDP to
maintain good dental health for retirees and their family members. With
this modification the TRDP achieved equity with the active duty dental
plan.
With ever increasing premium costs, NMVA feels that the Department
should assist retirees in maintaining their dental health by providing
a government cost-share for the retiree dental plan. With many retirees
and their families on a fixed income, an effort should be made to help
ease the financial burden on this population and promote a seamless
transition from the active duty dental plan to the retiree dental plan
in cost structure. Additionally, we hope the Congress will enlarge the
retiree dental plan to include retired beneficiaries who live overseas.
The Alliance would appreciate this Committee's consideration of both
proposals.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE HEALTH CARE
First, we would like to thank the efforts by the office of
Secretary of Defense and TRICARE Management Activity for revising
Health Affairs Policy 96-018. The changes made to TRICARE Prime allow
families of activated Guardsmen or Reservists to be eligible for
TRICARE Prime when the military sponsor has active duty orders for more
than 30 days. This revision also allows the family to enroll without
enrollment fees or co-payments.
Changes made to the TRICARE Prime Remote for Active Duty Family
Members program allow the families of activated Reserve and National
Guard, Prime Remote coverage, no matter where the sponsor lives as long
as they resided with the service member before he or she left for their
mobilization site or deployment location, and the family continues to
reside there. We are very thankful for these improvements, however,
additional changes are still needed.
Mobilized Health Care--Medical Readiness of Reservists
The number one problem faced by Reservists being recalled was
medical readiness. The government's own studies indicate that between
20-25 percent of Reservists are without healthcare plans. Further study
will show that another group is under insured. Congress needs to
recommend a healthcare coverage for Reservists that could bridge this
medical gap.
A model for healthcare would be the TRICARE Dental Program, which
offers subsidized dental coverage for Selected Reservists and self-
insurance for SELRES families. Reservists pay $8.14 per month for an
individual's enrollment and $50.88 per month for a family enrollment.
If mobilized to active duty for more than 30 consecutive days, the
costs will be $8.14 for a single enrollment and $20.35 for a family
enrollment. Members of the Individual Ready Reserve (Other than Special
Mobilization Category) and their family members, and the family members
of the Selected Reserve (not on active duty) will pay a new monthly
rate of $20.35 for a single enrollment and $50.88 for a family
enrollment.
In an ideal world this would give universal dental coverage.
Reality is that the services are facing some problems. Premium
increases to the individual Reservist have caused some of the junior
members to forgo coverage. Dental readiness has dropped. Mobilized
members have been ``readied'' by tooth extraction rather than tooth
filling. The Military services are trying to determine how best to
motivate their Reserve Component members. It is hard to make dental
coverage mandatory if the Reservist must pay even a portion of it.
Position.--The National Military Veterans Alliance supports
utilization of Guard and Reserve Dentists to examine and treat
Guardsmen and Reservists who have substandard dental hygiene. The
TRICARE Dental Program should be continued, because we believe it has
pulled up overall Dental Readiness. Medical coverage plans should be
explored to insure universal medical coverage for Guardsmen and
Reservists; Reservists and their dependents should be allowed to join
TRICARE.
Some Options
The Department of Defense has a model program extending FEHBP
coverage to mobilized employees where basic employees premiums are
paid. Other federal agencies can adopt this policy on an agency-by-
agency basis but this policy is not uniform across all federal
agencies.
Position.--As an option to TRICARE standard, the Alliance would
like to see the government pay equivalent premiums directly to private
employers if these companies choose to extend health coverage to the
Reservist as an option.
Demobilized Health Care
Under the revised transitional healthcare benefit plan, Guard and
Reserve who were ordered to active duty for more than 30 days in
support of a contingency and have more than six years total active
federal service are eligible for 120 days of transition health care
following their period of active service. Guard and Reserve members
with less than six years service will get 60 days of continued medical
care. Families were excluded from this coverage. An initial fix was a
worldwide demonstration project, which permitted family members to be
covered under this plan.
Position.--While 75 to 80 percent of returning Reservists will have
healthcare when they return to their employers, the balance will be
without healthcare beyond the current 120 or 60-day limitation.
--There should not be a demarcation at six years between 60 and 120
days. The jobs performed by the Reserve Component members were
identical; their demobilization healthcare coverage should be
identical.
--Demobilization transition TRICARE coverage for the post activated
Reserve Component members should be expanded. A civilian is
allowed up to 18 months of coverage under COBRA when
transitioning between jobs. Military should be permitted the
same.
Further.--The National Military Veterans Alliance supports OSD
efforts to ensure the quality of demobilization processing. Each
returning Guardsman or Reservist should be given a benchmark separation
physical to document their health as they return from the
``battlefields.''
NMVA asks the committee for funding to support DOD's demobilization
health care demonstration programs.
OTHER RESERVE/GUARD ISSUES (LONG-TERM)
Age 55 Retirement Payment Age
Over the last two decades, more has been asked of Guardsmen and
Reservists than ever before. The nature of the contract has changed;
Reserve Component members would like to see recognition of the added
burden they carry. Providing an option that reduces the retired with
pay age from 60 to 55 years carries importance in retention,
recruitment, and personnel readiness. Some are hesitant to endorse this
because they envision money would be taken out of other entitlements,
benefits, and Guard and Reserve Equipment budgets. The National
Military and Veteran's Alliance recommends that Reserve retirement with
pay be allowed prior to age 60, but be treated like Social Security
retirement offset, at lower payments when taken at an earlier age. If a
Reservist elects to take retired pay at age 55, it would be taken at an
actuarially reduced rate, keeping the net costs at zero.
Most of the cost projected by DOD is for TRICARE healthcare, which
begins when retirement pay commences. Again following the Social
Security example, Medicare is not linked to Social Security payments.
NMVA suggests that TRICARE for Reservists be decoupled from pay, and
eligibility remain at age 60 years with Social Security as a model,
Reservists understand the nature of offsetting payments. The only
remaining expense in this proposal would be the administrative startup
costs and adjustments to retirement accrual contributed to the DOD
retirement accounts.
Pay and Compensation For Guard and Reserve
We are concerned about a recent DOD initiative to end ``two days
pay for one days work,'' and replace it with a plan to provide 1/30 of
a Month's pay model, which would include both pay and allowances. Even
with allowances, pay would be less than the current system. When
concerns were addressed about this proposal, a retention bonus was the
suggested solution to keep pay at the current levels. Allowances differ
between individuals and can be affected by commute distances and even
zip codes. Certain allowances that are unlikely to be paid uniformly
include geographic differences, housing variables, tuition assistance,
travel, and adjustments to compensate for missing Healthcare.
The National Military and Veterans Alliance holds reservations with
a retention bonus as a supplemental source. Being renewed annually
bonuses tend to depend on the national economy, deficit, and political
winds. Further, would this bonus just be grandfathered to current
Reservists, with some future generation forfeiting the bonus as an
income source. The NMVA strongly recommends that the reserve pay system
``two days pay for one days work,'' be retained, as is.
OTHER RESERVE/GUARD RECOMMENDATIONS (SHORT-TERM)
Ensure adequate funding to equip Guard and Reserve at a level that
allows them to carry out their mission. Do not turn these crucial
assets over to the active duty force. In the same vein we ask that the
Congress ensure adequate funding that allows a Guardsman/Reservist to
complete 48 drills, and 15 annual training days per member, per year.
This stems from the concern about a recent DOD plan, the ``Defense
Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003'' that would
potentially use some of these same ``Reserve'' dollars to fund
involuntary 90-day pre-mobilization call up for training. This funding
should come instead from the active duty budget, which will most
directly benefit from this ``deployment standards'' training.
The NMVA strongly recommends that Reserve Program funding remain at
sufficient levels to adequately train and support the robust reserve
force that has been so critical and successful during our Nation's
recent major conflicts.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee the
Alliance again wishes to emphasize that we are grateful for and
delighted with the large steps forward that the Congress has affected
the last few years. The new health care programs for Uniformed Service
retirees 65 years and over (TRICARE for Life and the Senior Pharmacy)
and active duty members and their families (TRICARE Prime Remote and
the reduction of the catastrophic cap) have been great successes. We
are also very appreciative of recent changes that impact our ``citizen
soldiers'' in the Guard and Reserve. But there is still work to be done
to improve health care programs for all qualified beneficiaries, and
benefits and mission funding for our Guardsmen and Reservists. We
understand that all of these issues don't fall under the direct purview
of your subcommittee. However, we are aware of the continuing concern
all of the subcommittee's members have shown for the health and welfare
of our service personnel and their families. Therefore, we hope that
this subcommittee can further advance these suggestions in this
committee or in other positions that the members hold. We are very
grateful for the opportunity to speak on these issues of crucial
concern to our members. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Next is Mr. Butler, Deputy Director of
Legislation, National Association of Uniformed Services. Good
morning.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. BUTLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
LEGISLATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR
UNIFORMED SERVICES
Mr. Butler. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, the National
Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS) and the Society of
Military Widows is very grateful for the invitation to testify
before you about our views and suggestions concerning defense
funding issues. There are several issues covered in my formal
statement in detail. I would like to highlight a couple here
today pertaining to survivors.
First I would like to mention the age-62 survivor benefits
program offset with Social Security. NAUS's primary survivor
goal is the elimination of the age-62 Strategic Business Plan
(SBP) offset. This would increase the annuity from 35 percent
to the original 55 percent. Not only were many of the earliest
enrollees not provided the full explanation of the social
security offset, but the Federal Government provides a
substantially higher annuity with no offset for Federal Civil
Service survivors. We urge the committee to provide funding for
the annuity increase and end the often devastating effects of
the offset.
On a related front, the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 1999 provided a paid-up provision to the
survivor benefit plan. The law states that, effective October
1, 2008, if a retiree has paid into the program for 30 years
and is 70 years old then the premium is paid up. NAUS
recommends the appropriate funding to accelerate the paid-up
provisions and change the effective date from October 1, 2008,
to October 1, 2003, the 30th anniversary of the program.
Without a change, enrollees who meet this criteria are being
penalized after that date for 5 years.
Also on the survivor front, NAUS strongly urges funding for
S. 585. Currently, if the retired military sponsor who enrolls
in the survivor benefits program dies of a service-connected
disability, the surviving spouse is eligible for both the SBP
annuity and dependency and indemnity compensation, or DIC, from
the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the SBP annuity is
offset by the full amount of DIC. Each program's purpose is
different. SBP's goal is to provide for the loss of the
sponsor's earned retired pay and DIC's goal is to provide the
surviving spouse compensation for the loss of their spouse due
to injuries caused by his or her service to their country. We
strongly urge funding to eliminate this offset.
Finally, I would like to mention the retention of DIC on
remarriage after age 55. All other Federal survivor benefits
are retained if the beneficiary remarries after a certain age.
The only exception is the military widow or widower receiving
DIC. Many survivors do not remarry because they cannot afford
to lose their DIC. As a matter of equity, a DIC survivor who
marries after the age of 55 should retain his or her DIC status
and benefits.
We would like to see the funding made available to end the
remarriage penalty. NAUS strongly supports the funding for this
type of legislation and any legislation that takes care of
those that we leave behind.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you for those suggestions and I
think you are right about that 55-year-old. We will do our
best, Mr. Butler.
Mr. Butler. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Benjamin H. Butler
INTRODUCTION
Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, The
National Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS) is very grateful for
the invitation to testify before you about our views and suggestions
concerning the following defense funding issues:
Survivor Benefits Program (SBP) Improvements
Age 62 Survivor Benefits Program Offset
The National Association for Uniformed Services primary survivor
goal is the elimination of the age 62 Survivor Benefit Program annuity
offset. This would increase the annuity from 35 percent to the original
55 percent. Not only were many of the earliest enrollees not provided
the full explanation of the benefits and the Social Security Offset,
but the Federal Government provides a substantially higher annuity with
no offset for federal Civil Service survivors annuities. We urge the
committee to provide funding for the annuity increase, and end the
often-devastating effects of the offset.
30 Year Paid-Up Status
A secondary goal is the acceleration of the paid-up provisions by
changing the effective date from October 1, 2008 to October 1, 2003,
the 30th anniversary of the program. Enrollees who have reached the age
of 70 and have paid their SBP premiums for more that 30 years (360
payments) are being penalized. We ask that you provide funding to allow
those early enrollees to be allowed this relief.
Survivor Benefits Program/Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation Offset
The National Association for Uniformed Services strongly urges
funding for S. 585. Currently, if the retired military sponsor, who
enrolled in the Survivor Benefits Program, dies of a service-connected
disability, the surviving spouse is eligible for both the SBP annuity
and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) from the Department of
Veterans Affairs. However, the SBP annuity is offset by the full amount
of the DIC annuity. Each program's purpose is different, SBP's goal is
to provide for the loss of the sponsors earned retired pay, and DIC's
goal is to provide the surviving spouse compensation for the loss of
their spouse due to injuries caused by his/her service to the country.
Defense Commissary Agency Funding and Staffing
The active duty service member continues to rate the Commissaries
as a top benefit of the Quality of Life and Family Program portion of
the military pay and compensation package. The 2002 Active Duty Status
of Forces Survey gave the Exchange and Commissaries a 67 percent
satisfaction rating. And yet, the Commissaries and Exchanges are still
under attack, during a time when our highly trained and motivated
military forces are away from their home bases. How can we justify
attacking their families' convenient access to high quality food at
savings that approach 30 percent?
Issue.--Why would the Department of Defense want to reduce the
commissary benefit at its greatest time of need? The answer is money.
DOD wants to reduce the subsidy for the commissary system that provides
food and other essentials to troops and families around the world,
which will end up in the military community losing the benefit.
Position.--The National Association for Unformed Services strongly
urges you to continue to provide the funding for the Commissary Subsidy
to sustain the current services, which garnished a 67 percent approval
rating, provided to the men and women protecting our nation.
Commissaries are a key component of the military pay and compensation
package. Any action that reduces the benefit means a diminished quality
of life and more out of pocket costs.
Issue.--The Defense Commissary Agency has already begun the process
of eliminating 2,650 personnel positions and reducing its funding by
$137,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
Position.--NAUS believes that a reduction of this size will degrade
the quality of the benefit by eliminating smaller commissaries and
reducing days and hours of operation.
Issue.--The Department of Defense is planning the consolidation of
the Armed Services three-exchange services into one single entity,
though still retaining the ``look and feel'' of each store and
maintaining the service culture to which the patrons are accustomed.
The goal again, is to save money by elimination of redundant overheads,
delivery systems, and the power of economy of scaling purchasing.
Position.--NAUS does not endorse a consolidation, especially if
consolidation is for consolidation's sake. Streamlining, improving
internal operations and implementation of cost saving measures must not
reduce the value of the benefit.
NAUS supports funding for system studies, but not an accelerated
consolidation.
Summary.--We all understand the importance of saving scarce
taxpayer's dollars. Every taxpayer dollar collected must be used wisely
to keep down the amount of taxes the government collects; this is only
common sense. Therefore, every government agency, department or system
must be as efficient as possible. For example, the leaders of the
commissary system have been and are continuing to make internal changes
to improve efficiencies and reduce overhead operating costs. DOD should
be setting goals, not mandating changes.
Current and Future Issues Facing Uniformed Services Health Care
The National Association for Uniformed Services would like to thank
the Sub-Committee and the Full Appropriations Committee for its
leadership in the past for providing the landmark legislation extending
the Pharmacy benefit and TRICARE system to Medicare eligible military
retirees, their families and survivors, making the lifetime benefit
permanent, establishing the DOD Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care
Fund, reducing the catastrophic cap and making other TRICARE
improvements. However, we must again urge that the Senate provides full
funding of the Defense Health Program, especially now, while more
activated reserve beneficiaries utilize the program.
In addition to medical care we are concerned that the current
funding within DOD for maintenance and infrastructure improvements is
inadequate. This lack of funding has forced commanders to make band-aid
fixes that in the long term require more costly repairs, or even
acceleration of closing completely. One example is the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, located on the grounds of the Walter Reed Army
Medical Center and which Congress declared a national resource in 1976.
This world-class national resource provides a broad range of patient
care consultant activities, educational programs and research for the
military medical system, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the
civilian medical community nationally and internationally. It is housed
in a building that is over 50-years old and deteriorating badly--like
much of the Walter Reed complex that is in need of repair and
maintenance.
Mr. Chairman, the overall goal of the National Association for
Uniformed Services is a strong National Defense. We believe that
comprehensive, lifelong medical and dental care for all Uniformed
Service beneficiaries regardless of age, status or location furthers
this goal. In light of these overall objectives, we would request that
the committee examine the following proposals:
TRICARE Improvements supported by NAUS
Our first and foremost goal is to increase the provider
reimbursement rates to more realistic amounts. Without adequate
reimbursement rates, the ability to maintain a viable, qualified list
of medical providers is hindered. That directly affects the health of
our service members and their families. Secondly, we ask that you
provide funding to improve the TRICARE Standard Program, to include
increased communication between the TRICARE Management Activity and the
Standard beneficiary about the benefits of the program and assisting
the Standard beneficiary in locating an available provider. Finally, we
encourage the subcommittee to maintain the TRICARE Standard plan as the
fee-for-service plan that was initially created and continue its
efforts to eliminate the pre-authorizations now required.
Medicare Part B Enrollment
The law enacting the TRICARE for Life program requires Medicare
Part B enrollment for participation in the TRICARE for Life program. In
addition, Part B is required for all retirees reaching age 65 on or
after 1 April 2001 for them to participate in the new pharmacy program
Secondly, some 12,000 retirees residing overseas are required to
participate in Part B Medicare in order to enroll in TRICARE for Life.
Since they cannot use the Medicare benefits overseas, we recommend that
this requirement be eliminated for all retirees residing overseas and
that upon their relocation to the United States be allowed to enroll in
Part B without the delayed enrollment penalty.
Also, some retirees who lived near military installations did not
enroll in Part B because they relied upon the promise of lifetime
medical care at the hospitals and clinics located on the military
bases, which have subsequently been closed. Many are in their 70's and
80's now and cannot afford to pay the huge Part B delayed enrollment
penalties.
Position.--We recommend that those who relied on these hospitals
and were 65 on or before 6 October 2000, the date TFL was enacted by
NDAA for fiscal year 2001, be allowed to participate in TFL without
enrolling in Part B Medicare or at the very least waive the delayed
enrollment penalties.
FEHBP
The National Association for Uniformed Services has been a long
time proponent of legislation that would provide military personnel the
option of participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit
Program. Though confident that the TRICARE program and the TRICARE for
Life program will be successful, because they are an outstanding value
for most beneficiaries, in a few cases, the TRICARE/TRICARE for Life
options may not be the best choice, or may not be available for the
eligible beneficiary. For that reason, we believe the FEHBP option
should be enacted. Providing the FEHBP, as an option would help
stabilize the TRICARE program, provide a market based benchmark for
cost comparison and be available to those for whom TRICARE/TRICARE for
Life is not an adequate solution.
Position.--NAUS strongly urges the committee to provide additional
funding to support a full FEHBP program for military personnel as an
option.
Include Physician and Nurse Specialty Pay in Retirement
Computations
Results of the 2002 Active Duty Survey show that pay and benefits
are the most important factors impacting retention. Improving specialty
pay/bonuses and including specialty pay/bonuses in retired pay
calculations would aid retention. Therefore, prompt action to retain
these and other highly skilled medical professionals is needed.
Position.--The National Association for Uniformed Services requests
funding to allow the military physicians and nurses to use their
specialty pay in their retirement computations. The military services
continue to lose top quality medical professionals (doctors and nurses)
at mid-career. A major reason is the difference between compensation
levels for military physicians and nurses and those in the private
sector.
Uniform Claims processing and Billing
It has been the long term hope that part of the growing costs of
medical treatment in both the Department of Defense and the Department
of Veteran Affairs could be paid by billing private insurance companies
and Medicare/Medicaid systems (DOD and VA Subvention). Numerous
attempts to improve these financial streams have failed.
Position.--In part this failure has been caused because the various
systems do not share the same system for claims and billing. Since the
dominant system of all medical claims in the country is clearly
Medicare if DOD and the VA adopted the Medicare claims system ALL
parties--Private Insurance Companies, DOD, the VA and Medicare/Medicaid
would know what medical services, pharmaceuticals, laboratory services
and the like have been provided. Such a uniform billing plan could also
lead to improvements in allowing the VA to be a fully participating
TRICARE network provider. This does not solve the other billing
problems but at least it would put all the parties on the same sheet of
music.
DOD and VA Subvention
The attempt of Medicare subvention (having Medicare pay for
treatment of its beneficiaries at MTFs) with the DOD has been a huge
disappointment. The Department of Defense has received no stream of
payments. Medicare's required level of effort'' has never been reached
by an MTF. But this goal should not be abandoned. The active duty
member, his or her working spouse, the Veteran and the Military Retiree
have all spent their working careers paying money into the Medicare
system. The taxes have been paid but if they receive treatment in a MTF
or a VA hospital or clinic the facility receives nothing from Medicare
to help pay for that beneficiary's services.
Position.--The financially strained medical systems of the VA and
DOD should receive some of the support their patients have paid. Again,
if DOD and the VA adopted Medicare's billing system it could support an
effective attempt at subvention.
Active and Reserve
The most important element of military readiness is a high quality
force. The quality force that we have fighting for us today is the
result of over twenty years of effort. The National Association for
Uniformed Services doesn't want to see these gains lost.
We understand that DOD plans budget cuts, with the services again
looking at end strength reductions especially in the Reserve Components
at a time that we are fighting a war against multiple undefined
terrorist factions.
We request that you consider language in the appropriations bill to
direct DOD to cease further reductions in both Active and Reserve
components until the threats to our Nation are properly determined and
a National Defense Strategy is clearly defined. We shouldn't forget the
needs of our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen in the field.
Quality of life includes quality on the job. The National Association
for Uniformed Services supports a 4.1 percent pay raise for all seven
of the Uniformed Services. We further support targeted pay raise
proposals for enlisted members in grades E-5 to E-9, and selected
warrant officers.
Additionally, NAUS feels that it is important to invest defense
dollars for equipment procurement beyond the administration's budget.
The service chiefs have provided non-funded requirements for both the
active and Reserve components that will be needed by our people in the
near future.
We ask that funds be provided utilizing the National Guard and
Reserve Equipment Account. While the Senate has pressured to reduce the
NGREA, the services have failed in their responsibility to budget for
Reserve equipment; until this is resolved we believe the NGREA should
be used for this purpose.
Reserve members were quick to step forward; some have already
sacrificed their lives during this war as part of this nation's total
force. In recognition, we ask for parity between active and reserve
components when it comes to pay and compensation and retirement. We
encourage this committee to support future hearings dealing with pay
and compensation as these proposals are developed.
NAUS believes that funding lifelong medical and dental care for all
of the uniformed service beneficiaries, regardless of age, Active or
Reserve status or location, supports the goal of mobilization
readiness. But we would like to call attention to the ongoing need of
funding TRICARE providers and, in turn, supporting the troubled TRICARE
network.
This is especially hard on the families of reservists who don't
relocate when their warriors are mobilized. We hope the committee will
support monies for military treatment facility subvention and
utilization of veterans affairs hospitals as TRICARE providers.
Transformation
The Secretary of Defense's office is conducting a series of studies
emphasizing transformation, relying on costly, undeveloped
technologies, seeking dollar savings by reducing end strength in a
flexible, adaptive fighting force.
The first suggested legislation has been released entitled the
``Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003.'' While
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's staff has attempted to come up with new
solutions to old problems, blanket implementation may result in
unintended consequences.
Issues Affecting Appropriations
Increased cost to the retirement fund is NAUS's concern if the 75
percent ceiling is lifted, and a unrestricted multiplier is allowed,
permitting flag and general officers to be paid more in retirement than
on active duty.
NAUS is concerned with removing the pay limitations on retired pay
for general and flag officers, which is currently held equal to level
III of the Executive Schedule.
Enhanced General Transfer Authority; transfer of funds: NAUS
opposes granting authority to SECDEF to permit the transfer of 2.5
percent of the total appropriations between funds (except MILCON) for
military functions--five percent in times of war or emergency.
This is too high a sum of money, undercuts the appropriations
process, and creates a high risk to have authorized items stripped of
funding to support a DOD project viewed as underfunded.
Transfer of Funds to correct specific acquisition. NAUS feels there
is no need to allow reprogramming of funds. This is a requested change
from $10 million to $20 million, again reducing Congressional
oversight.
Another suggestion within the Transformation Act is allowing
``improved involuntary access'' to Reserve Component members for
enhanced training prior to mobilization. Suggested language calls this
``up to 90 days of active duty for training,'' which indicates that
this preparation for mobilization will come from reserve training funds
rather than from the budget of the active duty, which will most
directly benefit from this ``deployment standards'' training.
NAUS requests that the A.T. funding be expanded beyond the 15 days
of A.T. per guardsman and reservist, to allow for these additional
periods of training, otherwise this unit training will strip away
training dollars from individual reservists.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Sub-Committee, we
want to thank you for your leadership and for holding these hearings
this year. You have made it clear that the military continues to be a
high priority and you have our continuing support.
Senator Stevens. Next will be Mr. Duggan. But, Mr. Duggan
will you wait? We will start you when the Senator comes back. I
will go vote and someone else will be here.
Senator Inouye [presiding]. Please forgive us for this
vote-a-rama.
Mr. Duggan. Yes, sir. Good morning, sir.
Senator Inouye. The next witness will be Dennis ``Mike''
Duggan, Deputy Director of the National Security, Foreign
Relations Division of the American Legion.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS M. DUGGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL SECURITY, FOREIGN RELATIONS
COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION
Mr. Duggan. Good morning, sir, and thank you. Mr. Chairman,
the American Legion, as the Nation's largest organization of
wartime veterans, is extremely grateful for this opportunity to
present its views regarding the Defense appropriations for
fiscal year 2004. We have always valued your leadership in
assessing and appropriating adequate funding for the defense
establishment, including its military quality of life,
readiness, and modernization or transformation.
The stunning military successes in Iraq validate this
committee's investing in our armed services and I am sure we
are all appreciative of that. As we speak, thousands of
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, Active and Reserve
components, continue to valiantly serve in the Persian Gulf and
Afghanistan. All Americans are proud of what they have
achieved, while cognizant of the fact that the war on terrorism
does in fact continue.
Americans expect us to support our troops and to support a
strong national defense and we believe this fiscal year 2004
bill does that.
Mr. Chairman, our Armed Forces, as effective as they are,
are spread thin and over 220,000 reservists have been activated
for homeland security missions and the war on terrorism. Our
reserve components are no longer reserve. They are on the front
lines. The extent to which they are being used in larger
numbers and over longer periods of time may well result,
however, in reduced recruiting and retention. We do not know
that at this stage.
Some active component, reserve component shifts may be
necessary and may improve force levels and strengthen the
active capabilities. However, it appears that funding the
increase of active duty end strengths is imperative. We believe
that, the American Legion does, that the active duty end
strengths need to be increased.
We are also aware of a number of aging systems which the
Armed Forces continue to keep in their active inventory which
probably need replacing at this stage of the game, to include
refueling tankers for one. Another, of course, that comes to
mind is the CH, aging CH-46 Sea Knight, and there have been a
number of accidents involving that and I just wonder if they
just need to be replaced.
We understand the CH-47 Chinooks have been pretty well
upgraded, the Army version, with new engines and so forth. But
the CH-46 Sea Knight may need replacing or at least greatly
upgrading.
The American Legion applauds the SASC, Senate Armed
Services Committee, bill calling for a survey of military
retirees by the Department of Defense (DOD) to determine the
viability and the adequacy of the Tricare Standard benefit that
was brought up by the last speaker. We do urge that Tricare
reimbursement rates probably need to be increased and that the
Defense health system as well be fully funded. Many care-
eligible military retirees and their dependents remain forever
grateful of the Tricare for Life program and the Senior Tricare
Pharmacy Benefit as well for those over age 65.
The American Legion applauds the raises in base pay and
allowances for the active force. But family separation
allowances, hostile fire pay, or imminent danger pays, we
believe need to be increased, as does the rather archaic death
gratuity benefits as well. The 6,000 bucks is not a whole heck
of a lot for families that lose a loved one in action.
Reserve benefits need to be increased consistent with the
extent to which reservists are being mobilized to perform
active duty missions. Retired reservists should be eligible for
reservist pay and Tricare health care before the age of 60 and
also reservists should have unlimited access to military
commissaries.
Just one last word, Mr. Chairman, and that has to do with
the recently enacted combat-related special compensation for
disabled military retirees. It flagrantly to a large extent
leaves off our disabled reservists and guardsmen who have
served 20 or more years and who are not even eligible to really
apply for that special compensation.
Mr. Chairman, we thank you again for this opportunity.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis M. Duggan
Mr. Chairman, The American Legion is grateful for the opportunity
to present its views regarding defense appropriations for fiscal year
2004. The American Legion values your leadership in assessing and
appropriating adequate funding for quality-of-life, readiness and
modernization of the Nation's armed forces.
Once again, the United States is involved in two wars--the war
against terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom. American fighting men
and women are proving that they are best-trained, best-equipped and
best-led military in the world. As Secretary of Defense, Donald
Rumsfeld has noted, the war in Iraq is part of a long, dangerous global
war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is being waged on two fronts:
overseas against armed terrorists and the other here protecting and
securing the Homeland. Indeed, most of what we as Americans hold dear
are made possible by the peace and stability, which the armed forces
provide.
The American Legion adheres to the principle that this Nation's
armed forces must be well manned and equipped, not to pursue war, but
to preserve and protect peace. The American Legion strongly believes
that past military downsizing was budget-driven rather than threat
focused. Once Army divisions, Navy carrier battle groups, and Air Force
fighter wings are eliminated from the force structure, they cannot be
rapidly reconstituted regardless of the threat or emergency
circumstances. Military recruitment has also been sporadic in the face
of obvious quality-of-life concerns, frequent and lengthy deployments,
and the recession, in spite of the patriotic American spirit which has
followed the terrorist attacks of September 11th.
The Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2004 totals
$2.2 trillion and authorizes $379.9 billion for defense or about 16.6
percent of the budget. The fiscal year 2004 defense budget represents a
$14 billion increase in defense spending over the current funding
level. It also represents 3.4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product,
more than the 3.3 percent in the fiscal year 2003 budget. Active duty
military manpower end strength is 1,388,100, only slightly changed from
the 1.37 million of fiscal year 2002. Selected Reserve strength is
863,300 or reduced by about 25 percent from its strength levels during
the Gulf War of 12 years ago..
Mr. Chairman, this budget must contain funding to fight the war on
terrorism, sustain military quality of life and continue to transform
the military. A decade of overuse of the military and it's under-
funding, however, will necessitate sustained investments. This budget
must also address increases in the military endstrength of the
Services, accelerate ship production, and funding for the concurrent
receipt of military retirement pay and VA disability compensation for
disabled military retirees.
If we are to win the war on terror and prepare for the wars of
tomorrow, we must take care of the Department's greatest assets--the
men and women in uniform. They are doing us proud in Iraq, Afghanistan
and around the world.
In order to attract and retain the necessary force over the long
haul, the military continues to look for talent in an open market place
and to compete with the private sector for the best young people our
nation has to offer. If we are to attract them to military service in
the active and reserve components, we need to count on their patriotism
and willingness to sacrifice, to be sure, but we must also provide them
the proper incentives. They love their country, but they also love
their families--and many have children to support, raise, and educate.
We have always asked the men and women in uniform to voluntarily risk
their lives to defend us; we should not ask them to forgo adequate pay
and subject their families to repeated unaccompanied deployments and
sub-standard housing as well.
The President's 2004 defense budget requests $98.6 billion for
military pay and allowances, including $3.7 billion for a 2 percent to
6.3 percent pay raise and $300 million for the option for targeted pay-
raises for mid-grade officers and NCOs. It also includes $4.2 billion
to improve military housing, putting the Department on track to
eliminate most substandard housing by 2007--several years sooner than
previously planned. It will also lower out-of-pocket housing cost for
those living off-base from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent in 2004--so as to
hopefully eliminate all out-of-pocket costs for the men and women in
uniform by 2005.
Together, these investments in people are critical, because smart
weapons are worthless to us unless they are in the hands of smart, well
trained Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen.
The American Legion's National Commander has visited American
troops in South Korea, as well as a number of installations throughout
the United States. During these visits, he was able to see first hand
the urgent, immediate need to address real quality of life challenges
faced by service members and their families. He has spoken with
families on Womens' and Infants' Compensation (WIC). Quality of life
issues for service members, coupled with heightened operational tempos,
play a key role in the recurring recruitment and retention woes and
should come as no surprise. The operational tempo and lengthy
deployments must be reduced. Military missions were on the rise before
September 11 and deployment levels remain high and the only way, it
appears, to reduce repetitive overseas tours and the overuse of the
Reserves is to increase military endstrengths for the services.
Military pay must be on par with the competitive civilian sector. If
other benefits, like health care improvements, commissaries, adequate
quarters, quality child care, and impact aid for education are reduced,
they will only serve to further undermine efforts to recruit and retain
the brightest and best this nation has to offer.
QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW (QDR)
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, America has
conducted three substantial assessments of its strategy and force
structures necessary to meet the national defense requirements. The
assessment by the first President Bush Administration (``Base Force''
assessment) and the assessment by the Clinton Administration (``Bottom-
Up Review'') were intended to reassess the force structure in light of
the changing realities of the post-Cold War world. Both assessments
served an important purpose in focusing attention on the need to
reevaluate America's military posture; but the pace of global change
necessitated a new, comprehensive assessment of the current defense
strategy for the 21st Century. The current QDR was formatted before
September 11, 2001.
The American Legion has supported the force structure proposed by
the Base Force Strategy: Maintaining 12 Army active duty combat
divisions, 12 Navy aircraft carrier battle groups, 15 Air Force fighter
wings and three Marine Corps divisions, and a total manpower strength
of at least 1.6 million. The American Legion initially supported the
theory behind the two-war strategy: if America were drawn into a war
with one regional aggressor, another could be tempted to attack its
neighbor, especially if this aggressor were convinced that America and
its allies were distracted, lacked the will to fight conflicts on two
fronts, or did not possess the military power to deal with more than
one major conflict at a time. Determining the right size of U.S. forces
for more than one major conflict would provide a hedge against the
possibility that a future adversary might mount a larger than expected
threat. It would also allow for a credible overseas presence that is
essential in dealing with potential regional dangers and pursuing new
opportunities to advance stability and peace. The American Legion has
always believed that any such strategy should be capabilities-based
rather than budget-driven.
The two-war, nearly simultaneously, strategy was criticized as
being too narrowly focused on preparing for two specific conflicts, was
under-prepared for other contingencies and was never adequately
resourced. We believe that for the strategy to be credible it must
employ more robust force structures and continued increased budgeting
to improve quality-of-life, readiness and modernization. The American
Legion believes the ``win-win'' two-war Bottom-Up Review strategy was
delusional. With growing worldwide commitments, America has a ``win-
hold'' strategy, at best, with only 10 Army active combat divisions,
three Marine divisions, 12 Navy carrier groups and eight National Guard
Divisions to utilize.
The reality of a two-war strategy appears to have arrived. Once
again, we have fought in the Persian Gulf while keeping an eye on
developments in North Korea. The armed forces have appeared to be over
committed for too long with their many missions to include preparation
for conventional warfare, peacekeeping in the Balkans, counterguerilla
operations in the Philippines and Colombia as well as Homeland Security
and the global War on Terrorism to include combat operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
The American Legion also believes America can no longer afford to
become the world peace enforcer by dispatching forces on unbudgeted
operations whether the United Nations passes or does not pass a
resolution to do so. The American Legion believes Congress needs to
remain involved in the decision-making process regarding the commitment
of U.S. military forces. These forces should be deployed only when the
vital national interests of America are clearly at stake, supported by
the will of the American people and Congress, and a clear exit strategy
exists. Congress needs to become involved in the policy of committing
U.S. troops before troops are actively committed, not afterwards.
Clearly, our war in Iraq has satisfied all these conditions. For that
reason, the Armed Forces are deserving of congressional support for
increased resourcing.
PROCUREMENT/TRANSFORMATION
Only a few major systems currently in production would be funded in
the fiscal year 2004 defense budget. The funding level for procurement
is improved but needs to be sustained. The American Legion fully
supports the Army's Transformation Program. Major development programs
that The American Legion also supports include the Air Force F-22
fighter and C-17, F/A-18Es for the Navy, and Joint Strike Fighters for
the Air Force and Navy. Unquestionably, the Navy needs to upgrade its
aging fleet and air arm as well as acquire more submarines. The
American Legion strongly believes that the seven-ship rate of ship-
building needs to be increased so that at least 8-10 ships are built
annually.
If left unadvised, omissions in DOD's modernization budget will
have the following implications:
--They will result in the continued deterioration of the defense
industrial base.
--The future technological superiority of American forces will be at
risk thereby increasing the danger to servicemembers should
they be called into combat. We are currently retiring ships and
aircraft faster than they are being built.
--The failure to replace and upgrade equipment in a timely manner
will create a massive modernization shortfall in each of the
military services and, possibly, lead to even more serious
readiness problems in the long run.
America's winning technology in the Persian Gulf War, like its
victorious all-volunteer force, did not develop overnight, but had its
genesis in the decade of the 1980's. The modernization of the Armed
Forces since the end of the Persian Gulf War, unfortunately, has been
delayed and curtailed. The 2004 budget request is designed to advance
each of the transformational goals mentioned by the Secretary of
Defense in his Congressional testimony last year. It accelerates
funding both for the development of transformation programs as well as
by funding modernization. Recognizably, transformation is a process,
and is a process that must continue. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff during fiscal year 1998 defense budget hearings called for
procurement budgets of $60 billion annually, which for the first time
was reflected in the fiscal year 2001 budget. Army procurement dollars
alone have plummeted by almost 80 percent since the mid-1980's, and by
67 percent for all the services. Trade-offs to maintain readiness
within budget constraints have caused the Services to cancel a number
of weapons systems and to delay others.
A number of defense consulting firms have predicted that the armed
forces are heading for a ``train wreck'' unless annual defense budgets
called for procurement accounts in the $118 billion range, rather than
in the $45-60 billion range.
The American Legion urges Congress to preserve America's defense
industrial base by continuing to fund research, development and
acquisition budgets so as to retain its technological edge in the 21st
Century and assure that military production can surge whenever U.S.
military power is committed. Some of these capabilities, such as tank
production and shipbuilding, need to be retained. Key industrial
capabilities that preserve more of the defense industrial base need to
be identified and retained.
The American Legion opposes termination or curtailing of essential
service modernization programs, diminution of defense industrial
capabilities, and rejects the transfers of critical defense
technologies abroad.
The American Legion firmly believes with the continuing threat of
nuclear proliferation, America should retain its edge in nuclear
capabilities as represented by the TRIAD system, and the highest
priority should be the deployment of a national missile defense.
Although the development and deployment of advanced theater missile
defenses to protect U.S. forward deployed forces is imperative, any
dismantling of acquisition programs to defend the American people is
imprudent. America should continue to march on deploying an anti-
ballistic missile detection and interception system that is capable of
providing a highly effective defense against limited attacks of
ballistic missiles. The price of maintaining a strong defense is
expensive in terms of tax dollars, but failure to do so could prove
much more expensive in terms of human lives and real threats to
freedom. The national security framework provides the umbrella that
allows Americans to work and prosper without fear. A strong national
defense does not inhibit a strong economy; it complements it. Congress
and the military establishment must spend tax dollars prudently and
effectively. DOD must ensure that all aspects of its procurement and
manning levels are responsible and disciplined.
QUALITY OF LIFE
The American Legion's major National Security concern is the
enhancement of the quality of life issues for service members,
Reservists, National Guardsmen, military retirees, and their families.
During the 107th Congress, President Bush and Congress made marked
improvements in an array of quality of life issues for military
personnel and their families. These efforts are visual enhancements
that must be sustained.
In the fiscal year 2002 defense budget, the President and Congress
addressed improvements to the TRICARE system to meet the health care
needs of military beneficiaries; enhanced Montgomery GI Bill
educational benefits; and the addressed homelessness throughout the
veterans community. For these actions, The American Legion applauds
your strong leadership, dedication, and commitment. However, major
issues still remain unresolved: the issue of concurrent receipt of full
military retirement pay and VA disability compensation without the
current dollar-for-dollar offset needs to be resolved as well as the
need to improve Survivor's Benefits.
The American Legion will continue to argue that simple, equitable
justice is one reason to authorize and fund concurrent receipt.
Military retirees are the only Federal employees who must offset their
retired pay with VA disability compensation. Also, proponents claim
that the unique nature of military service, given their sacrifices and
hardships, should merit these retirees receiving both military retired
pay and VA disability compensation. For the past decade, many veterans'
programs have been pared to the bone in the name of balancing the
budget. Now, military retirees must pay premiums to TRICARE for full
health care coverage for themselves and their immediate family members.
Many veterans' advocates feel it is time that retirees receive
compensation for these fiscal sacrifices.
Often, VA service-connected disability compensation is awarded for
disabilities that cannot be equated with disabilities incurred in
civilian life. Military service rendered in defense and on behalf of
the Nation deserves special consideration when determining policy
toward such matters as benefits offsets. The American Legion believes
it is a moral and ethical responsibility to award disability
compensation to the needs of disabled veterans, given the sacrifices
and hardships they incurred during honorable military service to the
Nation. We are also aware that many of the disabled retirees receive
retirement pay that is beneath established poverty levels and by
definition in Title 38 are ``indigent'' veterans.
Mr. Chairman, The American Legion and the armed forces owe you and
this Subcommittee a debt of gratitude for your strong support of
military quality of life issues. Nevertheless, your assistance is
needed now more than ever. Positive congressional action is needed in
this budget to overcome old and new threats to retaining the finest
military in the world. Service members and their families continue to
endure physical risks to their well being and livelihood, substandard
living conditions, and forfeiture of personal freedoms that most
Americans would find unacceptable. Worldwide deployments have increased
significantly and the Nation is at war: a smaller armed forces has
operated under a higher operational tempo with longer work hours,
greater dangers, and increased family separations.
Throughout the drawdown years, military members have been called
upon to set the example for the nation by accepting personal financial
sacrifices. Their pay raises have been capped for years, and their
health care system has been overhauled to cut costs, leaving military
families with lessened access to proper health care. The American
Legion congratulates the Congress for their quality-of-life
enhancements. The system, however, is in dire need of continued
improvement.
Now is the time to look to the force recruiting and retention
needs. Positive congressional action is needed to overcome past years
of negative career messages and to address the following quality of
life features:
--Closing the Military Pay Gap with the Private Sector.--The previous
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that the area of
greatest need for additional defense spending is ``taking care
of our most important resource, the uniformed members of the
armed forces.'' To meet this need, he enjoined Members of
Congress to ``close the substantial gap between what we pay our
men and women in uniform and what their civilian counterparts
with similar skills, training and education are earning.'' But
11 pay caps in the past 15 years took its toll and military pay
continues to lag behind the private sector at about 7.5
percent. With U.S. troops battling terrorism in the Persian
Gulf, The American Legion supports the proposed 4.1 percent
military pay raise, without a 2 percent reduction.
--Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).--For those who must live off
base, the provision of the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is
intended to help with their out-of-pocket housing expenses.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld set a goal of entirely
eliminating average out-of-pocket housing expenses. This
committee has taken strong steps in recent times to provide
funding to move toward lowering such expenses. Please continue
to work to close the gap between BAH and the members' average
housing costs.
--Commissaries.--Several years ago, DOD had considered closing some
37 commissary stores worldwide and reducing operating hours in
order to resolve a $48 million shortfall in the Defense
Commissary Agency. Such an effort to reduce or dismantle the
integrity of the military commissary system would be seen as a
serious breach of faith with a benefit system that serves as a
mainstay for the active and reserve components, military
retirees, 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans, and
others. The American Legion urges the Congress to preserve full
federal subsidizing of the military commissary system and to
retain this vital non-pay compensation benefit. Furthermore,
The American Legion fully supports the full-time usage of
commissary stores by members of the Reserve Components, that
the system not be privatized, and that DECA manpower levels not
be further reduced.
RESERVE COMPONENTS
The advent of smaller active duty forces reinforces the need to
retain combat-ready National Guard and Reserve forces that are
completely integrated into the Total Force. The readiness of National
Guard and Reserve combat units to deploy in the War on Terrorism will
also cost in terms of human lives unless Congress is completely willing
to pay the price for their readiness. With only ten active Army
divisions in its inventory, America needs to retain the eight National
Guard divisions, in heightened readiness postures, as its life
insurance policy.
Reliance on National Guard and Reserve forces has risen 13-fold
over the pre-Gulf War era. This trend continues even though both
reserve and active forces have been cut back 30 percent and about 25
percent, respectively, from their Cold War highs. Since the terrorist
attacks on the American homeland on Sept. 11, more than 200,000 Guard
and Reserve troops have been activated to support homeland defense and
overseas operations in the War on Terror.
National Guard and Reserve service today involves a challenging
balancing act between civilian employment, family responsibilities, and
military service. Increasingly, National Guard and Reserve families
encounter stressful situations involving healthcare, economic
obligations, and employer uncertainty. Benefit issues of particular
concern in this arena include:
--Review and upgrade the Reserve compensation and retirement system
without creating disproportional incentives that could
undermine active force retention;
--Restore the tax deductibility of non-reimbursable expenses directly
related to Guard and Reserve training;
--Streamline the reserve duty status system without compromising the
value of the compensation package;
--Improve Reserve Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits proportional to
the active duty program;
--Allow reservists activated for 12 months or longer to enroll in the
active duty MGIB:
--Allow them to accrue for retirement purposes all points earned
annually; and
--Permit Guardsmen unlimited access to military commissaries.
Growing concerns are that the Reserve Components, especially the
National Guard, should not be overused in contingency or peacekeeping
operations, as these servicemembers have regular civilian jobs and
families as well. The National Guard also has state missions in their
home states. The American Legion understands that retention rates and,
therefore, strength levels are falling in those states which have
deployed or scheduled to deploy Guardsmen overseas. Governors of these
states continue to express concern that state missions will not be
accomplished. The National Guard from 44 states have had a presence in
35 foreign countries.
The American Legion is also supportive of all proposed quality-of-
life initiatives that serve to improve living and working conditions of
members of the Reserve components and their families.
HEALTH CARE FOR MILITARY BENEFICIARIES
Today, there are approximately 8.2 million beneficiaries in the
military health care program. Military retirees and their dependents
make up nearly one half of that number, and over 500,000 retirees have
lost or will lose their access to military health care as a result of
the closure of approximately 40 percent of military treatment
facilities. Access to affordable health care, regardless of age, status
or location, has represented a major concern among military retirees.
The creation of TRICARE for Life and a TRICARE Senior Pharmacy
benefit in Public Law 106-398 was an historic triumph for Congress and
those 1.3 million Medicare-eligible military retirees and dependents.
While TRICARE for Life came with its own funding stream in fiscal year
2002, authorization must be budgeted to provide for the program for
fiscal year 2004. The American Legion recommends that you continue to
improve this important program by providing the necessary funding. The
American Legion also applauds your work last year in eliminating
TRICARE co-payments for active duty family members. We also salute the
Department of Defense for reducing active duty time for Reservists to
30 days for their families to be eligible for TRICARE.
Although Congress enacted legislation to restore TRICARE to
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries as a wraparound to Medicare (TRICARE
for Life) and to improve TRICARE for active duty families, further
improvements are still needed, especially for retired beneficiaries
under age 65. TRICARE must be a consistent, reliable and equitable
health care benefit for all uniformed services beneficiaries,
regardless of age or geography.
The fiscal year 2001 NDAA eliminated copays for active duty family
members enrolled in Prime, and enacted TRICARE For Life (TFL) and
TRICARE Senior Pharmacy (TSRx) for Medicare-eligibles. With TFL
implementation complete Congress and DOD must turn their attention to
improving serious shortcomings in healthcare benefits for TRICARE
beneficiaries under the age of 65.
--Low reimbursement rates are causing providers to refuse any TRICARE
patients or reduce the number of TRICARE patients they will
treat, limiting beneficiary access and choice. Solution:
Increase statutory (Medicare) payment rates; require use of
existing authority to raise TRICARE rates where necessary to
ensure sufficient numbers of participating providers.
--TRICARE is cumbersome to use and causes administrative hassles for
providers and beneficiaries attempting to obtain authorization,
expedite claim repayment, or move between regions. Solution:
Improve TRICARE Prime enrollment procedures, portability, and
beneficiary education. Decrease administrative burdens,
eliminate non-availability statement requirements, streamline
claims processing requirements with greater reliance on
electronic claims technology, and eliminate unnecessary
reporting requirements. Require TRICARE contractors to assist
beneficiaries in finding TRICARE Standard providers.
--Institute ``benefits plus benefits'' reimbursement methodology. TFL
pays beneficiary expenses not covered by Medicare (``benefits
plus benefits''). For TRICARE Standard beneficiaries with other
health insurance (OHI), TRICARE seldom pays expenses not
covered by other insurance (``benefits less benefits'').
Solution: Restore TRICARE reimbursement policy to pay up to
what TRICARE would have paid had there been no OHI coverage (as
was the policy before 1993).
Since the commencement of the first class of graduates of the
Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS) in 1980, over
3,200 physicians continue to pursue careers as physicians in the Army,
Navy, Air Force and the U.S. Public Health Service each year. The USUHS
education process emphasizes primary care medicine and also provides
special training in military medicine and combat stress courses not
found in civilian medical school curricula. USUHS graduates have also
proven themselves willing to accept operational overseas assignments
often viewed as less than desirable by civilian medical school
graduates.
Both the fiscal year 1996 National Defense Appropriations Act and
the National Defense Authorization Act prohibit the closure of USUHS.
The Defense Authorization Act also provided a five year prohibition on
reducing the staffing levels of USUHS below the levels established as
of October 1, 1993. The American Legion urges the Congress to resist
any efforts to circumvent the law to downscale or close the USUHS. The
American Legion is convinced that the USUHS is an economical source of
career medical leaders who serve this nation during peace and war and
provide military health care consistency and stability. The American
Legion urges the Congress to retain and fully fund USUHS as a continued
source of career military physicians for the Army, Navy, Air Force and
U.S. Public Health Service. The American Legion also supports the
construction of an Academic Center to accommodate the USUHS Graduate
School of Nursing.
OTHER MILITARY RETIREE ISSUES
The American Legion believes strongly that quality-of-life issues
for retired military members and families also are important to
sustaining military readiness over the long term. If the Government
allows retired members' quality-of-life to erode over time, or if the
retirement promises that convinced them to serve are not kept, the
retention rate in the current active-duty force will undoubtedly be
affected. The old adage that you enlist a recruit, but you reenlist a
family is truer today than ever as more career-oriented servicemembers
are married or have dependents.
Accordingly, The American Legion believes Congress and the
Administration must place high priority on ensuring that these long-
standing commitments are honored:
--VA Compensation Offset to Military Retired Pay (Retired Pay
Restoration).--Under current law, a military retiree with
compensable VA disabilities cannot receive full military
retirement pay and VA disability compensation. The military
retiree's retirement pay is offset (dollar-for-dollar) by the
amount of VA disability compensation awarded. We would like to
thank the committee for providing funding for the authorized
special compensation programs; however, The American Legion
supports restoration of retired pay (concurrent receipt) for
all disabled military retirees. The purposes of these two
compensation systems are fundamentally different. Longevity
retirement pay is designed primarily as a force management tool
to attract large numbers of high quality members to serve for
at least 20 years. A veteran's disability compensation is paid
for an injury or disease incurred or aggravated during military
service. Monetary benefits are related to the residual effects
of the injury or disease or for the physical or mental pain and
suffering and subsequently reduced employment and earnings
potential. The American Legion also urges that disabled retired
Reservists' and those retired under the early retirement
authority be eligible for the authorized Special Compensation
programs. What better time to authorize and fund concurrent
receipt than during this period of War?
--Social Security Offsets to the Survivors' Benefits Plan (SBP).--The
American Legion supports amending Public Law 99-145 to
eliminate the provision that calls for the automatic offset at
age 62 of the military SBP with Social Security benefits for
military survivors. Military retirees pay into both SBP and
Social Security, and their survivors pay income taxes on both.
The American Legion believes that military survivors should be
entitled to receipt of full Social Security benefits which they
have earned in their own right. It is also strongly recommended
that any SBP premium increases be assessed on the effective
date, or subsequent to, increases in cost of living adjustments
and certainly not before the increase in SBP as has been done
previously. In order to see some increases in SBP benefits, The
American Legion would support a gradual improvement of survivor
benefits from 35 percent to 55 percent over the next five-year
period. The American Legion also supports initiatives to make
the military survivors' benefits plan more attractive.
Currently, about 75 percent of officers and 55 percent of
enlisted personnel are enrolled in the Plan.
--Reducing the Retired Reservist age from 60 to 55.--The American
Legion believes that retirement pay should be paid sooner as
many of these retirees will not live to their 60th birthday.
Similarly, these retirees and their dependents should be
eligible for TRICARE health care and other military privileges
when they turn 55.
--Military Retired Pay COLAs.--Servicemembers, current and future,
need the leadership of this Subcommittee to ensure Congress
remains sensitive to long-standing contracts made with
generations of career military personnel. A major difficulty is
the tendency of some to portray all so-called ``entitlement''
programs, including military retirement, as a gratuitous gift
from the taxpayer. In truth, military retired pay is earned
deferred compensation for accepting the unique demands and
sacrifices of decades of military service. The military
retirement system is among the most important military career
incentives. The American Legion urgently recommends that the
Subcommittee oppose any changes to the military retirement
system, whether prospective or retroactive, that would
undermine readiness or violate contracts made with military
retirees.
--The SBP Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) Offset
for Survivors.--Under current law, the surviving spouse of a
retired military member who dies from a service connected
disability and was also enrolled in SBP, the surviving spouse's
SBP benefits are offset by the amount of DIC (currently $948
per month). A pro-rated share of SBP premiums is refunded to
the widow upon the member's death in a lump sum, but with no
interest. The American Legion believes that SBP and DIC
payments, like military retirement pay and disability
compensation, are paid for different reasons. SBP is elected
and purchased by the retiree based on his/her military career
and is intended to provide a portion of retired pay to the
survivor. DIC payments represent special compensation to a
survivor whose sponsor's death was caused directly by his or
her uniformed service. In principle, this is a government
payment for indemnity or damages for causing the premature loss
of life of the member, to the extent a price can be set on
human life. These payments should be additive to any military
or federal civilian SBP annuity purchased by the retiree. There
are approximately 31,000 military widows/widowers affected by
the offset under current law. Congress should repeal this
unfair law that penalizes these military survivors.
--Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA).--The
American Legion urges Congressional support for amending
language to Public Law 97-252, the Uniformed Services Former
Spouses Protection Act. This law continues to unfairly penalize
active-duty armed forces members and military retirees. USFSPA
has created an even larger class of victims than the former
spouses it was designed to assist, namely remarried active-duty
service members or military retirees and their new family. The
American Legion believes this law should be rescinded in its
entirety, but as an absolute minimum, the provision for a
lifetime annuity to former spouses should be terminated upon
their remarriage. This is consistent with most divorce decrees.
Based on this current provision, monthly provisions for life
are being granted to former spouses regardless of marital
status, need, or child custodial arrangements. The time has
come to cease lifetime annuities to former military spouses,
should they remarry. Judicial determinations of appropriate
support should be determined on a case-by-case basis and not be
viewed as an ``entitlement'' by former spouses as exists under
current law. The American Legion urges hearings on the USFSPA.
CONCLUSION
Thirty years ago, America opted for an all-volunteer force to
provide for the national security. Inherent in that commitment was a
willingness to invest the needed resources to bring into existence a
competent, professional, and well-equipped military. The fiscal year
2004 defense budget, while recognizing the War on Terrorism and
Homeland Security, represents another good step in the right direction.
What more needs to be done? The American Legion recommends, as a
minimum, that the following steps be implemented:
--Continued improvements in military pay, equitable increases in
Basic Allowances for Housing and Subsistence, military health
care, improved educational benefits under the Montgomery G.I.
Bill, improved access to quality child care, impact aid and
other quality-of-life issues. The concurrent receipt of
military retirement pay and VA disability compensation needs to
be authorized and funded. The Survivors' Benefit Plan needs to
be increased from 35 to 55 percent for Social Security-eligible
military survivors.
--Defense spending, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, needs
to be maintained at a minimum of 3.5 percent annually, which
this budget still does not achieve.
--The end strengths of the active armed forces need to be increased
to at least 1.6 million for the Services.
--The Quadrennial Defense Review strategy needs to call for enhanced
military capabilities to include force structures, increased
endstrengths and improved readiness which are more adequately
resourced.
--Force modernization needs to be realistically funded and not
further delayed or America is likely to unnecessarily risk many
lives in the years ahead.
--The National Guard and Reserves must be realistically manned,
structured, equipped and trained; fully deployable; and
maintained at high readiness levels in order to accomplish
their indispensable roles and missions. Their compensation,
benefits and employment rights need to be continually improved.
Although we realize that many of these recommendations must be
authorized by the Armed Services Committee, The American Legion urges
each member of this subcommittee to work with their colleagues on the
Armed Services Committee and secure passage of these much needed
improvements to quality of life for all components of our military,
included those who have already served.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes The American Legion's statement.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Duggan. I can
assure you that Senator Stevens and I are equally concerned
about the problems that families of reservists and guardsmen
have experienced during the recent war, and we have begun
discussions also on separation pay and on health programs. We
are fully cognizant that the men and women who serve us in
uniform and stand in harm's way are volunteers. And if we want
them to continue signing up and staying in, we better make
certain that life can be made comparably comfortable to those
who are not in uniform. We will do our best, sir.
Mr. Duggan. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Dr. Wayne S. Sellman of the American
Psychological Association. Dr. Sellman, welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE S. SELLMAN, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT
AND DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES, THE
HUMAN RESOURCES RESEARCH ORGANIZATION; ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION
Dr. Sellman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Steve
Sellman. I am the Vice President and Director of Public Policy
Issues for the Human Resources Research Organization, and I am
former Director for Accession Policy in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense. For the past 40 years I have been
involved in military personnel management, policymaking, and
research.
You have been a great friend to the military and military
psychology and it is a particular pleasure for me to be here
before you today. I have prepared testimony on behalf of the
American Psychological Association, which is a scientific and
professional organization of more than 150,000 psychologists
and affiliates.
Although I am sure that you are aware of the large numbers
of psychologists providing mental health services to military
members and their families, you may be less familiar with the
broad range of behavioral research conducted by the
psychological scientists within the Department of Defense.
Military behavioral scientists work on issues critical to
national defense, particularly with support from the Army
Research Institute, the Army Research Laboratory, the Office of
Naval Research, and the Air Force Personnel Research
Laboratory.
I would like to address the proposed cuts in the
President's fiscal year 2004 human-centered research budget for
these laboratories within the context of the larger DOD science
and technology, or S&T, program. The American Psychological
Association joins the Coalition for National Security Research
in urging the subcommittee to provide $11.4 billion for basic
and applied defense research across DOD in fiscal year 2004.
This figure for the S&T account also is in line with the
recommendations of the Defense Science Board and the
Quadrennial Defense Review.
In terms of human-centered research, all of the military
services conduct or sponsor science in the broad categories of
personnel, training, and leader development, warfighter
protection, sustainment and physical performance, and system
interfaces and cognitive processing. There also are additional
smaller human systems research programs funded through the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, the Marine Corps, and the Special
Operations Command.
Despite substantial appreciation for the critical role
played by behavioral science in national security, total
spending on this research is cut from $405 million appropriated
in fiscal year 2003 to $377 million in the President's fiscal
year 2004 budget. An August 2000 DOD report requested by your
subcommittee in the face of continuing erosion of behavioral
science funding found that this area of military research has
historically been extremely productive, with particularly high
return on investment and high operational impact.
The American Psychological Association strongly encourages
the subcommittee to restore planned fiscal year 2004 cuts to
military behavioral science programs. There is more detail on
the specific S&T accounts in my written statement, but the
Army, Navy, and Air Force are facing cuts in their applied
human-centered research programs. Psychological scientists
address many critical and important issues and problems vital
to our national defense with expertise in understanding and
optimizing cognitive functioning, perceptional awareness,
complex decisionmaking, and human-systems interfaces. In these
dangerous times, such issues have unfortunately become even
more mission-critical, and we urge you to support the men and
women in uniform by reversing another round of psychological
research cuts.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wayne S. Sellman
Conflict is, and will remain, essentially a human activity in which
man's virtues of judgment, discipline and courage--the moral component
of fighting power--will endure--It is difficult to imagine military
operations that will not ultimately be determined through physical
control of people, resources and terrain--by people . . . Implicit, is
the enduring need for well-trained, well-equipped and adequately
rewarded soldiers. New technologies will, however, pose significant
challenges to the art of soldiering: they will increase the soldier's
influence in the battlespace over far greater ranges, and herald
radical changes in the conduct, structures, capability and ways of
command. Information and communication technologies will increase his
tempo and velocity of operation by enhancing support to his decision-
making cycle. Systems should be designed to enable the soldier to cope
with the considerable stress of continuous, 24-hour, high-tempo
operations, facilitated by multi-spectral, all-weather sensors.
However, technology will not substitute human intent or the decision of
the commander. There will be a need to harness information-age
technologies, such that data does not overcome wisdom in the
battlespace, and that real leadership--that which makes men fight--will
be amplified by new technology. Essential will be the need to adapt the
selection, development and training of leaders and soldiers to ensure
that they possess new skills and aptitudes to face these challenges.--
NATO RTO-TR-8, Land Operations in the Year 2020
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I'm Dr. Steve
Sellman, Vice President and Director for Public Policy Issues at the
Human Resources Research Organization, and former Director for
Accession Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. I am
submitting testimony on behalf of the American Psychological
Association (APA), a scientific and professional organization of more
than 150,000 psychologists and affiliates. Although I am sure you are
aware of the large number of psychologists providing clinical services
to our military members here and abroad, you may be less familiar with
the extraordinary range of research conducted by psychological
scientists within the Department of Defense. Our behavioral researchers
work on issues critical to national defense, particularly with support
from the Army Research Institute (ARI) and Army Research Laboratory
(ARL); the Office of Naval Research (ONR); and the Air Force Research
Laboratory (AFRL). I would like to address the proposed cuts to fiscal
year 2004 human-centered research budgets for these military
laboratories within the context of the larger Department of Defense
Science and Technology budget.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET
APA joins the Coalition for National Security Research (CNSR), a
group of over 40 scientific associations and universities, in urging
the Subcommittee to provide DOD with $11.4 billion for 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3
level research in fiscal year 2004. This figure also is in line with
recommendations of the independent Defense Science Board and the
Quadrennial Defense Review, the latter calling for ``a significant
increase in funding for S&T programs to a level of three percent of DOD
spending per year.''
As our nation rises to meet the challenges of a new century,
including current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as other
asymmetric threats and increased demand for homeland defense and
infrastructure protection, enhanced battlespace awareness and
warfighter protection are absolutely critical. Our ability to both
foresee and immediately adapt to changing security environments will
only become more vital over the next several decades. Accordingly, DOD
must support basic Science and Technology (S&T) research on both the
near-term readiness and modernization needs of the department and on
the long-term future needs of the warfighter.
Despite substantial appreciation for the importance of DOD S&T
programs on Capitol Hill, and within independent defense science
organizations such as the Defense Science Board (DSB), total research
within DOD has remained essentially flat in constant dollars over the
last few decades. This poses a very real threat to America's ability to
maintain its competitive edge at a time when we can least afford it.
APA, CNSR and our colleagues within the science and defense communities
recommend funding the DOD Science and Technology Program at a level of
at least $11.4 billion in fiscal year 2004 in order to maintain global
superiority in an ever-changing national security environment.
BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH WITHIN THE MILITARY SERVICE LABS
In August, 2000 the Department of Defense met a congressional
mandate to develop a Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee on
Behavioral, Cognitive and Social Science Research in the Military. The
Senate requested this evaluation due to concern over the continuing
erosion of DOD's support for research on individual and group
performance, leadership, communication, human-machine interfaces, and
decision-making. In responding to the Committee's request, the
Department found that ``the requirements for maintaining strong DOD
support for behavioral, cognitive and social science research
capability are compelling'' and that ``this area of military research
has historically been extremely productive'' with ``particularly high''
return on investment and ``high operational impact.'' Given such strong
DOD support, APA strongly encourages the Committee to restore planned
fiscal year 2004 cuts to military behavioral science programs and
provide funding at fiscal year 2003 appropriated levels:
--Increase the Army's overall 6.2 budget from $66.034 million to
$69.099 million; and the Army's overall 6.3 budget from $63.508
million to $74.634 million in fiscal year 2004.
--Increase the Navy's overall 6.2 budget from $19.982 million to
$24.554 million; and the Navy's overall 6.3 budget from $28.746
million to $36.027 million in fiscal year 2004.
--Increase the Air Force's overall 6.2 budget from $51.764 million to
$55.249 million; and the Air Force's overall 6.3 budget from
$31.641 million to $35.743 million in fiscal year 2004.
Within DOD, the majority of behavioral, cognitive and social
science is funded through the Army Research Institute (ARI) and Army
Research Laboratory (ARL); the Office of Naval Research (ONR); and the
Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). These military service
laboratories provide a stable, mission-oriented focus for science,
conducting and sponsoring basic (6.1), applied/exploratory development
(6.2) and advanced development (6.3) research. These three levels of
research are roughly parallel to the military's need to win a current
war (through products in advanced development) while concurrently
preparing for the next war (with technology ``in the works'') and the
war after next (by taking advantage of ideas emerging from basic
research).
All of the services fund human-related research in the broad
categories of personnel, training and leader development; warfighter
protection, sustainment and physical performance; and system interfaces
and cognitive processing. In addition, there are additional, smaller
human systems research programs funded through the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), the Marine Corps, and the Special Operations Command.
Despite substantial appreciation for the critical role played by
behavioral, cognitive and social science in national security, however,
total spending on this research is cut from $404.984 million
appropriated in fiscal year 2003 to $376.753 million in the
Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget. Whereas basic research (6.1)
increases by six percent, due to a substantial increase in the Navy's
budget (Air Force 6.1 decreases slightly and Army 6.1 increases
slightly), all three services propose cuts in their 6.2 and 6.3
funding. Navy 6.2 human-related research decreases by over 18 percent,
and 6.3 research declines by over 20 percent. Only small 6.2 and 6.3
investments in behavioral research by OSD, DARPA, Special Operations
Command, and the Marine Corps increase over fiscal year 2003 levels in
the President's fiscal year 2004 budget.
Behavioral and cognitive research programs eliminated from the
mission labs as cost-cutting measures are extremely unlikely to be
picked up by industry, which focuses on short-term, profit-driven
product development. Once the expertise is gone, there is absolutely no
way to ``catch up'' when defense mission needs for critical human-
oriented research develop. As DOD noted in its own Report to the Senate
Appropriations Committee:
``Military knowledge needs are not sufficiently like the needs of
the private sector that retooling behavioral, cognitive and social
science research carried out for other purposes can be expected to
substitute for service-supported research, development, testing, and
evaluation . . . our choice, therefore, is between paying for it
ourselves and not having it.''
The following are brief descriptions of critical behavioral
research funded by the military research laboratories.
ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES (ARI)
AND ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY (ARL)
ARI works to build the ultimate smart weapon: the American soldier.
ARI was established to conduct personnel and behavioral research on
such topics as minority and general recruitment; personnel testing and
evaluation; training and retraining; and attrition. ARI is the focal
point and principal source of expertise for all the military services
in leadership research, an area especially critical to the success of
the military as future war-fighting and peace-keeping missions demand
more rapid adaptation to changing conditions, more skill diversity in
units, increased information-processing from multiple sources, and
increased interaction with semi-autonomous systems. Behavioral
scientists within ARI are working to help the armed forces better
identify, nurture and train leaders. One effort underway is designed to
help the Army identify those soldiers who will be most successful
meeting 21st century noncommissioned officer job demands, thus
strengthening the backbone of the service--the NCO corps.
Another line of research at ARI focuses on optimizing cognitive
readiness under combat conditions, by developing methods to predict and
mitigate the effects of stressors (such as information load and
uncertainty, workload, social isolation, fatigue, and danger) on
performance. As the Army moves towards its goal of becoming the
Objective Force (or the Army of the future: lighter, faster and more
mobile), psychological researchers will play a vital role in helping
maximize soldier performance through an understanding of cognitive,
perceptual and social factors.
ARL's Human Research & Engineering Directorate sponsors basic and
applied research in the area of human factors, with the goal of
optimizing soldiers' interactions with Army systems. Specific
behavioral research projects focus on the development of intelligent
decision aids, control/display/workstation design, simulation and human
modeling, and human control of automated systems.
OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH (ONR)
The Cognitive and Neural Sciences Division (CNS) of ONR supports
research to increase the understanding of complex cognitive skills in
humans; aid in the development and improvement of machine vision;
improve human factors engineering in new technologies; and advance the
design of robotics systems. An example of CNS-supported research is the
division's long-term investment in artificial intelligence research.
This research has led to many useful products, including software that
enables the use of ``embedded training.'' Many of the Navy's
operational tasks, such as recognizing and responding to threats,
require complex interactions with sophisticated, computer-based
systems. Embedded training allows shipboard personnel to develop and
refine critical skills by practicing simulated exercises on their own
workstations. Once developed, embedded training software can be loaded
onto specified computer systems and delivered wherever and however it
is needed.
AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY (AFRL)
Within AFRL, Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)
behavioral scientists are responsible for basic research on manpower,
personnel, training and crew technology. The AFRL Human Effectiveness
Directorate is responsible for more applied research relevant to an
enormous number of acknowledged Air Force mission needs ranging from
weapons design, to improvements in simulator technology, to improving
crew survivability in combat, to faster, more powerful and less
expensive training regimens.
As a result of previous cuts to the Air Force behavioral research
budget, the world's premier organization devoted to personnel selection
and classification (formerly housed at Brooks Air Force Base) no longer
exists. This has a direct, negative impact on the Air Force's and other
services' ability to efficiently identify and assign personnel
(especially pilots). Similarly, reductions in support for applied
research in human factors have resulted in an inability to fully
enhance human factors modeling capabilities, which are essential for
determining human-system requirements early in system concept
development, when the most impact can be made in terms of manpower and
cost savings. For example, although engineers know how to build cockpit
display systems and night goggles so that they are structurally sound,
psychologists know how to design them so that people can use them
safely and effectively.
SUMMARY
On behalf of APA, I would like to express my appreciation for this
opportunity to present testimony before the Subcommittee. Clearly,
psychological scientists address a broad range of important issues and
problems vital to our national security, with expertise in
understanding and optimizing cognitive functioning, perceptual
awareness, complex decision-making, stress resilience, and human-
systems interactions. We urge you to support the men and women on the
front lines by reversing another round of cuts to the human-oriented
research within the military laboratories.
Below is suggested appropriations report language which would
encourage the Department of Defense to fully fund its behavioral
research programs within the military laboratories:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Behavioral Research in the Military Service Laboratories.--The
Committee recognizes that psychological scientists address a broad
range of important issues and problems vital to our national security
through the military research laboratories: the Air Force Office of
Scientific Research, the Army Research Institute and Army Research
Laboratory, and the Office of Naval Research. Given the increasingly
complex demands on our military personnel, psychological research on
leadership, decision-making under stress, cognitive readiness,
training, and human-technology interactions have become even more
mission-critical, and the Committee strongly encourages the service
laboratories to reverse cuts made to their behavioral research
programs. A continued decline in support for human-centered research is
not acceptable at a time when there will be more, rather than fewer,
demands on military personnel, including more rapid adaptation to
changing conditions, more skill diversity in units, increased
information-processing from multiple sources, and increased interaction
with semi-autonomous systems.
Senator Inouye. Doctor, as you well know, I have an in-
house adviser on my staff and he keeps me apprised of all the
issues involved in your association. I can assure you of our
support.
Dr. Sellman. Thank you, sir.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Our next witness is Rear Admiral Retired Richard D. West,
President of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and
Education. Admiral West.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL RICHARD D. WEST, U.S. NAVY
(RETIRED), PRESIDENT, CONSORTIUM FOR
OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
Admiral West. Thank you, Senator Inouye. Good morning, sir.
Senator Inouye. Good morning.
Admiral West. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you and your committee this morning. I would like to
talk about basic research within the United States Navy. As you
know, I am Rear Admiral Dick West, President of the Consortium
for Oceanographic Research and Education, commonly referred to
as CORE. I appear on behalf of 71 member institutions,
including Penn State, Texas A&M, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the
Universities of Alaska, Hawaii, Southern Mississippi, New
Hampshire, Texas, South Carolina, and California. These
institutions and other members represent the nucleus of
American academic oceanographic research.
I joined CORE in August of 2002 after retiring from the
United States (U.S.) Navy as oceanographer and navigator in the
Navy. Prior to this position, I was deputy director for the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. As an oceanographer, I
was a primary customer for the products from our Nation's
oceanographic institutions.
I come before you this morning to express concern about a
specific direction within the Office of Naval Research (ONR).
Since its founding in 1946, ONR has been one of the Nation's
leading supporters of high-risk, cutting-edge basic research.
The Office has supported the research of 50 Nobel laureates. It
has participated in breakthrough discoveries in areas such as
lasers, precision timekeeping, and molecular biology. It has
served the Navy and all of DOD well.
When we look at the last 50 years, we see a history of
courageous investment and bold discoveries that have helped end
the Cold War. However, when we look to the coming decades the
future of naval research does not appear so bright. Most of the
science that underlies today's Navy was high risk and cutting
edge when conducted decades ago. None of the researchers then
could have imagined how their research would have created the
impressive technological edge we just had in Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
Today we are concerned that the ONR may be veering off
course from its traditional support for high-risk, long-term
basic research. We are concerned that the 6.1 account that is
supposed to be for discovery-oriented basic research is being
migrated to short-term, product-driven applied research. We
firmly believe that applied research and advanced technology
development are crucial parts of Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation (RDT&E), but it is imperative there be basic
research if we expect to have the scientific underpinnings for
pioneering innovations in the 6.23 and more applied programs.
It is because of the importance of basic science in the
capabilities of the Navy After Next that we are concerned by
ONR's statements that the Navy's basic research program will be
``integrated with more applied S&T to promote transitions of
discoveries.'' This translates to a ``show me what you can do
for me now'' and we fear that this message is going to the
program managers and scientists.
A focus on integrating discovery-oriented basic research
with more application-driven research will have a negative
influence by creating a risk-adverse atmosphere in both the
universities and with the program management. Researchers are
being discouraged from pursuing bold and innovative ideas,
ideas that could take years to complete but provide those
technical breakthroughs in the future, that one technology,
that one technology answer, what we will need in the future.
Instead, they are focusing on research that will result in
products now. While the results will surely be high quality,
they are unlikely to be the type of research that will result
in breakthroughs in understanding and technology.
We believe that a message needs to be sent to address
research creep in the 6.1 account. While we believe greater
investment in Navy S&T accounts is absolutely necessary, all
the funding in the world may not lead to new discoveries if the
6.1 account does not address basic research.
Adding congressional attention to the discussion of Navy
basic research should serve as a reinforcement to ONR to renew
its commitment to the regime of research that has served this
country so well. Working together, Congress and the research
community must communicate to the Secretary, the Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO), and the Commandant that basic research is
essential to the fleet and is a congressional priority.
If ONR is not given the ability and direction to pursue an
aggressive regime of high-risk, cutting-edge basic research
now, we could be shortchanging our fighting forces in the
future.
Thank you for this opportunity to bring this to your
attention, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard West
Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye, and Members of the Defense
Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning and for the
strong support you and your committee have shown for basic research
within the United States Navy.
I am Rear Admiral Dick West, President of the Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education, commonly referred to as CORE. I
appear on behalf of our 71 member institutions, including Penn State,
Texas A&M, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Universities of
Alaska, Hawaii, Southern Mississippi, New Hampshire, Texas, South
Carolina, and California at San Diego. These institutions and our other
members represent the nucleus of American academic oceanographic
research.
I joined CORE in August 2002 after retiring from the U.S. Navy as
Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy. As you know, the Oceanographer
provides oceanographic, meteorological, geospatial information and
navigation support to the fleet. Prior to serving as Oceanographer, I
was the Deputy Director for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
Other shore assignments included Director, Surface Combat Systems
Division on the CNO's Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
CINCSOUTH, and Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force. From
1992-1993, as Commanding Officer of the Surface Warfare Officers
School, I directed a large, advanced studies academic institution,
providing a continuum of professional education and training to prepare
naval officers to serve at sea. I served in Vietnam with the riverine
forces and commanded ships during hostilities in the Arabian Gulf. As
Oceanographer, I was the primary customer for the products from our
nation's oceanographic institutions.
Since its founding in 1946, the Office of Naval Research has been
one of the nation's leading supporters of high-risk cutting edge basic
research. The Office has supported the research of fifty Nobel
laureates. It has participated in breakthrough discoveries in areas
such as lasers, precision timekeeping, and molecular biology. Without
question the past five decades have seen the ONR fulfill its mission,
``To plan, foster and encourage scientific research in recognition of
its paramount importance as related to the maintenance of future naval
power, forced entry capability, and the preservation of national
security.''
America's oceanographers were and continue to be active partners
with the Office of Naval Research in providing today's and tomorrow's
sailors and marines with the tools necessary to be the finest
warfighters in the world. When we look back at the past fifty years, we
see a history of courageous investment and bold discoveries that paved
the path for the end of the Cold War. However, when we look to the
coming decades, the picture does not seem so bright.
Bold, high-risk, cutting-edge basic research has been a crucial
component of the Navy's battlespace superiority for decades. For
example, basic research into packet switching laid the foundation for
what we know today as the Internet and has been the fundamental science
behind the technology underlying net-centric warfare, an increasingly
important asset to the Navy and Marine Corps.
In the Iraqi theatre, ship-launched precision munitions played a
crucial role in defeating Iraqi forces while limiting civilian
causalities. Navy-supported basic research in precision timekeeping
enabled the development of the highly accurate Global Positioning
System (GPS). GPS is the backbone of the guidance system that allows
commanders to launch and deliver fire-power to targets with previously
unimaginable accuracy and lethality. Without the basic research decades
ago into the fundamental physics necessary to develop the atomic clocks
that are at the backbone of the GPS system, the Navy's ability to
accurately strike targets would be severely compromised.
As you may know, basic research supported by the Navy led to the
development of the laser. This discovery led directly to the advent of
small, easily handled lasers that allow soldiers, sailors, airmen and
marines to accurately locate targets and provide coordinates for
sailors and airmen to deliver munitions to targets.
The research discussed above was high-risk and cutting edge when it
was conducted decades ago. None of the researchers then could have
imagined its application or importance in conflicts today. While such
research was not focused on specific applications, without it and
without the support that made it possible, our soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines would not have had the technological edge they
enjoyed in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Today, we are concerned that ONR may be veering off course in a
direction that departs from its traditional aggressive support for
high-risk basic research. This concern is not so much with the level of
funding in the 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 accounts. Rather, it reflects a growing
tendency to commit funding in the 6.1 account that is supposed to be
used for discovery-oriented basic research to short-term applied
research that is product-driven. Let me be clear, we firmly believe
that applied research and advanced technology development are crucial
parts of RDT&E, but it is imperative that there be robust basic
research, if we expect to have the scientific underpinnings for
pioneering innovations in the 6.2 and more applied programs.
It is because of the importance of basic science in the
capabilities of the Navy After Next, that we are concerned by ONR
statements that the Navy's basic research program will be ``integrated
with more applied S&T to promote transitions of discoveries.''
Unfortunately, this statement could be interpreted as code for ``show
me what you've done for me lately'' and program managers and scientists
seem to be getting the message loud and clear.
The focus on integration of discovery-oriented basic research with
more application driven research could have a negative impact on naval
basic research by creating a risk-averse atmosphere in both the
universities and with program management and officers within the Navy.
However, the greater risk is that researchers become discouraged from
pursuing bold and innovative ideas and lines of research that could
take years to complete and have practical application decades from now.
Instead, researchers focus on pursuing research that they know will
result in products. While the results will surely be high quality, they
are unlikely to be the type of research that will result in
breakthroughs in understanding.
High-risk research offers the promise of transformational
discoveries but it is prone to failure before it yields pioneering
discoveries. On the other hand, it is only by pushing the boundaries,
constantly taking risks, and looking for bold hypothesis that
scientists foster the discoveries that may lead to the next laser,
tomorrow's global positioning system, or the net-centric warfare of
2030.
CORE was particularly pleased to note your inclusion of language in
the fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations report expressing
discouragement at the low levels of Navy S&T investment and encouraging
the Navy to resume its previously robust support for S&T. We believe
that a similar message needs to be sent to address ``research-creep''
in the 6.1 account.
We are encouraging you today to provide clear instruction to the
leadership of the Office of Naval Research to reaffirm the Navy's
commitment to high-risk, cutting-edge, basic research. The past
successes of such basic research provide a clear justification for
renewing this investment in the Navy's future.
We believe that this is a commitment that ONR can and should be
willing to make. Often such issues as the character of research
supported by ONR are eclipsed by more direct concerns like funding
availability. While we believe greater investment in the Navy S&T
accounts is absolutely necessary, all the funding in the world may not
lead to new discoveries if the research funding in the 6.1 account is
spent on applied research. Adding Congressional attention to the
discussion of naval basic research should serve as a ``wake-up'' call
for ONR and return it to the regime of research that has served
America's sailors and marines well for decades.
We ask you to recognize and impress a message upon the Navy and
Marine Corps leadership. While the basic research ONR supports today
will not deliver today's admirals and generals a product they can
deploy, it may afford the lieutenants and captains under their command
profoundly more robust weapons systems when they are combat commanders.
It is because of an aggressive regime of basic research thirty years
ago, when today's military leaders were being commissioned, that an
effective and diverse suite of combat systems is available to prosecute
their mission now. Working together, Congress and the research
community must communicate to the Secretary, the Chief of Naval
Operations and the Commandant, that basic research is essential to the
fleet and is a Congressional priority. If ONR is not given the ability
and direction to pursue an aggressive regime of high-risk cutting edge
basic research now, the nation could be shortchanging our sons and
daughters, the sailors and marines of the Navy After Next.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to bring these important
issues to your attention. I welcome the opportunity to answer any
questions.
Senator Inouye. Admiral West, we concur with you sir,
because we believe that the proper underpinnings for research
is basic research. And we believe the recent operation in Iraq
demonstrated that, and we hope to convince our colleagues
across the river that we should continue that.
Thank you very much.
Admiral West. We appreciate your support, sir. We are here
to help.
Senator Inouye. Our next witness is the chief executive
officer of Sanaria, Incorporated, Dr. Stephen Hoffman,
representing the American Society of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene. Dr. Hoffman.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN HOFFMAN, M.D., CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, SANARIA, INC.; ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TROPICAL MEDICINE AND
HYGIENE
Dr. Hoffman. Good morning, Mr. Ranking Member. I am Stephen
Hoffman, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Sanaria, a company
working to develop a malaria vaccine. I am a retired Captain in
the U.S. Navy Medical Corps and past president of the American
Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. I am here this
morning to present testimony on the Society's behalf. The
American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene is a
professional society of 3,500 researchers and practitioners----
Senator Inouye. Doctor, can you press that button?
Dr. Hoffman. The American Society of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene is a professional society of 3,500 researchers and
practitioners, dedicated to the prevention and treatment of
infectious and tropical diseases. The collective experience of
our members is in the areas of tropical infectious diseases,
basic science, medicine, insect vector control, epidemiology,
vaccinology, public health, biodefense, and bioterrorism
defense.
I am here today to encourage your support for infectious
disease research at the Department of Defense. The Military
Infectious Diseases Research Program has done an excellent job
in its mission to develop new products to protect and maintain
the health of our troops wherever they are deployed. Working
with other U.S. public health agencies, DOD scientists at the
U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases
(USAMRIID), the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR),
and the Naval Medical Research Center, the latter two working
in the Inouye Building at Forest Glen very effectively, and DOD
medical laboratories abroad are helping us to better
understand, diagnose, and treat infectious and tropical
diseases. These include viral diseases such as West Nile Virus,
bacterial diseases such as tuberculosis, and parasitic diseases
such as malaria.
Infectious diseases are the second leading cause of death
worldwide, accounting for over 13 million deaths. Twenty well-
known diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, cholera, and
Rift Valley Fever, have reemerged or spread geographically
since 1973, often in more virulent and drug-resistant forms.
Over 30 previously unknown disease agents have been identified
in this period for which therapy is not optimal or does not
exist at all, including Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV),
Ebola, Marburg, and the most recent threat, Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS.
These naturally occurring diseases can strike our troops at
any time and they are potential threats for biological warfare
or bioterror attack. Historically, tropical diseases such as
these have impaired military operations. For example, malaria
had a large impact on U.S. service personnel serving in
Southeast Asia. In some regions up to 60 percent of troops were
reported to be infected.
In the most recent conflict, suspicions of Iraqi supplies
of anthrax, botulism, and plague led to fear of biological
attacks. The successful administration of anthrax vaccine
reduced the risk to American troops, but many suspected
biological weapons have no proven treatments and further
research is necessary to protect our military personnel.
Military scientists have made significant accomplishments
in the fight against these deadly illnesses, which I describe
in my written statement. Suffice it to say that the Defense
Department's medical research programs are second to none and
they play a critical role in our Nation's infectious disease,
biodefense, and bioterrorism defense efforts.
The Society believes the military's overseas laboratories
deserve special mention. The U.S. Army and Navy currently
support medical research labs located in five developing
countries--Thailand, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, and Peru--with
substations in neighboring countries. These research
laboratories serve as critical sentinel stations, alerting
military and public health agencies to dangerous infectious
disease outbreaks and increasing microbial resistance to drugs.
The research stations are an important national resource in
the ongoing battle against emerging disease and should be
strengthened with increased funding and increased opportunities
for collaborations with civilian scientists. The laboratories
provide field sites for important research that cannot feasibly
be conducted in the United States, including basic research,
testing of new drugs and vaccines, and increasing our
understanding of disease and the spread of disease.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the American Society for Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene urges you to support the military
infectious disease research program and asks for $70 million in
fiscal year 2004. The Society also recommends $35 million for
the military HIV research program, which has become a world
leader in the study of HIV genetic variation and in the
development and testing of new vaccines.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, our borders remain porous to
infectious and tropical diseases, including the West Nile virus
found here in Washington, D.C., and of course most recently
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Other diseases still
largely confined to the troops, like malaria, pose a major
threat to our military and to American travelers. In all
military operations in the last century where malaria was
transmitted, including the Pacific theater in World War II,
Vietnam, and Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, more casualties
were caused by malaria than by combat injuries. Further
research into infectious diseases can reduce the threat to
American lives.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present the
views of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
Senator Stevens [presiding]. Thank you, Doctor. This
committee started the research on HIV at the Department of
Defense and will continue to support it. I appreciate your
courtesy. Thank you.
Dr. Hoffman. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Stephen L. Hoffman
The American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH)
thanks the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present this testimony.
The ASTMH is a professional society of 3,500 researchers and
practitioners dedicated to the prevention and treatment of infectious
and tropical diseases. The collective experience of our members is in
the areas of tropical infectious diseases, basic science, medicine,
insect vector control, epidemiology, vaccinology, public health,
biodefense and bioterrorism defense.
My name is Stephen L. Hoffman, I am a past president of ASTMH, a
retired CAPT in the U.S. Navy Medical Corps, and currently the CEO of
Sanaria, a company working to develop a malaria vaccine. I am here
today to encourage your support for infectious disease research at the
Department of Defense.
IMPACT OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES ON THE MILITARY
Historically, tropical diseases have impaired military operations.
For example, malaria had a large impact on U.S. service personnel
serving in southeast Asia; in some regions up to 60 percent of troops
were reported to be infected. During Desert Storm, potential exposure
to the parasitic disease leishmaniasis led to banning American military
personnel who had served in the Persian Gulf from donating blood to
prevent infecting the U.S. blood supply.
In the most recent conflict, suspicions of Iraqi supplies of
anthrax, botulism, and plague led to fear of biological attacks. The
successful research into anthrax vaccine reduced the risk to American
troops. But, many suspected biological weapons have no proven
treatments, and further research is necessary to protect our military
personnel.
THE MILITARY INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH PROGRAM
A Presidential Executive Order issued September 30, 1999, entitled
``Improving Health Protection of Military Personnel Participating in
Particular Military Operations,'' mandates that ``It is the Policy of
the United States Government to provide our military personnel with
safe and effective vaccines, antidotes, and treatments that will negate
or minimize the effects of these health threats.''
Many diseases are endemic to areas of military operations.
Accordingly, the primary mission of the DOD's Military Infectious
Diseases Research Program is to develop new products with which to
protect and maintain the health of our troops in the theater. With
worldwide deployment of our military personnel, it is imperative to
protect them against infectious diseases that occur around the globe.
Often our troops are exposed to new strains of infections that do not
exist within our own borders.
The Department of Defense (DOD) medical research programs are
vitally important to maintain the health of our troops wherever they
are deployed. Furthermore, the programs play a critical role in our
nation's infectious disease, biodefense, and bioterrorism defense
efforts. Working with other U.S. public health agencies, DOD scientists
at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases
(USAMRIID), the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR), the
U.S. Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC), and DOD medical laboratories
in Asia, Africa, and South America are helping us to better understand,
diagnose, and treat infectious diseases, especially tropical infectious
diseases.
The Society believes the military's overseas laboratories deserve
special mention. The U.S. Army and the Navy currently support medical
research laboratories located in five developing countries, including
Thailand, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, and Peru. These research
laboratories serve as critical sentinel stations alerting military and
public health agencies to dangerous infectious disease outbreaks and
increasing microbial resistance to drugs. The research stations are an
important national resource in the ongoing battle against emerging
disease, and should be strengthened with increased funding and
increased opportunities for collaborations with civilian scientists.
The laboratories provide field sites for important research that cannot
feasibly be performed in the United States, including basic research,
testing of new drugs and vaccines, increasing our understanding of
diseases and their spread. The overseas laboratories strengthen
collaborations between U.S. and foreign countries, expanding our
knowledge and understanding of infectious diseases, and providing
hands-on training for both U.S. and local students and investigators,
and for local health authorities.
A MULTITUDE OF DISEASE THREATS
Infectious diseases are caused by a wide variety of viruses,
bacteria, and parasites. For example,
--Viruses cause West Nile Virus, dengue fever, yellow fever, Ebola,
Marburg, HIV/AIDS, and the most recent threat, severe acute
respiratory syndrome (SARS);
--Bacteria cause cholera, tuberculosis, anthrax, plague, and
botulism; and
--Parasites cause malaria and leishmaniasis.
Infectious diseases are the second leading cause of death
worldwide, accounting for over 13 million deaths (25 percent of all
deaths worldwide in 1999). Dozens of well-known diseases--including
tuberculosis, malaria, and cholera--have reemerged or spread
geographically since 1973, often in more virulent and drug-resistant
forms. Over 30 previously unknown disease agents have been identified
in this period for which therapy is not optimal or does not exist at
all, including HIV, Ebola, Nipah virus, Marburg virus, hepatitis C, and
the most recent threat, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
Moreover, many of these same threats are potential agents for a
biological warfare or bioterror attack. Research on these diseases
stands to benefit the civilian population as well as the military.
A HISTORY OF SUCCESS IN TROPICAL DISEASE RESEARCH
Consistent with the standard set by our nation's armed forces and
the men and women who selflessly serve in our military, it should come
as no surprise to anyone that the Defense Department's medical research
programs are second to none. As the leader in tropical and infectious
disease research, DOD programs have been vital for the successful
outcome of military campaigns. It was the DOD research program that
developed the first modern drugs for prevention and treatment of
malaria, which even today affects 2.4 billion people, or about 40
percent of the world's population, and causes up to 2.7 million deaths
each year or about 5 percent of all fatalities worldwide.
Along with Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis, the DOD also developed
or supported promising vaccines for prevention of Rift Valley Fever,
Argentine Hemorrhagic Fever, Adenovirus disease in recruits, and
plague. Two of these vaccines (plague and adenovirus) are no longer
licensed in the United States.
As a result of a significant outbreak in Saudi Arabia and Yemen,
the first epidemic outside of Africa, Rift Valley Fever vaccine has
become of interest to troops in the Middle East. Rift Valley fever is a
deadly, fever-causing viral disease which can lead to hemorrhagic fever
or encephalitis. It is commonly associated with mosquito-borne
epidemics, and it can also be spread through contaminated meat. Spread
of this disease to the United States is not out of the question, since
mosquitoes capable of transmitting Rift Valley Fever are found in the
United States. Further development of these vaccines is an important
national priority.
Other notable advances accomplished by military experts in tropical
diseases working with corporate partners include the invention of
hepatitis A vaccine at WRAIR and its ultimate licensure based on
studies conducted at the U.S. Armed Forces Research Institute of
Medical Sciences (AFRIMS) in Bangkok; the discovery (during WWII), and
later licensure of Japanese encephalitis vaccine, based on studies
conducted at AFRIMS and WRAIR; and the discovery and licensure of
mefloquine and halofantrine for treatment and prevention of malaria.
U.S. Navy scientists working at the Naval Medical Research Unit-2
formerly in Taiwan developed intravenous therapy for cholera, and
created the foundation for oral rehydration therapy for cholera and
other diarrheal diseases, which has been hailed by some as the most
important medical discovery of the 20th century.
A significant accomplishment made by military scientists at WRAIR
and their corporate partners is the discovery of the first prototype
vaccine shown to be capable of preventing falciparum malaria. Novel
vaccines, such as a DNA vaccine for malaria, are being developed under
the leadership of scientists at the NMRC. Most recently, licensure has
been awarded for Malarone, a new drug for prevention and treatment of
malaria. Another anti-malarial drug, Tafenaquine, is in advanced field
trials with a corporate partner. With the certainty that resistance to
malaria drugs quickly appears, these drugs have a useful lifespan of
only about ten years. Replacements must be sought continually.
FURTHER DOD RESEARCH IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES NEEDED
A January, 2000, unclassified report from the CIA's National
Intelligence Council concluded that infectious diseases are likely to
account for more military hospital admissions than battlefield
injuries. ``The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications
for the United States,'' labeled global infectious disease a threat to
U.S. national security. The report also assessed the global threat of
infectious disease, stating ``New and reemerging infectious diseases
will pose a rising global health threat and will endanger U.S. citizens
at home and abroad, threaten U.S. armed forces deployed overseas, and
exacerbate social and political instability in key countries and
regions in which the United States has significant interests.'' The
recent SARS epidemic has clearly highlighted the ongoing threat of
infectious diseases, and it has demonstrated the profound impact these
infectious diseases can have, both in terms of health, psychology, and
a nation's economy.
ASTMH REQUEST
ASTMH urges a strong national commitment to the DOD infectious
disease research programs to accelerate the discovery of the products
that protect American military personnel and citizens at home and
abroad, and to improve global health and economic stability in
developing countries. The DOD's Military Infectious Disease Research
Program (MIDRP) has been a highly successful program. ASTMH urges the
Subcommittee to make DOD infectious disease research a high priority in
the DOD budget for fiscal year 2004, and to provide $70 million, up
from the $42 million in the current budget, to take full advantage of
the high-quality research opportunities.
The Society also hopes this Subcommittee will continue to oversee
the DOD's HIV Research Program as new agreements with the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) develop. The HIV
Research Program, mandated by Congress in 1987 because of the
significant risk of active-duty personnel in acquiring the HIV virus,
is a world leader in the study of HIV genetic variation world-wide and
in the development and testing of new vaccines to be used against HIV
strains anywhere in the world. It is critical that the overseas
collaborations and agreements facilitated by the current leadership
from the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research be preserved to ensure
the continued progress of current and planned clinical trials to test
the efficacy of new vaccine products. ASTMH recommends $35 million for
the HIV Research Program, up from approximately $23 million in the
current budget.
Finally the Society also supports the Global Pathogen Surveillance
Act (S. 871) recently introduced by Senator Biden, which authorizes
additional resources to increase the number of personnel and expand
operations at the DOD overseas laboratories. The Society requests that
the Subcommittee fully fund this initiative at the $18 million level
authorized by the bill, if it is enacted into law during the upcoming
year.
CONCLUSION
Our borders remain porous to infectious and tropical diseases,
including most recently the West Nile Virus, which has been found here
in Washington, DC. Other diseases still largely confined to the
tropics, like malaria, pose a major threat to our military and to
American travelers. In all military operations in the last century
where malaria was transmitted, including the Pacific Theater in World
War II, Vietnam, and Somalia, more casualties were caused by malaria
than by combat injuries. And with global warming, the increasing
resistance of insect vectors to insecticides, and the increasing
resistance of the malaria parasite to antimalarial drugs, the range of
malaria and other vector-borne diseases is expanding.
The ASTMH urges you to provide strong support for the DOD Military
Infectious Diseases Research Programs. Our nation's commitment to this
research is critically important given the resurgent and emerging
infectious disease threats that exist today. If we don't make these
important programs a priority, the health of our troops, as well as the
health of all Americans, will continue to be at risk; we will continue
to experience increased health costs; and infectious diseases will
flourish around the world, prolonging economic and political
instability.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the American
Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, and for your consideration of
these requests.
Senator Stevens. The next witness is Karen Peluso, Director
of the Neurofibromatosis Corporation in New England. Good
morning.
STATEMENT OF KAREN PELUSO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NEUROFIBROMATOSIS, INC., NEW ENGLAND
Ms. Peluso. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the
importance of continuing the Army's neurofibromatosis (NF)
research program.
Neurofibromatosis is a genetic tumor disorder that causes
tumors to grow anywhere on the nerves in or on our body. It can
be disfiguring and debilitating. It can cause brain tumors,
tumors of the spine, hearing loss, blindness, learning
disabilities, and cancer.
I was introduced to neurofibromatosis 20 years ago when my
daughter was diagnosed with NF, and I was very fortunate at the
time that my pediatrician was able to recognize the cafe au
lait birthmarks on her body, which were an outward sign of NF.
At that time I was very frustrated by the fact that I could not
find any information. In fact, our pediatrician showed us his
medical book, which had a very small paragraph which talked
about neurofibromatosis. And myself with a group of other
parents became an advocacy group to try to create awareness and
promote research.
1993 was a turning point in our quest to find a treatment
and cure for NF when this subcommittee made an appropriation of
$8 million for a 3-year study of neurofibromatosis. After that
3 years, the results were astounding. The scientists were so
enthusiastic about how studying NF would open new information
regarding diseases that affect millions of people, like cancer
and brain tumors and learning disabilities, not just the people
who have neurofibromatosis. NF was also directly linked to
military purposes as it can be used in studying wound healing
and nerve regeneration after exposure to chemical toxins.
Congress has given NF research strong partisan support and
the Army's NF research has produced dramatic results every
year. Now clinical trials have begun to use drugs to try to
shrink these tumors.
Twenty years later after I learned that my daughter has
neurofibromatosis, I work in the office of Neurofibromatosis,
Incorporated, in New England and every day our phone rings with
new parents who have received the diagnosis of NF, and they are
filled with the same fear that I had 20 years ago: How will
this affect my child? What is going to happen to her? NF is so
unpredictable.
I can give them the good news and the bad news. The good
news is that, thanks to the Army's innovative NF research
program, great strides are being made and we are getting closer
to a cure. But the bad news is we still do not have a
treatment, we still do not have a cure, and we have to keep up
this fight.
That is why I am here today to respectfully ask that this
committee make a recommendation of $25 million for the NF
research program through the Army in fiscal 2004. We cannot
stop our fight now, we have come so far and we are so close. I
ask this subcommittee for your continued support and thank you
for your past support.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Karen Peluso
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present testimony to the Subcommittee on the importance of
continued funding for Neurofibromatosis (NF), a terrible genetic
disorder directly associated with military purposes and closely linked
to many common ailments widespread among the American population.
I am Karen Peluso, Executive Director of NF Inc.-New England, which
is a participant in a national coalition of NF advocacy groups. I have
been actively involved in creating awareness of NF and promoting
scientific research in this area since 1982. I am here on behalf of the
100,000 Americans who suffer from NF, including my daughter, as well as
approximately 150 million Americans who suffer from diseases linked to
NF, including some of the most common forms of cancer, congenital heart
disease, hypertension, and learning disabilities.
Mr. Chairman, I am requesting increased support, in the amount of
$25 million, to continue the Army's highly successful NF Research
Program (NFRP). The program's great success can be seen in the
commencement of clinical trials only ten years since the discovery of
the NF1 gene. Now, with NF in the expensive but critical era of
clinical and translational research, scientists closely involved with
the Army program have stated that the number of high-quality scientific
applications justify a much larger program.
What is Neurofibromatosis (NF)?
NF is a genetic disorder involving the uncontrolled growth of
tumors along the nervous system which can result in terrible
disfigurement, deformity, deafness, blindness, brain tumors, cancer,
and/or death. NF can also cause other abnormalities such as unsightly
benign tumors across the entire body and bone deformities. In addition,
approximately one-half of children with NF suffer from learning
disabilities. It is the most common neurological disorder caused by a
single gene. While not all NF patients suffer from the most severe
symptoms, all NF patients and their families live with the uncertainty
of not knowing whether they will be seriously affected one day because
NF is a highly variable and progressive disease.
Approximately 100,000 Americans have NF. It appears in
approximately one in every 3,500 births and strikes worldwide, without
regard to gender, race or ethnicity. It is estimated that 50 percent of
new cases result from a spontaneous mutation in an individual's genes
and 50 percent are inherited. There are two types of NF: NF1, which is
more common, and NF2, which primarily involves acoustic neuromas and
other tumors, causing deafness and balance problems.
Most strikingly, research has shown that NF is closely linked to
cancer, brain tumors, learning disabilities, and heart disease,
potentially affecting over 150 million Americans in this generation
alone.
NF's Connection to the Military
NF research is directly linked to military purposes because it is
closely linked to cancer, brain tumors, learning disabilities, brain
tissue degeneration, nervous system degeneration, deafness, and
balance. Because NF manifests itself in the nervous system, this
Subcommittee, in past Report language, has stated that Army-supported
research on NF includes important investigations into genetic
mechanisms governing peripheral nerve regeneration after injury from
such things as missile wounds and chemical toxins. For the same reason,
this subcommittee also stated that NF may be relevant to understanding
Gulf War Syndrome and to gaining a better understanding of wound
healing. Today, NF research now includes important investigations into
genetic mechanisms which involve not just the nervous system but also
other cancers.
The Army's Contribution to NF Research
Recognizing NF's importance to both the military and to the general
population, Congress has given the Army's NF Research Program strong
bipartisan support. After the initial three-year grants were
successfully completed, Congress appropriated continued funding for the
Army NF Research Program on an annual basis. From fiscal year 1996
through fiscal year 2003, this funding has amounted to $110.3 million,
in addition to the original $8 million appropriation. Between fiscal
year 1996 and fiscal year 2002, 299 proposals were received, of which
85 awards have been granted to researchers across the country and
another 17 projects have been recommended for funding this year.
The Army program funds innovate, groundbreaking research which
would not otherwise have been pursued, and it has produced major
advances in NF research, such as the development of advanced animal
models and clinical trials. The program has brought new researchers
into the field of NF, as can be seen by the nearly 60 percent increase
in applications in the past year along. Unfortunately, despite this
increase, the number of awards has remained relatively constant over
the past couple of years.
In order to ensure maximum efficiency, the Army collaborates
closely with other federal agencies that are involved in NF research,
such as NIH and the VA. Senior program staff from the National Cancer
Institute (NCI) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders
and Stroke (NINDS), for example, have sat on the Army's NF Research
Program's Integration Panel which sets the long-term vision and funding
strategies for the program. This assures the highest scientific
standard for research funding while ensuring that the Army program does
not overlap with other research activities.
Because of the enormous advances that have been made as a result of
the Army's NF Research Program, research in NF has truly become one of
the great success stories in the current revolution in molecular
genetics, leading one major researcher to conclude that more is known
about NF genetically than any other disease. Accordingly, many medical
researchers believe that NF should serve as a model to study all
diseases.
Future Directions
The NF research community is now ready to embark on projects that
translate the scientific discoveries from the lab to the clinic. This
translational research holds incredible promise for NF patients, as
well as for patients who suffer from many of the diseases linked to NF.
This research is costly and will require an increased commitment on the
federal level. Specifically, increased investment in the following
areas would continue to advance NF research and are included in the
Army's NF research goals:
--Clinical trials
--Development of drug and genetic therapies
--Further development and maintenance of advanced animal models
--Expansion of biochemical research on the functions of the NF gene
and discovery of new targets for drug therapy
--Natural History Studies and identification of modifier genes--such
studies are already underway, and they will provide a baseline
for testing potential therapies and differentiating among
different phenotypes of NF
--Development of NF Centers, tissue banks, and patient registries.
Fiscal Year 2004 Request
Mr. Chairman, the Army's highly successful NF Research Program has
shown tangible results and direct military application with broad
implications for the general population as well. The program is now
poised to fund translational and clinical research, which is the most
promising yet the most expensive direction that NF research has taken.
The program has succeeded in its mission to bring new researchers and
new approaches to research into the field. Therefore, increased funding
is now needed to take advantage of promising avenues of investigation,
to continue to build on the successes of this program, and to fund this
translational research thereby continuing the enormous return on the
taxpayers' investment.
In recent years, the program has granted its first two clinical
trial awards but had to decline other clinical trial applications that
scored in the ``Excellent'' range in the peer review process, solely
because of limited funds. This is why scientists closely involved with
Army program believe that the high quality of the scientific
applications would justify a much larger program than is currently
funded.
I am here today to respectfully request an appropriation of $25
million in your fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense Appropriations
bill for the Army Neurofibromatosis Research Program. This is a $5
million increase over the current level of funding as a step toward
capitalizing on all of the research opportunities now available
Mr. Chairman, in addition to providing a clear military benefit,
the DOD's Neurofibromatosis Research Program also provides hope for the
100,000 Americans like my daughter who suffer from NF, as well as the
tens of millions of Americans who suffer from NF's related diseases
such as cancer, learning disabilities, heart disease, and brain tumors.
Leading researchers now believe that we are on the threshold of a
treatment and a cure for this terrible disease. With this
Subcommittee's continued support, we will prevail.
Thank you for your support of this program and I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this testimony to the Subcommittee.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Ms. Peluso. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Is there any money anywhere in the budget
to your knowledge for that?
Ms. Peluso. Pardon me?
Senator Stevens. Any money anywhere in the budget for that
NF, do you know?
Ms. Peluso. Well, last year there was $20 million. Is there
money in this year's budget? I am sorry, I do not know the
answer to that, sir. Let me ask----
Senator Stevens. We will find out.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Peluso. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Morris, Robert Morris, Chief Executive
Officer of the Fort Des Moines Memorial Park and Education
Center.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. MORRIS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
FORT DES MOINES MEMORIAL PARK, INC.
Mr. Morris. Good morning, Senator Stevens. As you are
aware, Fort Des Moines is the only military installation that
can boast of being the launching point for black commissioned
officers, female commissioned officers, and female enlisted
troops into the United States Army, and we are very pleased
with the record of the descendants of Fort Des Moines in the
Iraq War.
Fort Des Moines has introduced a project called the
National Education Project (NEP), which is timely since,
according to the U.S. Census, the majority of Americans will be
non-white by year 2055, as will be our Armed Forces. The
project's mission is to educate America's youth with an
accurate portrayal of black and female contributions to
military history and their impact on equality in the greater
society. This youth education will enhance understanding of,
support for, and participation in America's armed forces.
The NEP offers multiple multicultural, non-sexist academic
lessons related to the military command integration that
occurred at Fort Des Moines. The first U.S. Army officer
candidate school opened to black Americans in 1917 and to women
in 1942 as part of the First Women's Army Corps give the
national historic site a unique place in history.
The target audience for the academic lessons are K through
12 who possess a limited knowledge of non-white and female
contributions to the military and to the Nation. The curriculum
and documentary programs will be distributed nationwide via
Internet and educational television at no cost to the end
users. The program includes a series of evaluation measures to
ensure classroom usage and effectiveness.
Our National Education Project, an unprecedented
educational initiative, is a dynamic response to the
diversifying needs of our Nation and our Armed Forces. To this
end, we request a $2.1 million appropriation to develop and
implement the project in the long-term interest of our national
defense.
As you are aware, Senator, we have had a number of the real
pioneers in the military through race involved in our project,
including General Hoisington, the first female general, and
General Colin Powell, who served on our board for 3 years until
he became Secretary of State. This we feel is a very unique
opportunity to do something that has never been done.
As you are aware, we have been here before and our park is
almost complete. We will be open next July and we are looking
forward to expanding our programming nationally.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert V. Morris
As America's Greatest Memorial to Black and Female Soldiers, Fort
Des Moines is the only military installation to hold the distinction of
launching black and women commissioned officers and female enlisted
troops into the United States Army.
Set for dedication in July 2004, our five (5) acre park includes a
20,000 sq. ft. museum, historic Chapel, reflecting pool and monument by
noted sculptor Richard Hunt. In order to achieve sustained nation-wide
outreach, Fort Des Moines has introduced a unique National Education
Project (NEP) which is timely since, according to the U.S. Census, the
majority of American's will be non-white by year 2055 as will our Armed
Forces.
The project's mission is to educate America's youth with an
accurate portrayal of black and female contributions to military
history and their impact on equality in greater society. This youth
education will enhance understanding of, support for and participation
in America's Armed Forces.
The NEP offers multi-cultural, non-sexist academic lessons related
to the military command integration that occurred at Fort Des Moines.
The first U.S. Army officer candidate schools open to black Americans
in 1917 and to women in 1942 as part of the first Women's Army Corps
give our National Historic Site a unique place in history. The target
audience for the academic lessons are k-12 youth who possess a limited
knowledge of non-white and female contributions to the military and the
nation. The curriculum and documentary programs will be distributed
nation-wide via internet and educational television at no cost to the
end users. The program includes a series of evaluation measures to
insure classroom usage and effectiveness.
Our National Education Project, an unprecedented educational
initiative, is a dynamic response to the diversifying needs of our
nation and our Armed Forces. To this end, we request a $2.1 million
appropriation to develop and implement this great project in the long-
term interest of our national defense.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you. We will do our best.
Colin Powell did call me about this last year. I will talk to
him about it again.
Mr. Morris. Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Next is Robert Washington, co-chairman of the Military
Coalition.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT WASHINGTON, SR., FLEET RESERVE
ASSOCIATION; CO-CHAIRMAN, THE MILITARY
COALITION HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE
Mr. Washington. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Good morning, sir.
Mr. Washington. The Military Coalition is most grateful to
the leadership and strong support of last year's significant
improvements in military pay, housing allowance, and other
personnel programs for the Active, Guard, and Reserve personnel
and their families. As much as Congress accomplished last year,
very significant inequities and readiness challenges remain to
be addressed. The following recommendations are made.
The coalition strongly recommends restoration and funding
of service end strength consistent with long-term sustainment
of the global war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. The
coalition urges the subcommittee to fund the administration-
proposed pay raises and restore full pay comparability. The
coalition opposes privatization of commissaries and strongly
supports full funding of the benefit to sustain the current
level of service for all commissary patrons.
The coalition is asking the subcommittee to use your
considerable powers of influence and persuasion with the Ways
and Means Committee to break the logjam that has stalled
military tax relief bill legislation sorely needed to eliminate
the tax inequities and penalty on active duty Guard and Reserve
members and their families.
The coalition urges the subcommittee to appropriate
sufficient funds for DOD to communicate benefit information
directly to Standard beneficiaries, develop a Standard
beneficiary education program, assist Standard beneficiaries in
finding providers who will accept new Tricare Standard
patients, including interactive, online lists, and other means
of communication, and to develop a program to enhance Tricare
Standard provider recruitment; also to appropriate sufficient
funds to institute a pilot project at several locations of
varying characteristics to test the extent to which raising
Tricare Standard rates increased the number of providers who
are willing to accept new Standard patients.
The coalition urges the subcommittee to appropriate
sufficient funds to make the Tricare medical program available
for members of the National Guard and Reserve components and
their families prior to activation on a cost-sharing basis, in
order to ensure medical readiness and provide continuity of
coverage to members of the Selected Reserve.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for the
opportunity to present the coalition's views.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you for coming again. We
appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Washington, Sr.
Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. On
behalf of The Military Coalition, a consortium of nationally prominent
uniformed services and veterans' organizations, we are grateful to the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to express our views concerning
issues affecting the uniformed services community. This testimony
provides the collective views of the following military and veterans'
organizations, which represent approximately 5.5 million current and
former members of the seven uniformed services, plus their families and
survivors.
Air Force Association
Air Force Sergeants Association
Air Force Women Officers Associated
AMVETS (American Veterans)
Army Aviation Association of America
Association of Military Surgeons of the United States
Association of the United States Army
Chief Warrant Officer and Warrant Officer Association, U.S. Coast
Guard
Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health
Service, Inc.
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States
Fleet Reserve Association
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America
Marine Corps League
Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association
Military Chaplains Association of the United States of America
Military Officers Association of America
Military Order of the Purple Heart
National Guard Association of the United States
National Military Family Association
National Order of Battlefield Commissions
Naval Enlisted Reserve Association
Naval Reserve Association
Navy League of the United States
Non Commissioned Officers Association
Reserve Officers Association
Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces
The Retired Enlisted Association
United Armed Forces Association
United States Army Warrant Officers Association
United States Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Veterans' Widows International Network
The Military Coalition, Inc., does not receive any grants or
contracts from the federal government.
PERSONNEL ISSUES
Mr. Chairman, The Military Coalition (TMC) is most grateful to the
leadership and members of this Subcommittee for their strong support
leading to last year's significant improvements in military pay,
housing allowances and other personnel programs for active, Guard and
Reserve personnel and their families. But as much as Congress
accomplished last year, very significant inequities and readiness
challenges remain to be addressed.
In testimony today, The Military Coalition offers its collective
recommendations on what needs to be done to address these important
issues and sustain long-term personnel readiness.
ACTIVE FORCE ISSUES
Since the end of the Cold War, the size of the force and real
defense spending have been cut more than a third. In fact, the defense
budget today is just 3.2 percent of this Nation's Gross National
Product--less than half of the share it comprised in 1986. But national
leaders also have pursued an increasingly active role for America's
forces in guarding the peace in a very-dangerous world. Constant and
repeated deployments have become a way of life for today's
servicemembers, and the stress is taking a significant toll on our men
and women in uniform and their families, as well.
Despite the notable and commendable improvements made during the
last several years in military compensation and health care programs,
retention remains a significant challenge, especially in technical
specialties. While some service retention statistics are up from
previous years' levels, many believe those numbers are skewed by post-
9/11 patriotism and by Services' stop-loss policies. That artificial
retention bubble is not sustainable for the long term under these
conditions, despite the reluctance of some to see anything other than
rosy scenarios.
From the servicemembers' standpoint, the increased personnel tempo
necessary to meet continued and sustained training and operational
requirements has meant having to work progressively longer and harder
every year. ``Time away from home'' has become a real focal point in
the retention equation. Servicemembers have endured years of longer
duty days; increased family separations; difficulties in accessing
affordable, quality health care; deteriorating military housing; less
opportunity to use education benefits; and more out-of-pocket expenses
with each military relocation.
The war on terrorism has only heightened already burdensome mission
requirements, and operating--and personnel--tempos continue to
intensify. Members' patriotic dedication has been the fabric that
sustained this increased workload for now, and a temporarily depressed
economy also may have deterred some losses. But the longer-term outlook
is problematic.
Personnel Strengths and Operations Tempo.--The Coalition has been
dismayed and deeply disappointed at the Department of Defense's
reluctance to accept Congress efforts to increase Service end strength
to meet today's much-increased operations tempo. The Department's
response is to attack the problem by freeing up resources to realign to
core war-fighting skills. While the Department's transformation vision
is a great theory, its practical application will take a long time--
time we don't have after years of extraordinary optempo that is already
exhausting our downsized forces.
The Coalition strongly believes that earlier force reductions went
too far and that the size of the force should be increased,
commensurate with missions assigned. The force was already overstrained
to meet its deployment requirements before 9/11, and since then our
forces have absorbed major contingency requirements in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
Deferral of meaningful action to address this problem cannot
continue without risking serious consequences. Real relief is needed
now. With no evidence of declining missions, this can only be achieved
by increasing the size of the force.
The Military Coalition strongly recommends restoration and funding
of Service end strengths consistent with long-term sustainment of the
global war on terrorism and fulfillment of national military strategy.
The Coalition supports application of recruiting resources as necessary
to meet this requirement. The Coalition urges the Subcommittee to
consider all possible manpower options to ease operational stresses on
active, Guard and Reserve personnel.
Pay Raise Comparability.--The Military Coalition appreciates the
Subcommittee's leadership during the last five years in reversing the
routine practice of capping servicemembers' annual pay raises below the
average American's. In servicemembers' eyes, all of those previous pay
raise caps provided regular negative feedback about the relative value
the Nation placed on retaining their services.
Unfortunately, this failed practice of capping military raises to
pay for budget shortfalls reared its head again earlier this year when
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget proposed capping
2004 and future military pay raises at the level of inflation. The
Coalition was shocked and deeply disappointed that such a senior
officer could ignore 25 years of experience indicating that pay caps
lead inevitably to retention and readiness problems. Not only was the
proposal ill timed as troops massed for a war with Iraq--it's just bad,
failed policy.
The President rejected his senior budget official's advice for five
of the seven uniformed services--but, unfortunately, the
Administration's budget for fiscal year 2004 proposes to cap the pay of
NOAA and USPHS officers at 2 percent. The Military Coalition strongly
objects to this disparate treatment of members in those uniformed
services. The Coalition urges the Subcommittee to intercede in their
behalf with colleagues on the appropriate oversight committees for NOAA
and USPHS personnel to ensure that these commissioned officers receive
the same treatment as their fellow comrades-in-arms.
Pay raise comparability with private sector wage growth is a
fundamental underpinning of the all-volunteer force, and it cannot be
dismissed without severe consequences for national defense.
When the pay raise comparability gap reached 13.5 percent in 1999--
resulting in a predictable readiness crises--Congress took responsible
action to change the law. Largely because of your efforts and the
belated recognition of the problem by the Executive Branch, the gap has
been reduced to 6.4 percent as of 2003.
Fortunately, the President rejected his budgeteers' advice, and has
proposed an average 4.1 percent raise for fiscal year 2004, which would
shrink the gap another full percentage point to 5.4 percent. Even at
that rate, it would take another 5 years to restore full comparability.
So this is no time to reinstitute pay caps.
On the contrary, we urge the Subcommittee to consider that the law
mandating increased military raises will expire in 2006, after which
military raises will again be capped one-half percentage point per year
below private sector wage growth (see chart below).
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to fund the
Administration-proposed raise and restore full pay comparability on the
quickest possible schedule. Further, the Coalition strongly urges the
Subcommittee to fund equal raises to PHS and NOAA corps officers and
not create--for the first time ever--separate pay tables within the
uniformed services.
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).--The Military Coalition supports
revised housing standards that are more realistic and appropriate for
each pay grade. As an example, enlisted members are not authorized to
receive BAH for a 3-bedroom single-family detached house until
achieving the rank of E-9--which represents only one percent of the
enlisted force. TMC believes that as a minimum, this BAH standard
should be extended to qualifying servicemembers in grades E-7 and
above, immediately.
The Coalition is most grateful to the Subcommittee for acting in
1999 to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for servicemembers.
Responding to Congress's leadership on this issue, the Department of
Defense proposed a phased plan to reduce median out of pocket expenses
to zero by fiscal year 2005. This aggressive action to better realign
BAH rates with actual housing costs is having a real impact and
providing immediate relief to many servicemembers and families who were
strapped in meeting rising housing and utility costs.
The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to fund adjustments
in grade-based housing standards to more adequately cover members'
current out-of-pocket housing expenses.
Family Readiness and Support.--The family continues to be a key
consideration in the readiness equation for each servicemember. The
maintenance of family readiness and support programs is part of the
cost of performing the military mission. We must ensure that families
have the opportunity to develop the financial and readiness skills
needed to cope with deployment situations. It is important to meet the
childcare needs of the military community including National Guard and
Reserve members. Overall family support programs must meet the needs of
National Guard and Reserve members being called to active duty in ever-
increasing numbers.
The Military Coalition urges funding to improve education and
outreach programs and increase childcare availability to ensure a
family readiness level and a support structure that meets the
requirements of increased force deployments for active duty, National
Guard and Reserve members.
Commissaries.--The fiscal year 2003 budget reduced Defense
Commissary Agency funding by $137 million and envisioned eliminating
over 2,600 positions from stores and headquarters staff by September
30, 2003. While DeCA indicates there will be no loss in service to the
customer, the Coalition is concerned that the size and scope of the
reductions may negatively impact quality and service to customers,
including additional store closings, reduced hours, longer cashier
lines and reduced stock on store shelves. This would have a
significantly adverse impact on the benefit, which is widely recognized
as a valuable part of the servicemember's compensation package and a
cornerstone of quality of life benefits.
The Military Coalition opposes privatization of commissaries and
strongly supports full funding of the benefit to sustain the current
level of service for all commissary patrons.
Tax issues.--The Coalition understands that tax matters fall under
the purview of a different committee. But there are unique issues
affecting active duty, National Guard and Reserve members, and their
families, and we hope that members of the Subcommittee will use their
significant powers of persuasion to convince their colleagues to
address these needed changes quickly.
The Coalition strongly urges that every effort be made to break the
logjam over the military tax relief bill (H.R. 1664). Considerable
congressional support exists for the changes envisioned by this
legislation, but the bill is now stalled for a number of reasons--none
of which concern the merits of the legislation. This legislation will
immediately benefit thousands of military homeowners who have been
unfairly (and inadvertently) penalized with capital gains tax
liabilities incurred because they were forced to sell their homes after
extended government-directed absences away from their principle
residences. This legislation will also provide needed tax deductions
for unreimbursed travel and per diem expenses incurred by drilling
Guard and Reserve personnel, who are asked to train more to enhance
their readiness skills to support contingency missions. And, very
significantly, the military tax relief bill fully tax exempts the death
gratuity benefit paid to survivors of military members killed on active
duty--which will immediately eliminate the inexplicable tax these
survivors have to pay now.
The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to use their
considerable powers of influence and persuasion with the Ways and Means
committee to break the logjam that has stalled the military tax relief
bill--legislation sorely needed to eliminate tax inequities that
penalize active duty, Guard and Reserve members, and their families.
The Coalition also supports legislation that would amend the tax
law to let Federal civilian retirees and active duty and retired
military members pay health insurance premiums on a pre-tax basis. Many
uniformed services beneficiaries pay premiums for a variety of health
insurance programs, such as TRICARE supplements, the active duty dental
plan or TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan (TRDP), long-term care insurance,
or TRICARE Prime enrollment fees. For most beneficiaries, these
premiums and enrollment fees are not tax-deductible because their
health care expenses do not exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross
taxable income, as required by the IRS. This creates a significant
inequity with private sector and some government workers, many of whom
already enjoy tax exemptions for health and dental premiums through
employer-sponsored health benefits plans. A precedent for this benefit
was set for other Federal employees by a 2000 Presidential directive
allowing federal civilian employees to pay premiums for their Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) coverage with pre-tax
dollars.
Although we recognize that this is not within the purview of the
Subcommittee, the Coalition hopes that Subcommittee members will lend
their support to this legislation and help ensure equal treatment for
all military and federal beneficiaries.
The Coalition urges the Subcommittee to support legislation to
provide active duty and uniformed services beneficiaries a tax
exemption for premiums or enrollment fees paid for TRICARE Prime,
TRICARE Standard supplements, the active duty dental plan, TRICARE
Retiree Dental Plan, FEHBP and Long Term Care.
Death Gratuity.--The current death gratuity amount was last
increased in 1991 when it was raised from $3,000 to $6,000. This amount
is insufficient to cover costs incurred by families responding to the
death of an active member.
The Military Coalition recommends funding to increase the military
death gratuity from $6,000 to $12,000, and making the gratuity tax-
free.
HEALTH CARE TESTIMONY
The Military Coalition (TMC) is appreciative of Congress's
exceptional efforts to honor health care commitments to uniformed
services beneficiaries, particularly for active duty and Medicare-
eligibles. However, much remains to be done. We wish to address certain
chronic problem areas, and additional initiatives essential to
providing an equitable and consistent health benefit for all categories
of TRICARE beneficiaries, regardless of age or geography.
While Congress has substantially eased cost burdens for Medicare-
eligibles and for active duty families in TRICARE Prime and Prime
Remote, we need to draw attention to the 3.2 million TRICARE Standard
beneficiaries under the age of 65, many of whom face increasingly
significant provider accessibility challenges.
ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE DEFENSE HEALTH BUDGET
Once again, a top Coalition priority is to work with Congress and
DOD to ensure full funding of the Defense Health Budget to meet
readiness needs and deliver services, through both the direct care and
purchased care systems, for ALL uniformed services beneficiaries,
regardless of age, status or location. An adequately funded health care
benefit is essential to readiness and the retention of qualified
uniformed service personnel.
The Subcommittee's oversight of the defense health budget is
essential to avoid a return to the chronic underfunding of recent years
that led to execution shortfalls, shortchanging of the direct care
system, inadequate equipment capitalization, failure to invest in
infrastructure and reliance on annual emergency supplemental funding
requests as a substitute for candid and conscientious budget planning.
While supplemental appropriations were not required last year, we
are concerned that the current funding level only meets the needs of
the status quo and does not address the growing requirement to support
the deployment of forces to Southwest Asia and Afghanistan. Addressing
funding for these increased readiness requirements; TRICARE provider
shortfalls and other needs will require additional funding.
The Military Coalition strongly recommends the Subcommittee
continue its watchfulness to ensure full funding of the Defense Health
Program, to include military medical readiness, TRICARE, and the DOD
peacetime health care mission. The Defense Health Budget must be
sufficient to provide financial incentives to attract increased numbers
of providers needed to ensure access for TRICARE beneficiaries in all
parts of the country.
TRICARE IMPROVEMENTS
Access to care is the number one concern expressed by our
collective memberships. More and more beneficiaries report that few, if
any, providers in their area are willing to accept new TRICARE Standard
patients. Enhanced benefits for our seniors and decreased cost shares
for active duty beneficiaries will be of little consequence to
beneficiaries who cannot find a TRICARE provider.
Network and Standard Provider Availability.--Large numbers of
beneficiaries continue to report increased difficulty locating
providers who will accept new TRICARE patients, even though the
Department of Defense indicates that the number of TRICARE providers is
at near an all-time high.
Clearly, there is a problem with how provider participation is
measured and monitored. The current participation metric is calculated
as the percentage claims filed on an assigned basis. Nowhere does DOD
or its support contractors ask or track whether participating or
authorized providers are accepting new patients. Since participation is
fluid, providers are permitted to accept or refuse TRICARE patients on
a day-by-day basis; therefore, beneficiaries often must make multiple
inquiries to locate a provider who is taking patients on that day.
Allegedly, current TRICARE contracts require Manage Care Support
Contractors (MCSC) to help Standard patients find providers, but this
is not the actual practice. Further, there is no such requirement in
the new TRICARE Next Generation of Contracts (TNEX). MCSCs are under no
obligation to recruit Standard providers or provide up to date lists of
Standard providers, leaving beneficiaries on their own to determine if
a provider is willing to accept Standard patients. We urge the
subcommittee to fund a program to increase Standard provider
recruitment by educating civilian providers about the TRICARE Standard
benefit. We believe this issue is too critical to depend upon the
``chance'' that the civilian contractors will voluntarily elect to
provide this service as a ``valued added product'' in all regions.
Simply stated, Standard beneficiaries are neglected. No effort is
made to reach out to them, to provide education about the extent of the
Standard benefit, to directly communicate benefits information, or
provide support to locate a provider. The Coalition adamantly believes
DOD has an obligation to develop an education and communication program
for Standard beneficiaries. DOD should direct MCSCs to assist Standard
beneficiaries as well as Prime beneficiaries. Options should include
providing interactive on-line lists of Standard providers, with
indications of which ones are currently accepting new Standard
patients. When a beneficiary cannot find a provider, the MCSC should
help them do so.
The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to appropriate
sufficient funds for DOD to communicate benefits information directly
to Standard beneficiaries, develop a Standard beneficiary education
program, assist Standard beneficiaries in finding providers who will
accept new TRICARE Standard patients, including interactive on-line
lists and other means of communication and to developed a program to
enhance TRICARE Standard provider recruitment.
Provider Reimbursement.--Provider groups tell us that TRICARE is
the lowest-paying program they deal with, and often poses them the most
administrative problems. This is a terrible combination of perceptions
if you are a TRICARE Standard patient trying to find a doctor.
The Coalition is concerned that the war on terrorism and the war in
Southwest Asia are straining the capacity of the military's direct
health care system, as large numbers of medical corps members are
deployed overseas. More and more TRICARE patients are turning to turn
to the civilian sector for care--putting more pressure on civilian
providers who already have absorbed significant fee cuts from TRICARE.
Our deployed service men and women need to focus on their mission,
without having to worry whether their family members back home can find
a provider. Uniformed services beneficiaries their family members and
survivors deserve the nation's best health care, not the cheapest.
In order to achieve parity and encourage participation, both
Medicare and DOD have the ability to institute locality-based rates to
account for geographical variation in practice costs to secure
sufficient providers. DOD has statutory authority (10 U.S.C. 1097 (b))
to raise rates for network providers up to 115 percent of TRICARE
Maximum Allowable Charge (TMAC) in areas where adequate access to
health care services is severely impaired. To date, DOD has resisted
using its authority to raise reimbursement levels.
Raising TRICARE payment rates to competitive levels with other
insurance is essential to solving the Standard access problem. There
are cost implications of doing this, and the Coalition understands the
preference in both the Executive and Legislative Branches to focus on
administrative issues rather than payment levels. However, providers
indicate that it is a money issue. They may be willing to accept low
payments from Medicare out of a sense of obligation to seniors, the
volume of patients, and because Medicare has a reliable electronic
payment system. They are not so willing to accept low TRICARE payments.
Other insurance programs pay providers rates that are significantly
higher than Standard's. The Coalition doubts that access problems can
be addressed successfully without raising rates. The only way to assess
the merits is to institute a pilot project to test if raising TRICARE
Standard payment rates improves access for beneficiaries.
The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to appropriate
sufficient funds to institute a pilot project at several locations of
varying characteristics to test the extent to which raising TRICARE
Standard rates increases the number of providers who are willing to
accept new Standard patients.
Healthcare for Members of the National Guard and Reserve.--Sec. 702
of the fiscal year 2003 NDAA authorized further Prime eligibility for
certain dependents of Reserve Component Members residing in remote
areas whose sponsors are ordered to extended active duty of at least 30
days. The Coalition is pleased that DOD recently announced its intent
to implement Sec 702, as well as to extend the Prime benefit to Reserve
Component dependents who reside within Military Treatment Facility
(MTF) catchment areas.
The Coalition is most appreciative that TRICARE Prime and TRICARE
Prime Remote (TPR) benefits will now be standardized for ALL Reserve
Component families when the sponsor is called to active duty for 30
days, regardless of whether the family resides in a MTF catchment area
or not. The Coalition is also pleased that DOD has waived for Reserve
Component beneficiaries the TPR requirement that family members reside
with their sponsor in an areas outside of MTF catchment areas.
Health insurance coverage has an impact on Guard-Reserve (G-R)
medical readiness and family morale. Progress has been made during
transitional periods after call-ups, but more needs to be done to
provide continuity of care coverage for reserve component members prior
to activation.
Health insurance coverage varies widely for members of the G-R:
some have coverage through private employers, others through the
Federal government, and still others have no coverage. Reserve families
with employer-based health insurance must, in some cases, pick up the
full cost of premiums during an extended activation. Although TRICARE
eligibility starts at 30 days activation, many G-R families would
prefer continued access to their own health insurance rather than being
forced to find a new provider who accepts TRICARE. In other cases,
disruption (and in some cases cancellation) of private sector coverage
as a consequence of extended activation under TRICARE adversely affects
family morale and military readiness and discourages some from
reenlisting.
In 2001, DOD recognized this problem and announced a policy change
under which DOD would pay the premiums for the Federal Employee Health
Benefit Program (FEHBP) for DOD reservist--employees activated for
extended periods. However, this new benefit only affects about 10
percent of the Selected Reserve. The Coalition believes this philosophy
could be extended to pay health insurance premiums for activated G-R
members who are not federal civilian employees.
As a matter of morale, equity, and personnel readiness, the
Coalition believes more needs to be done to assist reservists who are
being called up more frequently in support of national security
missions. They deserve options that provide their families continuity
of care, without having to find a new doctor or navigate a new system
each time the member is activated or deactivated.
The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to appropriate
sufficient funds to make the TRICARE medical program available for
members of the National Guard and Reserve Component and their families
prior to activation on a cost-sharing basis in order to ensure medical
readiness and provide continuity of coverage to members of the Selected
Reserve. In addition, to further ensure continuity of coverage for
family members, the Coalition urges allowing activated Guard/Reserve
members the option of having the Department of Defense pay their
civilian insurance premiums during periods of activation.
CONCLUSION
The Military Coalition reiterates its profound gratitude for the
extraordinary progress this subcommittee has made in funding a wide
range of personnel and health care initiatives for all uniformed
services personnel and their families and survivors. The Coalition is
eager to work with the Subcommittee in pursuit of the goals outlined in
our testimony.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present the Coalition's
views on these critically important topics.
Senator Stevens. The next witness is William Hawley, Dr.
Hawley, of the Board of Directors of the Public Policy
Committee for Lymphoma Research.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HAWLEY, M.D., BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE, LYMPHOMA RESEARCH
FOUNDATION
Dr. Hawley. Good morning, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you today
on behalf of the Lymphoma Research Foundation and a half-
million Americans suffering from lymphoma. The Lymphoma
Research Foundation is the Nation's largest lymphoma-focused
voluntary health organization devoted exclusively to
eradicating lymphoma and serving those touched with this
disease. To date the foundation has funded more than $9 million
in lymphoma-specific research.
Most people do not even realize that lymphoma is a cancer,
let alone that it is the most common blood cancer in Americans.
As I mentioned, over half-a-million Americans suffer from
lymphoma. This year yet another 61,000 of us will be diagnosed
and 25,000 will lose their lives to this very misunderstood
disease.
I say ``us'' because I am a survivor of non-Hodgkins
lymphoma. Seven years ago I was the chief of cardiac surgery
and department chairman at Integris Medical Center in Oklahoma
when I was diagnosed with Flickler lymphoma, a low-grade
indolent form of this incurable cancer. After over 30 years as
a practicing surgeon, I was now a patient. It was a difficult
adjustment, but I was determined to use my scientific
background as a physician combined with my new role as a
patient to help others suffering from this disease.
Thanks to research, I am here today, able to stand before
you and speak up for all my fellow patients, for those who will
be diagnosed in the future, and for those who were not as
fortunate and lost their lives in the battle with lymphoma
years ago. I have taken leave from my medical practice to
devote myself entirely to advocacy for lymphoma patients and I
think I am now the busiest unpaid physician in this country. My
fundamental goal is to advocate for both improved treatment and
new options for patients. I do a great deal of outreach to
patients with lymphoma and have found sharing the story of
personal involvement with the disease to be very rewarding.
As an advocate for my fellow patients, I am before you
today to ask that you expand the congressionally-directed
medical research program to include research on lymphoma,
leukemia, and multiple myeloma. Specifically, I respectfully
request that $25 million be provided for blood cancer research
efforts at the Department of Defense.
This subcommittee is to be commended for its leadership in
funding special research programs, with a particular emphasis
on cancer research. Over the past 2 years, this subcommittee
funded a special $10 million research initiative on chronic
myelogenous leukemia (CML) to date. We urge you to continue
this funding and expand the initiative to include all other
types of blood cancer research.
Many of you are probably familiar with the development of
Gleevec, originally developed as a treatment for chronic
myelogenous leukemia, now approved for the treatment of a solid
tumor gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Thanks to the investment
in Gleevec, we now have a possible cure for CML today. A $25
million investment would have the potential to enhance our
understanding of blood cancers and contribute to the
development of new treatments.
While the causes of blood cancers remain unknown, evidence
suggests that exposure to environmental carcinogens, radiation,
pesticides, herbicides, viruses, and bacteria may play a role.
It is therefore possible that any of our troops exposed to
chemical or biological weapons may be at increased risk of
developing lymphoma or other types of blood cancer. We know the
link of Agent Orange to non-Hodgkins and Hodgkins malignant
lymphoma.
Advances in blood cancer research will also be of great
benefit to those with other forms of cancer. Many chemotherapy
agents used to treat solid tumors now were originally used to
treat blood cancers. Lymphoma, for example, is often called the
Rosetta Stone of cancer research because it has helped to
unlock the mysteries of several other types of malignancy.
The concept of cancer staging to define disease severity
and target appropriate therapy began in lymphoma. The strategy
of combining chemotherapy and radiation was first used in
lymphoma and then applied to other malignancies. These are just
a few of the great benefits that blood cancer research can
bring to millions suffering from cancer throughout our Nation.
On behalf of all the patients living with lymphoma or other
blood cancers, the Lymphoma Research Foundation urges the
subcommittee to include a blood cancer research initiative in
the congressionally-directed medical research program. As a
physician, I can tell you that the time for investment is now
and, with your help, research-developed new treatments and
cures can be found. As a patient, I say, please act quickly
because so many lives hang in the balance.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Doctor. I appreciate
your courtesy.
Dr. Hawley. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Hawley
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to
appear before you today on behalf of the Lymphoma Research Foundation
(LRF), the nation's largest lymphoma-focused voluntary health
organization devoted exclusively to funding research to cure all
lymphomas and providing patients and healthcare professionals with
critical information on the disease. LRF's mission is to eradicate
lymphoma and serve those touched by the disease. To date, LRF has
funded more than $9 million in lymphoma research.
This is an exciting time for new approaches to research on lymphoma
and other blood-related cancers and we are pleased to testify today to
request that you expand the Congressionally Directed Medical Research
Program to include research on these diseases. I am a physician and a
survivor of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), the most commonly diagnosed
hematological cancer. I have taken a leave of absence from my medical
practice, and during this time I am dedicating myself to advocacy for
lymphoma patients. My fundamental goal is to advocate for both improved
treatments and new options for patients currently living with the
disease and those who may be diagnosed in the future.
This Subcommittee is to be commended for its leadership in funding
several special research programs, with a particular emphasis on cancer
research. We realize that, at the time these programs were initiated,
they were a departure from the national defense programs generally
funded by the subcommittee. Over time, they have become model research
programs that complement the research efforts of the National
Institutes of Health and that are hailed by patient advocates because
they allow consumer input in the planning of the research portfolio.
The Lymphoma Research Foundation believes the current medical
research efforts of the Department of Defense (DOD) are appropriate
targets for funding, as they contribute to the national defense in
critically important ways. We think that, at this time in our history,
it is especially important that the DOD expand its research portfolio
to support research into the blood cancers, including leukemia,
lymphoma, and myeloma. I would like to provide some basic information
about the blood cancers, as well as some compelling reasons for the
expansion of the DOD research program to include blood cancer research.
The Blood Cancers
Each year, approximately 110,000 Americans are diagnosed with one
of the blood cancers. More than 60,000 will die from these cancers in
2003, and 700,000 Americans are living with these cancers. Taken as a
whole, the blood-related cancers are the 5th most common cancer, behind
lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer.
There have recently been some significant advances in the treatment
of the blood cancers. In 2001, the targeted therapy called Gleevec was
approved for treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia, and now this
drug is approved for use in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). In
2002, a new radioimmunotherapy was approved for patients with
refractory NHL, and a new treatment for multiple myeloma is expected to
be approved this year. These treatments represent progress in the fight
against the blood cancers, but there is much work still to be done.
Although there are declines in the number of new cases and deaths
associated with many forms of cancer, the trend is different for non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma. The incidence of non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma has nearly doubled since the 1970's, and the mortality rate
from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is increasing at a faster rate than other
cancers. One can see that, despite scientific progress, there is much
to be done to improve blood cancer treatments. We are pleased by any
step forward, but our goal is still a cure of the blood cancers. We
acknowledge that this is a scientifically difficult goal, but it must
remain our objective.
The Link Between Blood Cancers and Military Service
The causes of the blood cancers remain unknown. With regard to
Hodgkin's lymphoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, immune system impairment
and exposure to environmental carcinogens, pesticides, herbicides,
viruses, and bacteria may play a role. The linkage between exposure to
one particular herbicide--Agent Orange--and the blood cancers has been
established by the Committee to Review the Health Effects in Vietnam
Veterans of Exposure to Herbicides, a special committee of the
Institute of Medicine (IOM). This panel was authorized by the Agent
Orange Act of 1991 and has issued four reports on the health effects of
Agent Orange. The committee has concluded that ``there is sufficient
evidence of an association between exposure to herbicides'' and chronic
lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and Hodgkin's
lymphoma, and there is limited or suggestive evidence of an association
between herbicide exposure and multiple myeloma.
The IOM panel does not have responsibility to make recommendations
about Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, but the VA has in fact
responded to these reports by guaranteeing the full range of VA
benefits to Vietnam veterans who have the diseases that have been
linked to herbicide exposure, including CLL, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
These benefits include access to VA health care. There are now,
unfortunately, a number of Vietnam veterans who are receiving VA health
care for treatment of CLL, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and Hodgkin's
lymphoma, and DOD-sponsored research on these diseases has the
potential to improve the survival and the quality of life for these
veterans.
Potential Risks of Blood Cancers in the Future
We all acknowledge that we live in a very complicated age, where
those in the military are at risk of exposure to chemical and
biological agents. The evidence suggests that immune system impairment
and exposure to environmental carcinogens, pesticides, herbicides,
viruses, and bacteria may play a role in the development of Hodgkin's
lymphoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It is therefore possible that, if
our troops were exposed to chemical or biological weapons, they might
be placed at increased risk of development of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma,
Hodgkin's lymphoma, or one of the other blood cancers.
We strongly recommend that we invest now in research to understand
the potential links between pesticides, herbicides, viruses, bacteria,
and the blood cancers. The enhanced investment now may contribute to a
deeper understanding of these possible linkages and to the development
of strategies to protect those who suffer such exposures. A greater
commitment to the research and development of new blood cancer
therapies is also critically important if we anticipate that there may
be more individuals, including those in the military, who will suffer
from these cancers as a result of service-connected exposure.
The Current DOD Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia Program
In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the Subcommittee funded a
research program at DOD that funds research on one particular kind of
leukemia, called chronic myelogenous leukemia, or CML. This form of
leukemia has been much in the news because of the development of
Gleevec, a drug that has been hailed as a possible cure for the
disease. We applaud the Subcommittee for its commitment to a program of
CML research. We would recommend that this program, which has received
total funding of slightly less than $10 million over the last two
years, be continued and that an initiative be launched that would fund
all other types of blood cancer research.
We believe that an investment of $25 million in a new Blood Cancer
Research Program would have the potential to enhance our understanding
of the blood cancers and their links to chemical, viral, and bacterial
exposures and to contribute to develop of new treatments. There are
several promising areas of therapeutic research on blood cancers,
including research about ways to use the body's immune system to fight
the blood cancers, research on the development of less toxic and more
targeted therapies than traditional chemotherapy agents, and research
that will allow physicians to diagnose the specific type and subtype of
blood cancers.
The Impact of Blood Cancer Research on Other Cancers
An investment in blood cancer research will be beneficial to those
diagnosed with these cancers, including members of the military. We
also believe that advances in blood cancer research will be of benefit
to those with other forms of cancer. Treatments for blood cancers are
often also used in the treatment of solid tumors. For example, many
chemotherapy agents that are now used in the treatment of a wide range
of solid tumors were originally used in the treatment of blood cancers.
The concept of cancer staging to accurately define disease severity and
target appropriate therapy began in lymphoma and is now used in all
cancers. The strategy of combining chemotherapy with radiation therapy
began in the treatment of Hodgkin's disease and is now widely used in
the treatment of many solid tumors. Many recently developed therapeutic
interventions, like monoclonal antibodies that target and disable
antigens on the cell surface thought to be responsible for cell
proliferation began in the blood cancers but hold promise for breast,
prostate, ovarian, and other forms of cancer. Work on vaccines for
lymphoma has been in the forefront of vaccine research. As you can see,
research on the blood cancers has had many positive benefits for cancer
research overall.
The Lymphoma Research Foundation urges the Subcommittee to consider
the expansion of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program
to include a Blood Cancer Research Initiative.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to you and
would be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Stevens. We will now hear from Master Sergeant
Retired Morgan Brown, Legislative Assistant for the Air Force
Sergeants Association. Good morning, sir.
STATEMENT OF MASTER SERGEANT MORGAN D. BROWN, (RET.),
LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, AIR FORCE SERGEANTS
ASSOCIATION (AFSA)
Sergeant Brown. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of
the 36,000 members of this association, I thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the enlisted men and women
of the Air Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve. In
my written testimony I provided a variety of issues, but since
my time here is very brief I am going to restrict my comments
just to the military survivor benefit program.
Senator Stevens. We do ask the staff to go over completely
these statements and your full statements are all being placed
in the record.
Sergeant Brown. Thank you, sir.
Like our predecessor or previous veteran service
organizations, we also strongly hope that the offset presently
in place in the military survivor benefit plan is eliminated in
this session of Congress. However, there are a couple other
problems with the program. For instance, the DOD actuaries
confirm that the 40 percent government subsidy intended by
Congress has declined to a paltry 16.4 percent. That means
retirees are now paying 24 percent more than you intended.
I should point out that the DOD also continues to stress
the government subsidy as an enticement to get retirees to sign
up for this coverage. Clearly, this benefit has become more
beneficial and less costly to the Government and more costly
and less beneficial to the retirees and survivors that this
program was created to protect.
Legislation has already been introduced to correct the
offset and we are hopeful that you will support your colleagues
in implementing this change and providing the necessary funding
for this important survivor program.
We are also working to have the paid-up SBP provision start
as soon as possible. Authorized by Public Law 105-261 and set
to begin on October 1, this provision allows retirees who have
paid into SBP for at least 30 years and have reached 70 years
of age to stop making payments and still have their spouses
covered. As a practical matter, any SBP enrollee who retired on
or after October 1, 1978 would enjoy the full benefit of the
paid-up provision. However, members who enrolled in SBP when it
first became available in 1972 will have to continue paying
premiums for up to 36 years to secure paid-up coverage if they
survive that long. Acceleration of the SBP provision is needed
to simply ensure some measure of fairness for these
individuals.
In closing, AFSA requests that the subcommittee appropriate
the necessary funds to make these changes to the military SBP
program a reality. Mr. Chairman, that is all I will cover today
and I want to thank you for this opportunity to present what we
believe should be among this committee's funding priorities for
fiscal year 2004.
Senator Stevens. I appreciate your courtesy. Thank you very
much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Morgan D. Brown
Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, on behalf of the
136,000 members of the Air Force Sergeants Association, thank you for
this opportunity to offer our views on the military personnel programs
that affect those serving our nation. AFSA represents active duty,
Guard, Reserve, retired, and veteran enlisted Air Force members and
their families. Your continuing effort toward improving the quality of
their lives has made a real difference for those who devote their lives
to service, and our members are grateful.
Although military members do not serve their nation to gain wealth,
we do owe them a decent standard of living. This is even more important
today because America's is an all-volunteer force, and because this
nation increasingly tasks military members and often separates them
(for greater lengths of time) from their families. This testimony
covers several issues in the areas of Military Pay and Compensation,
Education, Heath Care, Military Shipment, Guard and Reserve, and
Retiree/Survivor Programs. We simply ask this committee seriously
consider providing the necessary funding for these important programs.
MILITARY PAY AND COMPENSATION
Continue Enlisted Pay Reform.--We applaud your efforts in recent
years to ensure that all military members get the minimum annual pay
raise in accordance with congressional intent by formula (Employment
Cost Index [ECI] plus one-half percent). AFSA supports further raises
and targeting. However, we caution the committee on the perception
among the force that might be created if the lowest ranking enlisted
members receive below the congressional formula--so that dollars can be
transferred to the higher ranking members. We support higher NCO pay
raises, but believe that if a ``rob Peter to pay Paul'' approach is to
be used, it should not be by taking pay away from the lowest ranking
military members.
Resist Efforts to Change the Military Pay Formula.--This committee
was instrumental in protecting the troops by tying military pay growth
to the growth of wages in the private sector (by focusing on the ECI).
Recent Administration suggestions to tie future annual military pay
raises to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) alarm military members with
the prospect of significantly lower annual pay adjustments. AFSA urges
this committee to resist Administration efforts to lower military pay
raises by abandoning the current formula.
Reform the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).--There is room for
significant correction and improvement in the methodology used to
determine BAH. Enlisted members most significantly feel the brunt of
these problems. Currently, the only enlisted members whose BAH square-
footage/dollar amounts are based on stand-alone dwellings are E-9s. The
BAH amount for all enlisted grades below E-9 is based on apartments and
townhouses.
Provide those stationed in Korea the same tax advantages and
special pays afforded to those stationed in ``hostile'' areas.--With
the challenges and austere conditions servicemembers face in Korea, the
daily threat from North Korea, and the risks inherent in the
geopolitical situation relative to the Korean peninsula, it is only
fair to provide equitable tax and pay for these members who, in a real
sense, are serving on the tip of the sword. We urge this committee to
take action on this now in recognition of those stationed in Korea.
Reduce the threshold of eligibility for CONUS COLA from its current
level of 108 percent of the national median.--Several large city areas
(such as Washington, D.C.) do not receive CONUS COLA. We urge this
committee to take another look at which municipalities receive CONUS
COLA.
Provide Guard and Reserve members equity in Career Enlisted Flier
Incentive Pay (CEFIP).--It is unfair that members of the Guard and
Reserve receive a fractioned CEFIP (based on a 1/30 formula for each
day flying). CEFIP recognizes the extraordinary challenges and risks
associated with military flight. As such, Guard and Reserve fliers
should be paid on the same ``whole month'' basis as other military
fliers.
Establish a standard, minimum re-enlistment bonus for all re-
enlistments.--Air Force enlisted members tell us that there ought to be
a minimum re-enlistment bonus. Selective re-enlistment bonuses are paid
to those with between 21 months and 14 years of service. Those who re-
enlist after the 14-year point receive no re-enlistment bonus.
Remember, an enlisted member can serve as long as 30 years. Because we
want to keep leaders in critical skills and they must lead those who
are receiving these, sometimes lucrative, bonuses, it would help morale
to provide some type of re-enlistment bonus to all who re-enlist.
Pay Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay (HDIP) to military firefighters.--
Regardless of service, there is no military job inherently more
hazardous than firefighters. Civilian firefighters who serve side-by-
side with military firefighters already have this risk factored into
their federal civilian wage scale. Military firefighters get no such
additional compensation to recognize their extraordinary risk. At a
cost of about $9 million per year to cover the military firefighters
(those whose AFSA, MOS, or NEC is primarily as a firefighter) for all
services, this would be an equitable, relatively inexpensive addition
to those entitled to receive HDIP.
EDUCATION BENEFITS
Provide an enrollment opportunity for those who turned down the
Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) to enroll in the
Montgomery G.I. Bill.--Over 100,000 currently serving military members
(35,000 in the Air Force alone) turned down the VEAP program when it
was offered to them. VEAP was a relatively poor, insufficient, poorly
counseled educational program which preceded the Montgomery G.I. Bill
(MGIB). In contrast, the MGIB is a much more realistic, more-beneficial
program that would help these members in their transition back into
civilian life after their time in the military. Unfortunately, many of
those who turned down the VEAP program are now leaving service with no
transitional education program. The CBO has set the worst-case cost for
this offering at $143 million over a five-year period. We believe that
these members, many of whom brought us through conflicts including the
Wars in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, worldwide peacekeeping missions,
conflicts not publically reported, and the worldwide war on terrorism
deserve an opportunity to enroll in the MGIB.
Increase the value of the MGIB to cover the costs of tuition,
books, and fees at an average 4-year college or university.--Despite
the extremely commendable, recent increases in the MGIB which will
bring the value up to $985 per month for 36 months by October 1 of this
year, more needs to be done. If this nation is going to have a program
that sincerely intends to satisfy the purpose of the program, it
certainly should mirror civilian industry by providing a comprehensive
educational program and not an insufficient one. According to the
``College Report,'' an annual evaluative report published by the
education ``industry,'' average monthly educational costs are
approximately $1,400 at this time. This figure reflects the cost of
books, tuition, and fees at the average college or university for a
commuter student. Of course, that average cost will increase in the
future due to inflation. We ask that you fully fund the already-
authorized increase, but look toward further increases in the program.
Payment for full books, tuition, and fees for a four-year degree with
annual indexing to maintain the value of the benefit, at least, ought
to be provided for those who make the military a career.
Ensure that all MGIB enrollees have the same program with the same
benefits.--Due to changes and additions to the law, only some MGIB
enrollees may transfer a portion of their benefit to family members.
Similarly, only some MGIB enrollees may pay more into the program to
increase the value of their program. We urge this committee to exert
its influence to standardize the MGIB so that this becomes an equal
opportunity benefit.
Allow members to enroll in the MGIB at any time during their first
enlistment.--Regrettably, military members are given only one
opportunity to enroll in the MGIB. That opportunity occurs very quickly
during Basic Military Training when most would least appreciate the
opportunity and can least afford it. Additionally, they must ``pay'' to
have this educational benefit; to enroll in the MGIB they must agree to
give up $100 per month for the first 12 months of their career. Many
military members are surprised by this $1,200 fee and view it as an
insincere military benefit offering because of the one-time irrevocable
decision--when they are least prepared to take advantage of it. As long
as the $1,200 payroll reduction for each MGIB enrollee is part of the
program, we should provide young military members an opportunity to
enroll at any time during their first enlistment.
Provide military members and their families in-state tuition rates
at federally supported state universities.--Military members are moved
to stations around the world at the pleasure of the government. Yet,
they are treated as visitors wherever they go. Fairness would dictate
that, for the purposes of the cost of higher education, they be treated
as residents so that they can have in-state rates at federally
supported colleges and universities in the state where they are
assigned. We would ask this committee to exert the necessary influence
to require federally supported institution to consider military members
assigned in their state as ``residents,'' for the purposes of tuition
levels.
Ensure full Impact Aid funding.--We ask this committee to closely
scrutinize the funding levels for Impact Aid as presented in the
Administration's fiscal year 2004 Budget Plan which has submitted
levels that underfund needed Impact Aid by approximately $127 million.
This is a nine percent reduction from fiscal year 2002 levels. 15
million students in 1,331 school districts nationwide benefit from this
program. Funding is used for a variety of expenses, including teacher
salaries, text books, computers, after-school programs, tutoring,
advanced placement classes, and special enrichment programs. This money
is to compensate local school districts for the impact of military
bases in their communities. Local schools primarily are funded through
property taxes. However, those who reside on a military reservation do
not pay into the property tax base. This becomes a burden on local
schools if military dependent children attend local, off-base schools.
We ask this committee to ensure that sufficient Impact Aid is provided
so that the children of military members are not put at risk, or that
the military member be required to pay tuition.
HEALTH CARE
Improve the dependant and retiree dental plans.--We often hear that
the dependent dental insurance plan is a very, poor one. Additionally,
retirees complain that the retiree dental plan is overpriced, provides
inadequate coverage, and is not worth the investment. This is important
because military retirees were led to believe they would have free/low
cost, comprehensive, lifetime military dental care. We urge this
committee to appropriate additional funding to improve the quality and
adequacy of these two essential dental plans.
Increase provider reimbursement rates to ensure quality providers
in the TRICARE system.--Perhaps the greatest challenge this committee
faces toward keeping the military health care system viable is
retaining health care providers in the TRICARE networks. This challenge
goes hand-in-hand with that which is faced by Medicare. If we do not
allow doctors to charge a fair price for services performed, they will
not want to participate in our program. If they do not participate, the
program will fail. We urge this committee to consider increasing the
CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge to higher levels to ensure quality
providers stay in the system.
Provide for a waiver of the Medicare Part B late enrollment penalty
to facilitate TRICARE For Life participation.--When Congress wisely
created the TRICARE for Life (TFL) program, it significantly enhanced
the quality of the lives of thousands upon thousands of military
retirees, families, and survivors. It, in effect, eliminated the need
for Medicare-eligible military retirees, family members, and survivors,
to carry a Medicare supplement policy. One requirement for
participation in TFL is that the member be enrolled in Medicare Part B.
While the basic Part B enrollment cost is not onerous, many military
retirees residing near bases declined Part B (some for many years). In
order for these retirees, family members, and survivors who did not
enroll in Part B when they were first eligible to participate in TFL,
they must pay a substantial penalty in order to enroll in Part B. We
urge this committee for a one-time enrollment period where those
eligible for TFL who are not enrolled in Medicare Part B may do so
without penalty.
Upgrade the dental benefit programs for active duty, Guard, and
Reserve members, retirees, and their families, especially in localities
where inadequate facilities and/or insufficient providers are
available.--While this committee has no control over the number of
providers in a particular locality, it can enhance the programs to
promote participation. This can be done by ensuring that providers are
treated fairly in terms of reimbursement for the care they provide and
by getting military beneficiaries to (i.e., providing travel
reimbursement to) caregiver locations when dental care (especially
specialized care) is needed.
Make all TRICARE enrollment fees and co-payments, TRICARE For Life
Medicare Part B payments, and military dental plan enrollment fees and
premium payments tax exempt (pre-tax dollars).--In those cases where
the military member, retiree, family member, or survivor has to pay co-
payments for medical care, the exemption of the amount they must pay
would be a great benefit enhancement. This would be particularly true
for those who are older and on fixed incomes.
Provide Guard and Reserve members and their families with a
comprehensive TRICARE benefit.--This is critical to ensure the
deployability of the member, and it is important that his/her family is
protected when the military member is away from home serving his/her
nation. We owe these patriots a comprehensive program.
GUARD AND RESERVE ISSUES
Provide full payment of lodging costs to a lodging facility for the
duration of a mobilization order when a Guardsman or Reservist is
called to active duty by section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of Title 10.--
This adjustment is needed because the payment of lodging per diem is
not authorized for members on Temporary Duty (TDY) during periods of
leave or a return to the Place from Which Called (or Ordered) to Active
Duty (PLEAD). When per diem is not paid, the reservist who departs the
area, however briefly, has to check out of lodging or pay lodging
expenses out-of-pocket. For example, we are penalizing them if they
want to briefly return home to address the concerns of the families
from which they have been separated by the mobilization. This has an
extremely negative financial impact, particularly for lower-ranking
members. It also could have an impact on the retention of mobilized
members following demobilization. Additionally, it is extremely
disruptive to lodging facility contractors with the members' constantly
checking in and out of quarters; this can cause financial problems for
the facility managers who have an expectation of continuous occupancy
for a finite period of time. Of special significance to this committee,
there would be no/negligible cost to implementing this suggestion since
all mobilization expenses are budgeted and set aside for the duration
of mobilization orders.
Reduce the earliest retirement age (with full annuity) for Guard
and Reserve members from 60 to 55.--These members are the only federal
retirees who have to wait until age 60 to enjoy retirement benefits.
These citizens who fight for our nation deserve to have a better
retirement program. Lowering the retirement age would more adequately
reward their service, and provide for upward mobility in the force (ANG
and Reserve members are primarily promoted by vacancy). Keep in mind
that reserve retirement is significantly lower than that provided to
active duty members. Reservists accumulate points based on their
service and training. They must accumulate sufficient points in a given
year for it to be a ``good year.'' They must achieve twenty (20) ``good
years'' to qualify for retirement. The amount of their retired pay is
based on the total points they have accumulated. AFSA believes that
these members ought to be able to retire upon completion of their
``good years'' requirements. However, considering funding limitations,
the least, fair thing that should be done is to provide them federal
retirement equity by letting them retire as soon as age 55. We urge
this committee to do so. Since DOD has conducted and contracted studies
of reserve compensation in recent years, we believe there is little to
be gained by the DOD study mandated in the fiscal year 2003 NDAA other
than to delay serious consideration of the issue. We urge this
committee to support the provisions in H.R. 742 and its pending Senate
companion legislation. Introduced last year as S. 2250 by Sen. Jon
Corzine, D-NJ, his staff tells us that he will soon reintroduce the
measure.
Reduce out-of-pocket expenses of those who serve.--We ask this
committee to restore full tax-deductibility of non-reimbursed expenses
related to military training and service for Guard and Reserve members.
The cost of military service for a Guardsman or Reservist should not be
financial.
Enhance Air Reserve Technician (ART) retirement eligibility.--ARTs
are both military members and civil servants. These unique patriot/
citizens need unique retirement criteria recognizing their singular
contribution to our military's success. We urge this committee to
provide the funding that would allow Air Reserve Technicians eligible
for an unreduced retirement at age 50 with 20 years of service, or at
any age with 25 years of service, if involuntarily separated.
Provide full Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to TDY Guard and
Reserve members, and those activated (even if less than for 139
days).--Guardsmen and Reservists are generally removed from their
civilian employment when ``called up.'' Once deployed, their need to
protect their family does not go away. Nor does their obligation to
make their full house payments. This committee can greatly assist these
military members by ensuring that they can continue to provide homes
for their families through the provision of full BAH.
Eliminate the Commissary Privilege Card (CPC) requirement and
provide full, year-round commissary benefits for Guard and Reserve
members.--At the present time, members of the Guard and Reserve are
limited to 24 visits per year in military commissaries. Allowing full,
year-round access is a benefit long overdue. The CPC (a card to track
commissary visits) costs millions of dollars to administer each year.
These military members are critical members of this military nation's
team; it is time to treat them as such. We urge all members of Congress
to provide them full, year-round commissary benefits.
Expand the Soldiers and Sailors' Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) to fully
protect Guard and Reserve members who are activated.--Since members of
the Guard and Reserve are increasingly activated and sent away from
their primary civilian occupation and their home, they must be
adequately protected. Please expedite the protection of the rights of
Guardsmen and Reservists by their full inclusion in the SSCRA.
MILITARY SHIPMENT PROGRAMS
Improve the quality of the DOD household goods shipment program.--
The Military Traffic Management Command developed a test program that
was extremely successful. It protected the military member's goods,
held carriers more accountable, and had extremely high satisfaction
levels among military members. With that test project complete and time
passing without DOD implementation of an enhanced household goods
shipment program, it is time for Congress to act. Military members
should not be faced with having their goods destroyed, lost, or stolen
without adequate safeguards and/or compensation.
Increase the household goods weight allowance for professional
books, papers, and/or equipment to accommodate employment support for
military spouses.--Currently, only the military member is entitled to
an additional shipment weight allowance for professional books, papers,
and/or equipment. In recent NDAA's DOD has been tasked by Congress to
come up with ways to provide military spouses with education, training,
and employment assistance. Providing spouses some consideration by
giving them a shipment allowance to support their employment would be a
good step forward. For example, a dependent spouse (of a military
member who is being reassigned) who maintains supplies to support a job
as a government-certified family in-home day care provider, should not
have to sell, discard, or give away his/her supplies. Most likely they
will perform the same job at the next assignment. Similarly, a spouse
who is a message therapist, hairstylist, lawyer, etc., ought to be
given a shipment weight allowance to make them more employable at the
next military assignment location. This would be in keeping with the
congressional mandate to help spouses in their employment efforts.
Provide all military members being assigned to OCONUS locations the
option of government-funded POV shipment or storage.--Currently, DOD
will only store a POV for a member if DOD reassigns that member to a
location where DOD will not ship the member's POV. AFSA believes that
this shipment option should be extended to all members being stationed
anywhere outside of the continental United States (CONUS). We believe
that a significant part of such storage cost would be offset by DOD not
having to ship the vehicle.
RETIREMENT/SURVIVORS
Allow military members who are also receiving VA disability
compensation to fully collect their military retired pay.--AFSA
believes this is the right thing to do. Every member of this committee
is aware of the arguments on this issue, so we will not restate them
here.
Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA) Reform
(Public Law 97-252).--The members of this association strongly urge
this committee to conduct hearings on needed USFSPA changes, both to
gather all inputs needed for appropriate corrective legislation and to
guard against inadvertently exacerbating current inequities via well-
intended, piecemeal legislative action initiated outside of this
committee. A military member must serve 20 years to earn a lifetime
retirement annuity. However, under the USFSPA, any and all former
spouses of a military members have claim to a portion of the military
member's eventual retirement pay. Such a former spouse could have been
married to the military member only for a relatively short period of
time; yet he/she will have a lifetime annuity if the military member
goes on to retire. Our members have clearly communicated that this
anachronistic statute, specifically targeted at military members, is
not needed to protect former spouses. Provisions in law that apply to
all other U.S. citizens should apply to the former spouses of military
members. In that sense, full repeal of the USFSPA would be the fair
thing to do.
Reduce or Eliminate the Age-62 SBP Reduction.--Before age 62, SBP
survivors receive an annuity equal to 55 percent of the retiree's SBP-
covered retirement pay. At age 62, however, the annuity is reduced to a
lower percentage, down to a floor of 35 percent. For many older
retirees, the amount of the reduction is related to the amount of the
survivor's Social Security benefit that is potentially attributable to
the retiree's military service. For member who attained retirement
eligibility after 1985, the post-62 benefit is a flat 35 percent of
covered retired pay. Although this age-62 reduction was part of the
initial SBP statute, large number of members who retired in the 1970s
(or who retired earlier but enrolled in the initial SBP open season)
were not informed of the reduction at the time they enrolled. As such,
many still are very bitter about what they view as the government
changing the rules on them mid stream. Thousands of retirees signed up
for the program believing that they were ensuring their spouses would
receive 55 percent of their retired pay for life. They are ``stunned''
to find out that the survivor reduction attributed to the retiree's
Social Security-covered military earning applies even to widows whose
Social Security benefit is based on their own work history.
Additionally, the DOD actuary has confirmed that the 40-percent
government subsidy for the SBP program, which has been cited for more
than two decades as an enticement for retirees to elect SBP coverage,
has declined to less than 17 percent! Clearly, this benefit has become
more beneficial and less costly for the government, and more costly and
less beneficial for the retirees and survivors the program was created
to protect. We urge you to step in and correct some of these
inequities.
Accelerate the SBP provision so that enrollees aged 70 who have
paid into the SBP for at least 30 years be considered ``paid-up''.--The
paid-up SBP initiative enacted in 1998 set an implementation date of
2008. We urge this committee to change that implementation date to
``this year.'' As a practical matter, any SBP enrollee who retired on
or after October 1, 1978, would enjoy the full benefit of the paid up
provision. However, members who enrolled in SBP when it first became
available in 1972 will have to continue paying premiums for up to 36
years to secure paid-up coverage--if they survive that long.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for this opportunity to
present the views of the Air Force enlisted community. As you work
toward your appropriations decisions, the Air Force Sergeants
Association and its 136,000 members urge you to ensure sufficient
funding to provide for the integrity of the entire DOD. Now, more than
ever, this funding and this nation's commitment to the members of our
Armed Forces should ensure, without delay, the full benefits,
entitlements and medical treatment that they have so rightfully earned.
On behalf of all AFSA members, we appreciate your efforts and, as
always, are ready to support you in matters of mutual concern.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Dr. Steve Elliot
Koonin, Provost at CAL Tech--oh, pardon me. I missed Joyce
Raezer, Director, Government Relations, National Military
Family Association.
STATEMENT OF JOYCE WESSEL RAEZER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Raezer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The National Military Family Association (NMFA) endorses
the testimony of the Military Coalition. Our statement expands
on a few issues of special importance to active duty military
families and their Guard and Reserve counterparts.
We thank this subcommittee and Congress for providing the
pay and benefit improvements necessary to retain the quality of
force that is protecting our homeland and waging war against
terror. NMFA is especially appreciative for the $150 increase
in monthly family separation pay included in the fiscal year
supplemental, 2003 supplemental appropriations. When the
service member is away from home on military orders, the family
endures both emotional and financial costs. We encourage you to
continue funding this high level in family separation pay in
fiscal year 2004 for all service members on orders away from
their families. Whether a service member is deployed to Iraq,
on a ship in the Pacific, or on an unaccompanied tour in Korea,
to the family away is away.
Although many headlines and news programs now feature
service members coming home, we must not forget that many
service members still are deployed in far-flung locations
around the world. Others are working long hours at their home
station to support their deployed colleagues. Others are just
now leaving for deployments of indeterminant length.
I visited a community in Germany just last week where
almost all of the 950 service members in that community had
only just left for the Gulf the week before. They need to know
their families will have the support services they need,
especially when those families are so far from home themselves.
As they deal simultaneously with new deployments, continued
long-term employments, and the return of many of the units who
were engaged in the fighting in Iraq, military families and
their support programs will be taxed as never before. Because
family readiness is linked to mission readiness, the costs of
ensuring family readiness prior to deployment, during
deployment, and in that critical period following the
deployment must be factored into the costs of the mission.
Adequate funding and staffing of family support is necessary to
ensure a smooth reentry into home and community for the
returning service members, even as program staff also must
continue to assist with ongoing deployment issues and the
normal routine of military life.
Programs provided by military chaplains, the new parent
support program, mental health programs, and support for family
readiness groups are essential during deployments and will be
just as vital in easing service members' return and reunion.
Mission costs must also include the resources needed to help
our Guard and Reserve members and their families adjust to the
service members' transition back to civilian life, especially
when no military installation support services are available.
NMFA also asks that you help to ensure that military
children's schools have the funding they need to provide a
quality education in a safe environment, as well as the extra
help military children need in dealing with the deployment of a
parent to a dangerous location. DOD schools must be
sufficiently funded to perform their mission of educating
military children to the highest standards found in stateside
civilian school districts.
NMFA also requests that you not only continue, but
increase, the DOD funding to supplement impact aid for civilian
schools educating military children. For families with school-
aged children, the schools are on the front line of family
support during times of high operations tempo and deployment
stress. The military has made significant progress in
partnering with school districts to improve the education of
military children and to support both the schools and children
during deployments. Please help to ensure that the schools have
the resources they need to fulfil their obligation to all
children in their charge.
Service members look to the Nation to understand that their
families often drive retention decisions. The families' quality
of life is a readiness requirement. Quality of life is not just
about pay. It is about having a safe, well-maintained place to
live. It is about access to quality health care without
bureaucratic complexities. It is about a quality education for
their children. It is about meeting the aspirations of a spouse
for a career and a couple for a secure retirement. It is
respect for a job well done.
Senator Stevens. I must say thank you. I have got 2 minutes
to make my vote. Thank you very much.
Ms. Raezer. You are welcome.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joyce Wessel Raezer
Mister Chairman and Distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, the
National Military Family Association (NMFA) is, as always, appreciative
of the enhancements in quality of life that you have provided for
uniformed service families. We are particularly grateful for the
increase in Family Separation pay included in the Supplemental. We
anticipate permanent authority for the increase and strongly request
adequate funding for fiscal year 2004.
NMFA endorses the provisions included in the testimony provided by
The Military Coalition, of which we are a member. In this statement we
expand on that testimony with specific emphasis on the needs of
families.
Family Readiness
Since 9/11 active duty members and their National Guard and Reserve
peers have engaged in numerous duty assignments from homeland security
to armed conflict. At the same time, members have continued to serve in
various far-flung areas of the globe. The main message is, that they
are gone! Separations produce economic strain, psychological strain and
high levels of stress in the family. The lifeline of the military
family, the military community, is also feeling the strain. Family
services are important to an installation not pressured by high
Perstempo or conflict-related deployments. They are a critical
necessity when families are left behind. Family center personnel,
military chaplains, installation mental health professions and Morale,
Welfare and Recreation programs all provide needed assistance to
families. When spouses find themselves as the sole head of the family
and as the single parent, the services available to assist them and
their children with these challenges are truly lifelines. E-mail, video
teleconferencing centers, and special family activities ease the
strains and pains of separation. But none of these services are without
cost. Just as the deployed servicemember's readiness is dependent on
proper training, food, shelter, clothing and weapons systems, the
readiness of the family is dependent on accessing needed services. Both
must be adequately funded to assure a force ready to successfully carry
out its assigned mission.
NMFA applauds the Office of Military Community and Family Policy in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) for its creation of a
Joint Family Support Contingency Working Group to promote better
information-sharing and planning among OSD and the military Service
headquarters family support staff, including the Reserve Components.
NMFA appreciates the invitation to participate in this working group,
an innovative concept that grew out of the successful collaboration in
the operation of the Pentagon family assistance center after the attack
on the Pentagon. The working group recognized that most military
families live off-base and is encouraging new ways of helping families
that are not all centered on the installation. NMFA has long promoted
additional outreach into the civilian community by installation
personnel so that family members unable to get to an installation can
still receive needed assistance. The possibility of further incidents,
which could again restrict access to installations, makes this outreach
even more imperative.
One new vehicle for communicating with family members and helping
them access assistance when needed, wherever they are located, is being
tested by the Marine Corps Community Services (MCCS). The new program,
``MCCS One Source,'' provides 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, telephone
and online family information and referral, situational assistance, and
links to military and community resources. Since February 1, this
service has been available to active duty and Reserve Marines and their
family members. The Army has also made this service available to
solders and families at select installations. Employee Assistance
Programs such as ``One Source,'' provide an accessible source of
information for servicemembers and families and, if properly
coordinated with other support services, should allow Service family
support professionals to devote more time and attention to supporting
unit volunteers and to assisting families with more complex problems.
A program offered by Army Chaplains, ``Building Strong and Ready
Families'' is targeted at improving relationship skills and assisting
initial-entry soldiers and their families with making the transition
into the military culture. NMFA is very grateful that a clarification
on the use of appropriated funds to pay the expenses of soldiers and
their families to participate in these command-sponsored, chaplain-lead
training opportunities was included in the fiscal year 2003 Defense
Appropriations Act and requests, that if permanent authority has not
been granted, such clarification of the use of appropriated funds be
included again in this year's Act.
One very necessary improvement needed in the family support arena
is closer collaboration between all the various helping individuals and
agencies who assist in the development and maintenance of strong
emotional and mental health in both individuals and families of the
military community. As was seen in the Fort Bragg, North Carolina,
domestic violence cases during the summer of 2002, not all military
family members or servicemembers make use of the counseling and support
services available to them. While the TRICARE mental health benefits
are rich by the standards of many other plans, the program does not
have a preventive care component. For TRICARE to pay for services,
there must be a medical diagnosis, thus discouraging many family
members from seeking care. Many members and their families also believe
that seeking counseling services through military programs may harm
their careers or that these services are only intended for families
identified as having problems. The authors of the Fort Bragg
Epidemiological Consultation Report who examined the domestic violence
incidents, noted that the various agencies that could provide support
to the service members and families do not often coordinate their
activities. NMFA strongly believes that better coordination and
communication among all installation ``helping agencies'' as well as
with those in the civilian community is imperative to help families
deal with stress and promote better mental health. NMFA also believes
that TRICARE must cover preventive mental health services just as it
covers medical preventive services such as well-baby checks,
immunizations, PAP smears and mammograms. An emphasis on emotional
health rather than treatment may also make beneficiaries more likely to
seek appropriate services in a timely manner.
A significant element of family readiness is an educational system
that provides a quality education to military children, recognizes the
needs of these ever moving students and responds to situations where
the military parent is deployed and/or in an armed conflict. Since
approximately 80 percent of military children attend civilian public
schools, the DOD Impact Aid supplement is vital to both these children
and the school systems that educate them. No less than the stay at home
spouse, children are affected by the absence of a parent and experience
even higher levels of stress when their military parent is in a war
zone shown constantly on television. Addressing the needs of these
children and their classmates is imperative to lowering the overall
family stress level, and to achieving an appropriate level of family
readiness. But it does not come without cost to the local school
system.
This Subcommittee has consistently supported the needs of the
schools operated by the DOD Education Activity (DODEA). These schools
are located on military installations in the United States and in
overseas locations. The commitment of this Subcommittee to the
education of these military children has resulted in higher test
scores, minority student achievement, parent involvement programs and
partnership activities with the military community. It is significant
to note that the Commander of USAREUR states that over half of the
military members assigned to USAREUR are deployed away from their
permanent duty sites. Imagine the challenges facing a school system in
a foreign country where half of the student body has an absent parent!
Your continued commitment to and support of these schools is strongly
requested.
Military child care is another important element in family
readiness. Sergeant Major of the Army Jack Tilley noted that during
2002, twenty-seven percent of enlisted soldier parents reported lost
duty time due to a lack of child care. Deployments increase the need
for child care. Families, where the parents were previously able to
manage their work schedules to cover the care of their children, must
now seek outside child care as one parent deploys. Guard and Reserve
families most often do not live close enough to a military installation
to take advantage of either the Child Development Center or Family Day
Care homes. Since 2000, DOD has had the authority to increase the
availability of child care and youth programs through partnerships with
civilian agencies and other organizations. The Services set up pilot
programs to take advantage of this authority and obtain more care for
children off the installations; however, less than 10 percent of DOD
child care is provided off-base. NMFA is concerned that current funding
levels for the Military Child Development System may not be adequate to
meet both the routine demands for child care and to meet the increased
need due to deployments. We request additional funds to ensure the
provision of the high quality child care servicemembers and their
families need.
Finally, the ability of a military spouse to be employed and to
have career progression affects both the family's finances and the
self-sufficiency of the spouse when the member deploys. Studies after
the Persian Gulf War showed that spouses who were employed handled the
stressors of the deployment better than those who were not employed.
NMFA anxiously awaits the DOD report on the status of its spouse
employment programs requested by Congress in the fiscal year 2002 NDAA.
While we do not expect DOD to create a jobs program for every military
spouse, it does need to facilitate the transition of mobile military
spouses into already existing opportunities and to target efforts where
spouses are having the greatest difficulty accessing educational
programs or employment. Sixty-three percent of military spouses are in
the labor force. Eighty-seven percent of junior enlisted spouses (E-1
to E-5) are in the labor force. Very obviously, the financial health of
the military family is significantly dependent upon the employment of
the spouse. Family financial health is without question a family
readiness issue.
NMFA applauds the various initiatives to meet the needs of families
wherever they live and whenever they need them and requests adequate
funding to ensure continuation of current programs and implementation
of new ones. However, we are also very aware that the ``bedrock''
family support programs must not be shunted aside in order to fund only
the new initiatives. Since there appears little chance that the
increase in family separations will come to an end, the higher stress
levels caused by such separations require a higher level of community
support.
National Guard and Reserve Families
As of May 6th, 224,528 National Guard and Reserve members were on
active duty. While many of the challenges faced by their families are
similar to those of active component families, they must face them with
a less-concentrated and mature support network and, in many cases,
without prior experience with military life. Unlike active duty units
located on one installation with families in close proximity, reserve
component families are often miles from the servicemember's unit.
Therefore, unless they pay for their own travel expenses, families are
often unable to attend unit pre-deployment briefings. NMFA constantly
hears the frustrations family members experience when trying to access
information and understand their benefits. The lack of accurate benefit
information and unrelenting communication difficulties are common
themes among Guard and Reserve families.
DOD has developed several key initiatives that address the needs of
Guard and Reserve families. NMFA applauds this effort, but there is
still much to be done. For example, the OSD Reserve Affairs office
maintains an excellent website. Its Family Readiness Toolkit and
Deployment Guide provide practical information; however, many families
report it is difficult to use. Guard and Reserve families ask for
standardized materials that are appropriate to all services, so that if
an Army Reserve family happens to live close to a Navy installation
they would understand how to access services there. The establishment
of a joint Family Readiness program would facilitate the understanding
and sharing of information between all military family members.
NMFA thanks the state family readiness coordinators and unit
volunteers for helping to provide family members with basic
information. Unfortunately, some units do not have adequate programs
because of the lack of volunteers and paid family readiness
coordinators, whose sole job is to support the family. Additional
family readiness staffing and support for unit level volunteers could
ensure information is forwarded to families who are unable to attend
unit briefings. Guard and Reserve unit volunteers, even more than many
of their active duty counterparts, are stressed because of the numbers
of families they must assist and the demands placed upon them. At a
minimum, NMFA requests funding for child care to enable these dedicated
volunteers to more efficiently perform their expected tasks. Funding to
enable families to attend pre-deployment briefings would help
strengthen the ties between the units and the families and the families
with each other and assist in assuring that accurate information is
provided directly to the family members.
In addition to being geographically separated from the
servicemember's unit, families are often geographically separated from
each other. NMFA suggests that DOD also strengthen and perhaps
formalize partnerships with national organizations such as the American
Red Cross and U.S. Chamber of Commerce to enlist their assistance
through their local chapters in setting up community-based support
groups for military family members. The groups could include not only
spouses and significant others of all deployed members, no matter what
unit or Service the member is attached to, but also the parents of
servicemembers. Involving local community leaders in setting up these
support groups would address two of the most common concerns expressed
by some of these isolated families: the feeling that they are the only
families in town going through the strain of deployment, and the
sentiment that people not associated with the military do not
appreciate their sacrifices.
Through our contact with Guard and Reserve families and family
support personnel over the past year, NMFA has heard wonderful stories
of individual states, units and families caring for and supporting each
other. NMFA is aware of leadership involvement at all levels to help
ease the challenges faced by servicemembers and families. NMFA is
especially proud of the efforts of The National Committee for Employer
Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) as an advocate for the reserve
component member facing employment issues. ESGR is encouraging
employers to set up their own family support programs and provides
information to employers and to their employees about the legal rights
of reserve component members. By providing this information in the
workplace, ESGR is helping civilian communities gain a better
understanding of the valuable role the Guard and Reserve play in the
defense of our nation.
Compensation issues continue to be of paramount concern among Guard
and Reserve families. Many members have taken a significant pay cut
upon activation. Families who initially financially prepared for a six
month activation now are faced with the devastating monetary
consequences of a one or two year loss in income. Some small business
owners and single practice professionals are facing the loss of their
businesses. NMFA is aware of the disaster the previous income
replacement program created, but believes that attention must be
directed to these problems or retention of these individuals may become
extremely problematic. In addition, some Guard and Reserve members
experienced problems with pay processing upon activation. This delay in
receiving the paycheck led to overdue payments on bills, and occasional
threats to foreclose on mortgages or to turn the family over to a
collection agency. Pay and personnel systems for activated Guard and
Reserve members must work in coordination so families do not have to
deal with bill collectors.
The cost of meeting unique family readiness needs for National
Guard and Reserve families must be calculated in Guard and Reserve
operational budgets and additional resources provided. DOD should
partner with other organizations and explore new means of communication
and support to geographically dispersed Guard and Reserve families.
Health Care
After a rocky start over several years, the TRICARE system is
providing most of the promised benefit for most families, particularly
those enrolled in Prime. Changes made in the Prime Remote program for
active duty families and ensuring access to Prime and Prime Remote for
the families of Guard and Reserve members, who have orders for 30 days
or more, have gone a long way to providing a truly uniform benefit for
all families of those on active duty.
NMFA is also pleased to report the continuation of the partnership
established between the DOD Office of Health Affairs, the TRICARE
Management Activity (TMA) and the beneficiary associations. This
collaboration benefits both beneficiaries and the Department. NMFA
appreciates the information received in these meetings and the
opportunity for dialogue with those responsible for managing DOD health
care policies and programs. Through this medium, NMFA and other
organizations have been able to raise areas of concern, provide
feedback on the implementation of new programs and benefits and to help
provide better information to beneficiaries about their health care
benefit.
However, despite these improvements, NMFA remains apprehensive
about several issues: funding, beneficiary access to health care, the
implementation of a new generation of TRICARE contracts and the ability
of National Guard and Reserve families to have reasonable access to
care and continuity of care.
Funding
The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes what DOD believes to
be an accurate level of funding for the Defense Health Program.
However, NMFA urges this Subcommittee to continue its efforts to ensure
full funding of the entire Defense Health Program, to include meeting
the needs for military readiness and of both the direct care and
purchased care segments of TRICARE. NMFA is particularly pleased with
the allocation of funds by TMA and the Services to support the new
Family Centered Obstetrical Care initiative. While the increased funds
for this program may well have been driven by the impending loss of
DOD's ability to force military family members to receive obstetrical
care in Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs), it has nonetheless been a
remarkable achievement. Many MTFs have instituted significant and
substantial improvements to their obstetrical programs and more are
constantly coming on line every day. NMFA assumes this initiative will
continue to be funded in a robust manner and hopes that the spirit of
Family Centered care, the innovations created by the program and the
funding provided will move into other specialties within the MTFs.
Access
Although recent TRICARE surveys highlight improvements in
beneficiary access to care, NMFA continues to field calls on almost a
daily basis from beneficiaries with access issues. Servicemembers and
families enrolled in Prime are promised certain standards for access to
care in providing appointments, wait times at a provider's office and
geographic availability. Yet the calls we receive tell another story.
Even servicemembers are told by the direct care system, ``Call back
next month, there are no more appointments this month.'' Family members
are routinely not informed that they can request an appointment with a
provider in the civilian sector if access standards cannot be met in
the direct care system. However, IF the member or family member
mentions the words, ``access standards,'' appointments that fall within
the guidelines magically appear. NMFA was also made aware that some in
the direct care system were telling family members that accepting
appointments outside of the access standards was a way for them to
``support the war in Iraq'' since medical personnel from the facility
had been deployed. TRICARE was designed so that care could be provided
in a timely manner within the civilian network when it was not
available in the direct care system. There is no reason, including the
deployment of medical personnel, that access standards should not
always be met.
When family members enrolled in Prime attempt to access care within
the civilian network they utilize the Managed Care Support Contractors
web pages or the Prime Booklet's list of providers. However, they often
feel as if they are ``letting their fingers walk through the yellow
pages,'' as they hear, telephone call after telephone call, ``The
doctor is not accepting any new TRICARE Prime patients.'' Lists of
providers must show who is and who is not accepting new patients. This
information is of prime importance to families arriving at a new duty
station. To their credit some, but not all, of the Managed Care Support
Contractors are providing this information.
As TRICARE Prime has improved, those who have remained in TRICARE
Standard often feel as if they are unwanted stepchildren. Managed Care
Support Contractors are required in the current contracts to assist
Standard beneficiaries in finding a provider who accepts TRICARE.
However, most Standard beneficiaries are not aware of this provision,
because no one is required to communicate with them. When new Managed
Care Support contracts came on line, contractors mailed brochures to
all eligible beneficiary households, but other than giving basic
information on the various choices with the TRICARE program, the
information was basically geared to enrollment in Prime. Contractors
are required to communicate regularly with Prime enrollees, but not
with Standard beneficiaries. In fact, most of the literature regarding
Standard states that it is the same as the old CHAMPUS program. No
mention is made of prior authorizations, which vary from Region to
Region, or of other region specific ``rules of the road.''
In many areas Standard beneficiaries have more difficulty than
Prime enrollees in finding providers. While Standard beneficiaries can
certainly utilize Prime network providers (if they know where to find
such a list), many have remained in Standard because there is no Prime
network where they live or they have elected to have a broader choice
of providers. Managed Care Support Contractors on the other hand are,
understandably, more interested in establishing and maintaining their
Prime networks. Anecdotal evidence provided to NMFA appears to indicate
that many providers are unaware that they may remain TRICARE providers
even if they decline to become Prime network providers. In addition,
many providers also complain of the ``new rules of the road'' on prior
authorizations and paper work, which were not required when they were
CHAMPUS providers. Low reimbursement rates and claims processing
continue to be cited by providers as reasons they do not seek to become
authorized TRICARE providers.
TRICARE Standard is an option in the TRICARE program and those who
are forced or desire to use that option should be supported as fully as
those who chose to enroll in Prime. Contractors must make significant
efforts to recruit Standard providers.
DOD and the contractors must be ever vigilant in identifying areas
where sufficient numbers of providers in certain specialties refuse to
accept TRICARE because of the reimbursement rates. DOD has the
authority (and has used it in Alaska and recently in Idaho) to increase
reimbursement rates to ensure a proper mix and number of providers.
Contractors must continue their strong effort to improve claims
processing and education of providers and their support staffs on the
unique requirements of the TRICARE claims process.
TNEX and other contracts
The next round of TRICARE Contracts (TNEX) would appear to place
significantly new levels of authority and responsibility on local MTF
Commanders. NMFA is concerned that this may actually increase the
differences in how a beneficiary accesses care rather than make it more
uniform. Currently, Managed Care Support Contractors in some Regions
have total responsibility for making appointments, and in all Regions
they have the responsibility for making appointments within the
civilian network. The new contracts would appear to leave this
responsibility to the local MTF Commander, either to arrange all of the
appointments or to opt into an as yet unknown national appointment
contract. All current Managed Care Support Contractors are required to
have a health information line. The new contracts leave the decision to
have one and/or which one to have up to the local MTF Commander.
TNEX also appears to blur lines of authority and accountability
rather than strengthening them. Beneficiaries need a clear line of
command and accountability for their problems with accessing care to be
fixed and for their concerns about quality of care to be appropriately
addressed.
If changes are made in how beneficiaries access care from the
current method, beneficiaries need to be educated and informed BEFORE
the fact.
Beneficiaries may not only face new ways of accessing care, but new
``rules of the road'' as a national contract is awarded for the retail
pharmacy benefit. The implementation of the new TRICARE mail order
pharmacy program contract (TMOP) was not without some significant
problems. Fortunately, most were transitory and have been or are being
addressed. However, a problem facing some beneficiaries could have been
avoided with proper education and information. TMOP is now tied into
both the retail pharmacies and the MTF pharmacies, so all pharmacy
providers are aware of prescriptions being filled at all other venues
in real time. Under the previous contractor such real time checking was
not done. If a provider ordered a new medication for a beneficiary and
wanted the medication started immediately, yet the beneficiary was to
be on the medication for a long time, the beneficiary probably used
both the retail and mail order pharmacy on the same or similar dates.
Under TMOP the mail order request of the beneficiary will be denied
until 75 percent of the retail prescription is consumed. This is not a
problem with receiving the medication in a timely manner, nor is it a
new DOD regulation, but it was a new wrinkle to beneficiaries that
caused concern and could have been avoided.
Guard and Reserve Health Care
While the ``rules of the road'' for using TRICARE, particularly
Prime, seem now to be well understood by most active duty and retired
family members, it is another story for National Guard and Reserve
families. Since many of these families do not live near an
installation, most of their information comes in printed form, on the
web or via telephone. In addition, many live in areas where providers
are unaware of TRICARE, as there are few if any other uniformed service
beneficiaries in the area. Lead Agents and TRICARE contractors
routinely conduct TRICARE briefings for members of units about to
mobilize; unfortunately, in most cases, families (those who will
actually have to navigate the system) live too far away to attend. If
the servicemember and family live in a different TRICARE Region from
the one where the unit is located, the information provided in the unit
setting may not be the same for the Region in which the family actually
lives. Decisions to enroll in Prime, use Standard or remain with an
employer provided plan need to be family decisions based on full and
accurate information provided to servicemembers AND their families.
NMFA has long believed that the approach to meeting the health care
needs of Guard and Reserve members and their families must be flexible
enough to ensure access to care and continuity of care. We believe S.
852, recently introduced by Senators DeWine, Daschle, Smith and Leahy,
addresses most of these issues. Provisions included in the legislation
would authorize Guard and Reserve members to enroll in TRICARE when not
on active duty and subsidize the cost of the program at approximately
the same level as the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)
is for Federal Civilians. This would allow those who currently have no
insurance in civilian life to have access to an affordable program and
would provide continuity in both program and care when the member is
activated. Alternatively, the legislation would authorize DOD to pay
the premiums of an employer provided private sector plan up to the
level of what TRICARE would cost DOD if it were provided to the member
and his/her family. This would allow those with civilian provided
coverage to continue with their current plan and providers.
Funding must be adequate to meet readiness needs, provide for both
the purchased care segment of TRICARE and the direct care system to
include the Family Centered Obstetrical Care initiative. Access
standards were part of the promise DOD made to families when they
enrolled in TRICARE Prime. These access standards must be met either in
the MTF or the civilian network. Civilian networks must be robust
enough to support MTFs in meeting the access standards. Recruitment of
TRICARE Standard providers and education of Standard beneficiaries
should be as much a part of the TRICARE program as are these endeavors
for Prime providers and enrollees. The new round of contracts must
provide standardized ways to access health care across all Regions and
beneficiaries should have a clear picture of who can solve their access
problems and quality of care concerns. Families of Guard and Reserve
members should have flexible options for their health care coverage
that address both access to care and continuity of care. In addition,
accurate and timely information on their options and such things as
transitional health care must be provided to the families as well as
the servicemember.
NMFA thanks this Subcommittee and Congress for your advocacy for
pay and benefit improvements necessary to retain the quality force that
now protects our homeland and wages war against terror. Your actions
have helped to rebuild military members' trust and to ease the crisis
in recruiting and retention. We ask you to remember that mission
readiness is tied to servicemember readiness, which is tied to family
readiness. The stability of the military family and community and their
support for the forces rests on the Nation's continued focus on the
entire package of quality of life components. Military members and
their families look to you for continued support for that quality of
life. Please don't let them down.
Senator Stevens. Thank you for your patience, Doctor.
Yes, sir.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN ELLIOT KOONIN, Ph.D., PROVOST AND
PROFESSOR OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS,
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
UNIVERSITIES AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT
COLLEGES
Dr. Koonin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
able to testify to you today. I am Steven Koonin. I am the
Provost and a professor of theoretical physics at the
California Institute of Technology. I am also a former member
of the Defense Science Board, on which I served for 4 years. My
remarks today are on behalf of the Association of American
Universities, which represents 60 of America's most prominent
public and private research universities. My testimony is also
submitted on behalf of the National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Together these two
associations include public and private universities and
colleges in every State that perform the science and technology
research funded by the DOD.
DOD is the third largest Federal sponsor of university-
based research. Nearly 350 universities and colleges conduct
DOD-funded research and development. Universities play the
largest role in basic defense research, receiving more than 53
percent of 6.1 funding. They also receive substantial funding
for applied defense research under the 6.2 program element.
With that background, I would like to bring to your
attention two issues important to universities related to the
fiscal year 2004 budget proposal for defense spending. The
first of these is to urge your support for an appropriation of
$11.4 billion, or 3 percent of the overall fiscal year 2004
budget proposed for DOD science and technology programs. This
request is consistent with recommendations contained in the
Quadrennial Defense Report and are made by the Defense Science
Board (DSB) as well as experts such as Mr. Pete Aldridge. All
of these have called for a DOD S&T budget that reflects 3
percent of the overall DOD budget.
Within defense S&T, the organizations I am representing
also request that $2.3 billion be appropriated for 6.1 research
and $4.6 billion be appropriated for competitive merit-based
6.2 research. There is growing concern that, while funding for
overall defense S&T has been increasing in recent years, much
of this growth has been in the 6.3 account, with much less
growth in the 6.1 and 6.2 accounts.
In fact, if one looks closely at the trends over the past
20 years, 6.1 funding has declined in constant dollars and has
significantly decreased as a share of total S&T, from over 20
percent in fiscal year 1983 to approximately 14 percent
currently. We encourage the committee to reverse this downward
trend in investments in the basic ideas that are going to lead
to tomorrow's advances in defense technology.
The second matter that I would like to bring to your
attention concerns the administration's budget proposal to
transfer funding or to devolve certain critical joint multi-
disciplinary DOD S&T programs, including the University
Research Initiative, from the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to the services. This proposed devolvement is a matter
over which our universities have great concerns. Such a move
could damage the unique nature and design of these programs and
could inhibit the types of cross-service integration and
coordination of S&T research that these programs have been
specifically designed to promote.
We are also concerned that, if moved out of the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and into the services, the
services could direct these funds to service-oriented needs
rather than to the broader long-term research needs that cut
across the services. For these reasons, we urge your
subcommittee to consider carefully the implications of
devolvement of S&T programs from the OSD.
Let me conclude by thanking the committee, the
subcommittee, for its ongoing support of defense S&T. We hope
that you will continue the progress that has been made in the
past few years in supporting the critical S&T programs that
make such an important contribution to our national security.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Doctor. We do support
very strongly the university research. The other item you
mentioned, though, is the Armed Services Committee. I hope you
are taking that message to them. That is a legislative
recommendation.
Dr. Koonin. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you for your testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Steven Elliot Koonin
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Steven Koonin, and I am the
Provost and a Professor of Theoretical Physics at the California
Institute of Technology. I am also a former member of the Defense
Science Board (DSB) where I served for four years.
My remarks today are submitted on behalf of the Association of
American Universities (AAU), which represents 60 of America's most
prominent public and private research universities. This testimony is
also submitted on behalf of the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). These two associations
include public and private universities and colleges in every state
that perform the science and technology research that is funded by the
Department of Defense.
I want to specifically thank this subcommittee and you, Mr.
Chairman, for the ongoing support that you have shown for science and
technology research programs in the Department of Defense. As you know,
basic and applied research are funded under program elements 6.1 and
6.2 in the Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E)
section of the Department of Defense appropriation. The Army, Navy, Air
Force and the ``Defense-wide'' account under the Office of the
Secretary all receive separate appropriations for these programs.
Why do universities care about Defense Science and Technology
(S&T)? Today, DOD is the third largest federal sponsor of university-
based research (after the National Institutes of Health and the
National Science Foundation). Nearly 350 universities and colleges
conduct DOD-funded research and development. Universities play the
largest role in basic defense research, receiving more than 53 percent
of program element 6.1 funding. They also receive substantial funding
for applied defense research provided under program element 6.2.
With this as background, I would like to bring to your attention
two issues of importance to universities related to the fiscal year
2004 budget proposal for the defense spending. These are: (1) continued
growth in support for DOD Science and Technology (S&T) Programs, with
particular emphasis on basic 6.1 and applied 6.2 research, and (2)
concerns the university community has related to the proposed
``devolvement'' of certain S&T programs from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) to the individual services.
Increasing Support for Defense Basic and Applied Research
On behalf of the AAU and NASULGC, I urge your support for an
appropriation of $11.4 billion, or 3 percent of the overall fiscal year
2004 Budget proposed for the Department of Defense (DOD) for science
and technology (S&T) programs (6.1 basic research, 6.2 applied
research, and 6.3 advanced technology development) in the Army, Navy,
Air Force, and Defense-Wide. This request is consistent with
recommendations contained in the Quadrennial Defense Report and made by
the Defense Science Board (DSB), as well as experts such as Pete
Aldridge, Under Secretary Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, who
have all called for a DOD S&T budget that reflects 3 percent of the
overall DOD budget.
Within defense S&T, the AAU and NASULGC request that $2.3 billion
be appropriated for 6.1 basic research and $4.6 billion be appropriated
for competitive merit based 6.2 applied research. There is growing
concern that while funding for overall Defense S&T has been increasing
in recent years, much of this growth has been in the 6.3 account with
much less growth in 6.1 basic research and 6.2 applied research. In
fact, if one looks closely at the trends, over the last 20 years
funding for 6.1 basic research has declined in constant dollars and has
significantly decreased as a share of total S&T (from over 20 percent
in fiscal year 1983 to approximately 14 percent in fiscal year 2003
(See Attachments #1 and #2). We encourage the Committee to reverse this
downward trend in investments in the basic ideas that are going to lead
to tomorrow's advances in defense technology.
I need not tell the members of this subcommittee that successful
U.S. national defense policy is critically dependent on technological
superiority. New dangers, such as high technology terrorism,
information warfare, and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, now face the military and require new and more
sophisticated technologies. The knowledge required to generate these
technologies is dependent upon the long-term, high-risk, defense
oriented fundamental research that is conducted at U.S. universities.
Through their research, university-based scientists and engineers
are helping to prepare the U.S. military to be ready for the new
threats it faces in the 21st century, including nuclear, chemical,
biological, and other asymmetric threats such as terrorism and cyber
attacks. Past university-based basic and applied research discoveries
that have made major contributions to the nation's military and defense
efforts include inertial navigation, radar, the global positioning
system (GPS), precision guidance, advanced materials, and reduced radar
cross-section technology.
Indeed, the DOD's past investments in basic and applied research
helped the U.S. military to rewrite the rules of war in Afghanistan and
Iraq, with new technologies such as advanced laser-guided and precision
weapons, the Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle that circles and watches
for enemy activity, and the Rapid Multilingual Support Device that
helps to issue instructions and orders in targeted languages. These
investments were also critical in the development of the thermobaric
bomb that was rushed into use against al Queda and Taliban forces holed
up in Afghanistan's mountains and caves. Because of the past
investments made in basic and applied research, this weapon could be
developed and successfully deployed in only 67 days.
In addition to supporting new technologies, DOD's investment in
basic and applied research also plays a critical role in advancing
knowledge and in supporting and training a cadre of defense oriented
scientists and engineers that work not only at our universities, but
also in industry and the DOD's own national laboratories. DOD research
also provides students with hands-on research training experiences,
ensuring that we will have a long lasting supply of highly qualified
scientists and engineers to go on to work in academia, industry, and
federal laboratories in the future.
Finally, DOD sponsored university research is concentrated in
fields where advances are most likely to contribute to national
defense. DOD accounts for 70 percent of federal funding for university
electrical engineering, 40 percent of computer sciences funding, 41
percent of metallurgy/materials engineering funding, and 29 percent of
ocean sciences funding. DOD also sponsors fellowships and provides a
significant amount of support for graduate students in critical defense
fields such as computer science and aerospace and electrical
engineering (See Attachment#3 for an illustration of the amount of
research support that DOD provides to key engineering sub-disciplines).
Concerns Regarding the Proposed Devolvement of DOD S&T Programs
The second matter that I would like to bring to your attention
concerns the Administration's budget proposal to transfer funding, or
``devolve,'' certain critical, joint, and multidisciplinary DOD S&T
Programs--including the University Research Initiative (URI)--from the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to the services.
The proposed devolvement of S&T programs is a matter over which our
universities have great concerns. Specifically, such a move could
damage the unique nature and design of these programs and could inhibit
the types of cross-service integration and coordination of S&T research
that these programs have been specifically designed to promote. We are
also concerned that if moved out of OSD, and into the services, that
the services could direct these funds to service-oriented needs rather
than to the broader, long-term research needs that cut across the
services. For these reasons, we urge your subcommittee to consider the
implications of devolvement of S&T programs for the OSD.
The advantage that these S&T programs have enjoyed by being housed
within the OSD is that they have been insolated from the short-term
strategic demands that so often drive spending within the individual
services. As a result, they have able to maintain their focus on the
long-term S&T needs of the entire DOD. Moreover, because the services
have competed with each other for funding from OSD for programs such as
the URI, it has been ensured that the service most capable of meeting
the DOD's long-term S&T needs was, in fact, awarded the funding.
Programs such as the URI, from which researchers at Cal Tech and
many public and private academic institutions have received funding,
were specifically designed to support the development of new knowledge
and to build a critical mass of experts to address long-term defense
research needs that transcend the specific and immediate interests of
the individual services.
As a result, URI has been able to successfully support exciting new
advances in critical strategic research to the DOD in areas such as
nanoscience, smart materials and structures, information technology,
human centered systems, synthetic materials and processes, and compact
power systems. Over the past five years, funding provided by the URI
program has supported 859 graduate fellowships, 1,131 instrumentation
projects, and 166 new awards to research teams from institutions
located in most every state in the nation.
The university community believes that these programs, and the
goals for which they were established, have been well served by being
housed within OSD. To ensure that these programs meet their stated
objectives and best ensure that they continue to provide the knowledge
required to properly equip, train and protect the soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines of the future, we ask that the subcommittee take a
serious look at the implication of devolving these programs to the
services.
conclusion
In conclusion, let me again thank the subcommittee for its ongoing
support of Defense S&T. We hope that you will continue the progress
that has been made in the past few years in support for the critical
S&T programs which make such an important contribution to our national
security.
Thank you again for permitting me to testify today.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
[Attachment 1]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
[Attachment 2]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
[Attachment 3]
Senator Stevens. George Dahlman, Vice President for Public
Policy of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, please.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE DAHLMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC
POLICY, THE LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY
Mr. Dahlman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to testify before you on behalf of the Leukemia and Lymphoma
Society. During its 53-year history, the society has been
dedicated to finding a cure for the blood cancers, the
leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma. A great deal of
progress has been made in the treatment of blood cancers and
over the last 2 decades there have been impressive strides in
the treatment and particularly in lymphoma and in childhood
leukemia.
But despite these advances, they pose a continuing risk to
Americans. In 2003 more than 100,000 will be diagnosed with a
blood-related cancer. Almost 700,000 Americans are currently
living with a blood cancer and some 60,000 this year will die
from them. Taken together, the blood cancers are fifth among
cancers in incidence and second in mortality.
Why are these diseases important to the Department of
Defense? They are important for a couple of reasons. First,
research on blood-related cancers has special relevance to the
Armed Forces because these are the cancers that appear among
individuals with chemical and nuclear exposure. Higher
incidences of leukemia have long been substantiated in extreme
nuclear incidents in both military and civilian populations and
recent studies have proven that individuals exposed to chemical
agents like Agent Orange in the Vietnam War cause an increased
risk of lymphoid malignancies.
As a matter of fact, a recent report by the Institute of
Medicine found that Agent Orange is also connected to chronic
lymphocytic leukemia, CLL, and the VA is now covering veterans
with that disease. So the Vietnam era defoliant itself is
credited with causing lymphomas, chronic myelogenous leukemia,
as well as CLL.
Consequently, in the current environment DOD medical
research needs to focus on the broader area of blood cancer
research as it affects our military and domestic preparedness.
Soldiers in the field, the domestic first response personnel,
and the civilian population all face blood cancer risks from
chemical or nuclear exposures. And as our Nation is
contemplating the threat of biological, chemical, or nuclear
terrorism, we need to better understand and prepare for the
malignancies that would inevitably result from these events.
Secondly, research into blood cancers, as has been
mentioned by colleagues, has traditionally pioneered treatments
in other cancers. Chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants are
two striking examples of treatments that were first developed
in the blood cancers and now are applied to other malignancies.
Their relevance and the opportunity was recognized over the
last 2 years when Congress appropriated $9.25 million for a
program of chronic myelogenous leukemia through the
congressionally-directed medical research program.
Since that program was launched, 11 proposals have been
recommended for funding and the quality of the proposals has
been rated very high and that there is more room for additional
research with more funding.
Unfortunately, $9.25 million does not go very far in
medical research and, recognizing that, a bipartisan group of
Members of Congress have requested that the program funding be
increased to $25 million and that the program be expanded to
all the blood cancers, the leukemias, the lymphomas, and
myelomas, and that it provide the research community with the
flexibility to build on this pioneering field.
DOD research on the other forms of blood-related cancer
addresses the importance of preparing for civilian and military
exposure to the weapons being developed by hostile nations and
to aid in the research for more effective treatment for all who
suffer from these diseases.
I would like to conclude by saying that the Leukemia and
Lymphoma Society, along with our partners the Lymphoma Research
Foundation and the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation,
strongly endorses and enthusiastically supports and
respectfully urges the committee to include funding of $25
million in the fiscal year 2004 defense appropriations bill.
Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. I am sure you
know we try our best on those diseases that you mentioned, and
we will again do our best.
Mr. Dahlman. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of George Dahlman
Introduction
I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee today and testify on
behalf of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS).
During its 53-year history, the Society has been dedicated to
finding a cure for the blood cancers--leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma.
The Society has the distinction of being both the largest private
organization dedicated to blood-related cancers and the nation's second
largest private cancer organization.
Our central contribution to the search for a cure is providing a
significant amount of the funding for basic and translational research
in the blood cancers. In 2003, we will provide almost $40 million in
research grants. In addition to our role funding research, we provide a
wide range of services to individuals with the blood cancers, their
caregivers, families, and friends through our 60 chapters across the
country. Finally, we advocate responsible public policies that will
advance our mission of finding a cure for the blood cancers.
We are pleased to report that impressive progress is being made in
the treatment of many blood cancers. Over the last two decades, there
have been steady and impressive strides in the treatment of the most
common form of childhood leukemia, and the survival rate for that form
of leukemia has improved dramatically.
And two years ago, a new therapy was approved for chronic
myelogenous leukemia, a form of leukemia for which there were
previously limited treatment options, all with serious side-effects.
Let me say that more clearly, if three years ago your doctor told you
that you had CML, you would have been informed that there were limited
treatment options and that you should get your affairs in order. Today,
those same patients have access to this new therapy, called Gleevec,
which is a so-called targeted therapy that corrects the molecular
defect that causes the disease, and does so with few side effects.
The LLS funded the early research on Gleevec, as it has contributed
to research on a number of new therapies. We are pleased that we played
a role in the development of this life-saving therapy, but we realize
that our mission is far from complete. Many forms of leukemia, lymphoma
and myeloma present daunting treatment challenges. There is much work
still to be done, and we believe the research partnership between the
public and private sectors--as represented in many of the Pentagon
research programs--is an integral part of that effort and should be
strengthened.
The Grant Programs of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
The grant programs of the Society are in three broad categories:
Career Development Grants, Translational Research Grants for early-
stage support for clinical research, and Specialized Centers of
Research. In our Career Development program, we fund Scholars, Special
Fellows, and Fellows who are pursuing careers in basic or clinical
research. In our Translational Research Program, we focus on supporting
investigators whose objective is to translate basic research
discoveries into new therapies.
The work of Dr. Brian Druker, an oncologist at Oregon Health
Sciences University and the chief investigator on Gleevec, was
supported by a translational research grant from the Society. Dr.
Druker is certainly a star among those supported by the LLS, but our
support in this field is broad and deep. Through the Career Development
and Translational Research Programs, we are currently supporting more
than 400 investigators in 33 States and ten foreign countries.
Our new Specialized Centers of Research grant program (SCOR) is
intended to bring together research teams focused on the discovery of
innovative approaches to benefit patients or those at risk of
developing leukemia, lymphoma, or myeloma. The awards will go to those
groups that can demonstrate that their close interaction will create
research synergy and accelerate our search for new therapies,
prevention, or cures.
Impact of Hematological Cancers
Despite enhancements in treating blood cancers, there are still
significant research opportunities and challenges. Hematological, or
blood-related, cancers pose a serious health risk to all Americans.
These cancers are actually a large number of diseases of varied causes
and molecular make-up, and with different treatments, that strike men
and women of all ages. In 2003, more than 100,000 Americans will be
diagnosed with a form of blood-related cancer and over 60,000 will die
from these cancers. For some, treatment may lead to long-term remission
and cure; for others these are chronic diseases that will require
treatments on several occasions; and for others treatment options are
extremely limited. For many, recurring disease will be a continual
threat to a productive and secure life.
A few focused points to put this in perspective:
--Taken together, the hematological cancers are fifth among cancers
in incidence and second in mortality.
--Almost 700,000 Americans are living with a hematological malignancy
in 2003.
--More than 60,000 people will die from hematological cancers in
2003, compared to 40,000 from breast cancer, 30,200 from
prostate cancer, and 56,000 from colorectal cancer.
--Blood-related cancers still represent serious treatment challenges.
The improved survival for those diagnosed with all types of
hematological cancers has been uneven. The five-year survival
rates are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hodgkin's disease............................................ 83
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma....................................... 53
Leukemias (total)............................................ 45
Multiple Myeloma............................................. 29
Acute Myelogenous Leukemia................................... 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Individuals who have been treated for leukemia, lymphoma, and
myeloma may suffer serious adverse events of treatment,
including second malignancies, organ dysfunction (cardiac,
pulmonary, and endocrine), neuropsychological and psychosocial
aspects, and quality of life.
Trends
Since the early 1970s, incidence rates for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
(NHL) have nearly doubled.
For the period from 1973 to 1998, the death rate for non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma increased by 45 percent, and the death rate for multiple
myeloma increased by more than 32 percent. These increases occurred
during a time period when death rates for most other cancers are
dropping.
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma rank second and fifth,
respectively, in terms of increased cancer mortality since 1973.
Recent statistics indicate both increasing incidence and earlier
age of onset for multiple myeloma.
Multiple myeloma is one of the top ten leading causes of cancer
death among African Americans.
Despite the significant decline in the leukemia death rate for
children in the United States, leukemia is still one of the two most
common diseases that cause death in children in the United States.
Lymphoma is the third most common childhood cancer.
Causes of Hematological Cancers
The causes of hematological cancers are varied, and our
understanding of the etiology of leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma is
limited. Chemicals in pesticides and herbicides, as well as viruses
such as HIV and EBV, play a role in some hematological cancers, but for
most cases, no cause is identified. Researchers have recently published
a study reporting that the viral footprint for simian virus 40 (SV40)
was found in the tumors of 43 percent of NHL patients. These research
findings may open avenues for investigation of the detection,
prevention, and treatment of NHL. There is a pressing need for more
investigation of the role of infectious agents or environmental toxins
in the initiation or progression of these diseases.
Importance To The Department of Defense
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society believes this type of medical
research is particularly important to the Department of Defense for a
number of reasons.
First, research on blood-related cancers has significant relevance
to the armed forces, as the incidence of these cancers is substantially
higher among individuals with chemical and nuclear exposure. Higher
incidences of leukemia have long been substantiated in extreme nuclear
incidents in both military and civilian populations, and recent studies
have proven that individual exposure to chemical agents, such as Agent
Orange in the Vietnam War, cause an increased risk of contracting
lymphoid malignancies. In addition, bone marrow transplants were first
explored as a means of treating radiation-exposed combatants and
civilians following World War II.
The connection of blood cancers to military exposures was further
illustrated in a recent report by the Institute of Medicine, finding
that Agent Orange exposure is connected to cases of chronic lymphocitic
leukemia (CLL). Immediately after the determination, the Veterans
Administration announced that it will cover the medical expenses of
veterans with CLL. The Vietnam-era defoliant is now credited with
causing lymphomas, chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) as well as CLL.
Consequently, in the current environment DOD medical research needs
to also focus on the broader area of blood cancer research as it
affects our military and domestic preparedness. Soldiers in the field,
domestic first-response personnel, and the civilian population all face
blood cancer risks from chemical or nuclear exposures, such as a
``dirty bomb.'' Higher incidences of leukemia have long been
substantiated in extreme nuclear incidents in both military and
civilian populations. As our nation is contemplating the threat of
biological, chemical or nuclear terrorism, we need better understanding
of, and preparation for, the hematological malignancies that would
inevitably result from such events.
Secondly, additional funding would expedite the cure for other
cancers. Research in the blood cancers has traditionally pioneered
treatments in other malignancies. This research frequently represents
the leading edge in cancer treatments that are later applied to other
forms of cancer. Chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants are two
striking examples of treatments first developed in the blood cancers.
From a medical research perspective, it is a particularly promising
time to build a DOD research effort focused on blood-related cancers.
That relevance and opportunity were recognized over the last two years
when Congress appropriated a total of $9.25 million to begin initial
research into chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) through the
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP). As members
of the Subcommittee know, a noteworthy and admirable distinction of the
CDMRP is its cooperative and collaborative process that incorporates
the experience and expertise of a broad range of patients, researchers
and physicians in the field. Since the CML program was launched, eleven
proposals were recommended for funding. The review panel found the
overall quality of the proposals was high and quality research from
this CMLRP would benefit from additional funding. Additionally,
innovative projects that have a high probability of finding new targets
for the development of future therapies and new medicines to treat CML
were recommended for funding.
Unfortunately, $9.25 million does not go very far in medical
research. Recognizing that fact and the opportunity this research
represents, bipartisan members of Congress have requested that the
program be modestly increased to $25 million and be expanded to include
all the blood cancers--the leukemias, lymphomas and myeloma. This would
provide the research community with the flexibility to build on the
pioneering tradition that has characterized this field.
DOD research on the other forms of blood-related cancer addresses
the importance of preparing for civilian and military exposure to the
weapons being developed by several hostile nations and to aid in the
march to more effective treatment for all who suffer from these
diseases. This request clearly has merit for inclusion in the fiscal
year 2004 legislation.
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society strongly endorses and
enthusiastically supports this effort and respectfully urges the
Committee to include this funding in the fiscal year 2004 Defense
Appropriations bill.
We believe that building on the foundation Congress initiated over
the last two years would both significantly strengthen the CDMRP and
accelerate the development of cancer treatments. As history has
demonstrated, expanding its focus into areas that demonstrate great
promise; namely the blood-related cancers of leukemia, lymphoma and
myeloma, would substantially aid the overall cancer research effort and
yield great dividends.
Senator Stevens. Joan Goldberg, National Coalition for
Osteoporosis and Bone Diseases. Good morning.
STATEMENT OF JOAN GOLDBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BONE AND MINERAL
RESEARCH; ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
COALITION FOR OSTEOPOROSIS AND RELATED BONE
DISEASES
Ms. Goldberg. Good morning. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
representing the American Society for Bone and Mineral
Research, also the National Coalition for Osteoporosis and
Related Bone Diseases, which includes the National Osteoporosis
Foundation, the Pagett Foundation, and Osteogenesis Imperfecta,
as well as my own society. Together we represent over 44
million Americans who have bone diseases or are at risk for
them, along with more than 5,000 scientists dedicated to
improving the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and
understanding of bone diseases and disorders.
Bone health, as you know, is integral to overall health.
Our bones support our muscles, protect our vital organs, and
store the calcium that is essential for bone density or mass,
end strength. What makes bones healthy? It is a complex
interaction involving many nutritional, hormonal, behavioral,
genetic, and environmental factors--what we eat and drink, the
type and duration of our exercise, our family history. These
are some of the pieces of the puzzle that fit together when we
address bone health.
Bone health is a critical component to consider when
evaluating military readiness and performance. Why is bone
health so critical to our military? Stress fractures occur in
up to 15 percent of military recruits. Stress fractures are
most common in legs and feet, but they also occur in the ribs
and upper extremities. For healing to occur, recruits need to
rest for approximately 3 months. Not only do these fractures
delay military readiness and performance, but they represent a
high cost, over $10 million a year.
Our recent engagement in Iraq highlights some additional
considerations when it comes to bone health. For example,
soldiers routinely carried packs that weighed 70 to 90 pounds
over rough terrain for miles on end in often a harsh climate.
For many, a fracture could spell an exit from the combat
theater as quickly as a shrapnel injury.
It is vitally important to understand how to prevent stress
fractures in recruits and in combat to reduce suffering,
minimize the time it takes to ready soldiers for combat, and to
prevent fractures in training situations and in combat, to
reduce the significant costs associated with the fractures.
The DOD has learned a great deal from research to improve
soldiers' bone health, but there is much more to be learned.
Recent research has examined the effects of impact forces such
as running and gait pattern on bone formation and strength. We
have also looked at the effect of specific nutritional regimens
and the effects of weight management behaviors. Ongoing
research is helping us to address the role and the effect of
non-steroidal inflammatory medication such as ibuprofen on bone
health and performance, the role of nutrition on bone quality,
the role of electrical fields to speed bone repair, the role of
new diagnostic tools.
But additional topics are also critical to our
understanding and to recruits' military health. They include
novel approaches, such as the possible use of low frequencies
to build high-quality bone, the exploration of how different
types of physical training affect bone at the cellular level,
and investigations aimed at identifying the best training and
nutritional regimens in terms of exercise type and duration,
intensity, and nutrient amounts of vitamin D, of protein,
etcetera, to optimize fitness, bone health, and prevent injury.
Mr. Chairman, stress fractures compromise the health,
military readiness, and performance of our recruits and our
troops. A strong, well-trained military proved to be crucial on
Iraq and will continue to be a vital component of our future.
We thank you for maintaining the 2003 funding for the bone
health and military readiness program. We also know there are
many worthy projects in need of funding, especially in the
Army's bone health and military medical readiness program.
Without additional support, not only are these in jeopardy, but
so are our future results that will save money, prevent
additional fractures, and further healing.
We respectfully request that you consider a $10 million
appropriation for fiscal year 2004 to help maintain an
aggressive and sustained bone research program. Thank you for
your commitment to the military's health and safety and thank
you for your attention and consideration.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Again, we will do our
best. That is an area of great interest to the committee. Thank
you.
Ms. Goldberg. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joan Goldberg
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this testimony is
submitted by Joan Goldberg, Executive Director of the American Society
for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), representing the National
Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases, which includes
the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the Paget Foundation for Paget's
Disease of Bone and Related Disorders, the Osteogenesis Imperfecta
Foundation, and the ASBMR.
Together we represent over 44 million Americans who have bone
diseases or are at risk for them, along with the more than 5,000
scientists dedicated to improving the diagnosis, treatment and
understanding of bone diseases and disorders.
Bone health is integral to overall health. Our bones support our
muscles, protect vital organs, and store the calcium essential for bone
density or mass, and strength. What makes bones healthy? It's a complex
interaction involving many nutritional, hormonal, behavioral, genetic
and environmental factors. What we eat and drink, the type and duration
of our exercise, our family history--these are some of the pieces of
the puzzle that fit together when addressing bone health.
Bone health is a critical component to consider when evaluating
military readiness and performance. Why is bone health so critical to
our military? Stress fractures occur in up to 15 percent of military
recruits. Stress fractures are most common in the legs and feet, but
also occur in the ribs and upper extremities. For healing to occur,
recruits often need to stop running or marching for weeks. Not only do
these fractures delay military readiness and performance, but they
represent a cost of over $10 million per year. Our recent engagement in
Iraq highlights some additional considerations when it comes to bone
health. For example, soldiers routinely carried packs that weighed 70-
90 pounds over rough terrain for miles on end in a harsh climate. For
many, a fracture often spelled an exit from the combat theater as
quickly as a shrapnel injury.
It is vitally important to understand how to prevent stress
fractures in recruits and in combat to reduce suffering, minimize the
time it takes to ready soldiers for combat, prevent fractures in
training situations and in combat, and reduce the significant costs
associated with these fractures.
The DOD has learned a great deal from research to improve soldiers'
bone health, but there is more to be learned. Recent research has
investigated: the effects of impact forces, such as running, on bone
formation; the effect of specific nutritional regimens on bone health;
and the effects of weight management behaviors on bone health.
Ongoing research will help address: the role of and effect of non-
steroidal inflammatory medications on bone health and performance; the
role of remodeling and nutrition on bone quality; the role of
electrical fields to speed bone repair; and the role of new diagnostic
tools.
Additional topics critical to our understanding and our recruits'
military health include: novel approaches, such as the possible use of
low frequencies to build high quality bone; explorations of how
different types of physical training affect bone at a cellular level;
and investigations aimed at identifying the best training and
nutritional regimen in terms of exercise duration and intensity, and
nutrient amounts, to optimize fitness levels and bone health and to
prevent injury.
Mr. Chairman, stress fractures compromise the health, military
readiness and performance of our recruits and troops. A strong and
well-trained military proved to be crucial in Iraq and will continue to
be a vital component of our country's future. We thank you for
maintaining 2003 funding for the Bone Health and Military Medical
Readiness Program of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel
Command located in Fort Detrick, Maryland. We know there are many
worthy projects in need of funding, especially in the Army's Bone
Health and Military Medical Readiness Program. Without additional
support not only are these in jeopardy--and future results that will
save money, prevent additional fractures, and further healing--but we
risk losing researchers who are dedicated to bone health and these
projects in particular.
We respectfully request that you consider an appropriation of $10
million to maintain an aggressive and sustained DOD bone research
program in fiscal year 2004. Thank you for your commitment to the U.S.
military's health and safety.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Retired Major General
Paul Weaver, for Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Good
morning, sir.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL PAUL A. WEAVER, JR., USAF
(RETIRED), ON BEHALF OF THE JUVENILE
DIABETES FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL
ACCOMPANIED BY:
CATHY LEE WEAVER
JULIA WEAVER
General Weaver. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
That is number eight, sir.
Senator Stevens. You do not need to testify if you bring
her.
Go ahead.
General Weaver. Sir, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) International in
support of $10 million in funding for the Technologies in
Metabolic Monitoring (TMM), better known as the Julia Weaver
Fund Initiative. As you know, I have had the privilege of
appearing before this subcommittee numerous times in the past
in my capacity as the Director of the Air National Guard. But I
am before you today as a civilian who retired after 35 years of
military service, to thank you for the funding you have
provided for the TMM, Julia Weaver Fund Initiative, and to
respectfully request your continued support.
I also want to thank Senator Inouye for bestowing the title
of ``the Julia Weaver Fund'' to the TMM program in honor of my
4-year-old daughter, who is here with my wife Cathy Lee and
myself. One month after my retirement from military service,
sir, my wife and I took our 2\1/2\-year-old daughter then,
Julia, to the emergency room at Mary Washington Hospital in
Fredericksburg, Virginia, a day that truly changed our lives.
Prior to that day, we had been told that Julia had the flu.
Her condition continued to worsen. On New Year's Day
morning, we noticed a severe degradation of her overall health.
She had lost 10 pounds in one week and was losing mental
awareness of her surroundings. We proceeded to the emergency
room at Mary Washington Hospital, where we were told after her
blood was tested that she had diabetic ketoacidosis. Simply
put, she had juvenile diabetes.
The attending physician stated that her condition was grave
and that he was not sure that she was going to make it. Julia,
whom we call our ``Precious,'' was transported by helicopter
ambulance to the pediatric intensive care unit at Walter Reed
Army Medical Center. As the chopper lifted off, I could never
explain the feeling in our hearts that we may never see our
little girl alive again.
She was in intensive care for approximately 2 days and then
moved to a regular ward after her condition became stable. The
great medical staff of Walter Reed saved her life, and for that
my wife and I will be eternally grateful.
My daughter's daily regimen with juvenile diabetes consists
of having her finger pricked six to eight times a day and
receiving two to four shots a day. I made a commitment to God
that if I could ever do anything to help cure diabetes I
certainly would do it. So I am here, sir, before you today to
help my daughter and the many other children and adults with
diabetes who endure four to six finger pricks a day and try to
regulate and maintain their blood glucose levels.
Anyone who has a loved one with the disease or has the
disease him or herself knows the difficulties of controlling
ever-fluctuating glucose levels within insulin and diet. With
our current technology, it is extremely difficult to maintain
tight control of glucose levels over long periods of time and
devastating complications such as blindness, kidney failure,
amputation, heart disease, and nerve damage are often the
inevitable result of a lifetime with this disease.
Largely as a result of these complications, diabetes costs
our economy in excess of $132 billion per year and its
financial impact is so severe that one out of every four
Medicare dollars is spent on individuals with this disease.
Technologies that would noninvasively monitor diabetics'
metabolism, coupled with an ability to provide information
remotely or wirelessly, would allow individuals with the
disease to monitor their blood sugar levels accurately,
constantly, and noninvasively, which would ultimately improve
the control of fluctuations in their blood glucose levels and
potentially reduce the severe debilitating complications.
Sir, in this way this technology could offer a significant
and immediate quality of life of 17 million Americans who
suffer from this disease and relieve much of the economic
burden of this disease on our Nation.
More broadly, sir, however, the development of wireless,
remote, noninvasive technologies that could measure the state
of metabolism in an individual would have a significant
application in protecting the men and women of our Armed
Forces. The subcommittee is undoubtedly aware of the risks that
our men and women of the Armed Forces face while in harm's way,
but may not be aware of the risks just due to everyday medical
problems. Technologies for metabolic monitoring could
potentially determine health status and accurately communicate
this information. This technology could be used to track key
personnel in remote areas and monitor their metabolic changes
to determine and prevent distress due to stress or illness.
Furthermore, it would provide an ability to respond quickly
in the field by providing technology able to deliver antidotes
and drug treatments that may be required by sick or injured
personnel, as well as nutritional supplements.
The Technologies in Metabolic Monitoring, the Julia Weaver
Fund, sir, is helping to develop better technologies that will
benefit those with diabetes while at the same time benefiting
the men and women of our Armed Forces. The program was
established in 2001 by Congress, JDRF, the Department of
Defense, National Institutes of Health, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Mr. Chairman, JDRF and I thank you, Mr. Chairman and
members of the subcommittee, for your generous funding for this
program, which has allowed us to prosper to a truly unique and
successful initiative. Sir, I respectfully ask that you
continue your support for this initiative by providing $10
million in fiscal year 2004.
Sir, I understand that this subcommittee is faced with
difficult choices and limited resources. But think about the
return that you are getting on this investment in medical
research. Seventeen million people in this country have it;
$132 billion per year.
Senator Stevens. General, I have got to stop you. I
understand and we have supported you and we will continue to
try to support you. We appreciate very much your testimony.
General Weaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Major General Paul A. Weaver, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Juvenile
Diabetes Research Foundation International and in support of $10
million in funding for the Technologies in Metabolic Monitoring/Julia
Weaver Fund (TMM/JWF) Initiative.
As you know, I have had the privilege of appearing before this
Subcommittee numerous times in the past in my capacity as the Director
of the Air National Guard. But I am before you today as a civilian, who
retired after 35 years of military service, to thank you for the
funding you have provided for the TMM/Julia Weaver Fund Initiative and
to respectfully request your continued support. I also want to thank
Senator Inouye for bestowing the title ``Julia Weaver Fund'' to the TMM
program in honor of my four year old daughter who is here with my wife
Cathylee and me today.
One month after my retirement from military service, my wife and I
took our two and a half year old daughter Julia to the emergency room
at Mary Washington Hospital in Fredericksburg, Virginia, a day that
truly changed our lives. Prior to that day, we had been told Julia had
had the flu. Her condition continued to worsen. On New Years Day
morning, we noticed a severe degradation with her overall health. She
lost 10 pounds in one week and was losing mental awareness of her
surroundings. We proceeded to the emergency room at Mary Washington
Hospital where we were told, after her blood was tested, that she had
diabetic ketoacidosis--simply put she developed juvenile diabetes. The
attending physician stated that her condition was grave and that he was
not sure she was going to make it. Julia, whom we call ``The
Precious'', was transported by helicopter ambulance to the Pediatric
Intensive Care Unit at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As the chopper
lifted off, I could never explain the feeling in our hearts that we may
never see our little girl alive again.
She was in the Intensive Care Ward for approximately two days and
then moved to a regular ward after her condition became stable. The
great medical staff at Walter Reed saved her life and for that, my wife
and I will be eternally grateful. My daughter's daily regimen with
juvenile diabetes consists of having her finger pricked 6-8 times a day
and receiving 2-4 shots a day. I made a commitment to God that if I
could ever do anything to help find a cure for diabetes, I would do it.
So I am here before you today to help my daughter and the many
other children and adults with diabetes who must endure four to six
finger pricks a day to try to regulate and maintain their blood glucose
levels. Anyone who has a loved one with this disease, or has the
disease him or herself, knows the difficulties of controlling ever-
fluctuating glucose levels with insulin and diet. With our current
technology, it is extremely difficult to maintain tight control of
glucose levels over long periods of time and devastating complications,
such as blindness, kidney failure, amputation, heart disease, and nerve
damage, are often the inevitable result of a lifetime with this
disease. Largely as a result of these complications, diabetes costs our
economy in excess of $132 billion per year, and its financial impact is
so severe that one out of four Medicare dollars is spent on individuals
with the disease.
Technologies that would non-invasively monitor diabetes metabolism,
coupled with an ability to provide information remotely (or
wirelessly), would allow individuals with the disease to monitor their
blood sugar levels accurately, constantly, and non-invasively, which
could ultimately improve the control of fluctuations in their blood
glucose levels and potentially reduce the severity of debilitating
complications. In this way, this technology could offer a significant
and immediate improvement in the quality of life of 17 million
Americans who suffer from this disease and relieve much of the economic
burden of this disease on our nation.
More broadly, however, the development of wireless, remote, non-
invasive technologies that could measure the state of metabolism in an
individual would have a significant application in protecting the men
and women of the armed forces. The Subcommittee is undoubtedly aware of
the risks that our men and women of the armed forces face while in
harm's way, but may not be aware of their risk due to everyday medical
problems. Technologies for metabolic monitoring could potentially
determine health status and accurately communicate this information.
This technology could be used to track key personnel in remote areas
and monitor their metabolic changes to determine and prevent distress
due to stress or illness. Furthermore, it would provide an ability to
respond quickly in the field by also providing technology able to
deliver antidotes and drug treatments that may be required by sick or
injured personnel, as well as nutritional supplements.
The Technologies in Metabolic Monitoring/Julia Weaver Fund
Initiative is helping to develop better technologies that will benefit
those with diabetes, while at the same time benefiting the men and
women of the armed forces. This program was established in 2001 by the
direction and with the support of Congress and close involvement of
JDRF and several agencies including the Department of Defense (DOD),
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NASA. Now in its third
year, the program has high-level recognition in the metabolic
monitoring community as a program that will foster innovation.
Just to demonstrate how this program has grown over the past three
years, in fiscal year 2001 the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel
Command (USAMRMC), which manages this initiative, received 16
applications and supported 5 novel metabolic monitoring research
projects and a highly successful workshop. In fiscal year 2002, the
program received $2.5 million in appropriations and was expanded to
include academic, industry, civilian and defense researchers. As a
result, 48 applications were received and following a highly
competitive review, an additional 12 novel metabolic monitoring
research projects received seed grants for one year. These grants
should allow researchers to generate enough data to be well placed to
seek funding from other established research sources. The USAMRMC is
currently accepting applications for the $4.3 million in fiscal year
2003 funding as provided by this Subcommittee.
JDRF and I thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee
for your generous funding for this program, which has allowed it to
prosper into a truly unique and successful initiative. The attached
research summaries demonstrate the high level of innovation that has
been pursued with these funds. I respectfully ask that you continue
your strong support for this initiative by providing $10 million in
fiscal year 2004. This funding would allow the USAMRMC to capitalize on
the opportunities provided by the fiscal year 2002 and 2003 funding. In
addition, it will enable the USAMRMC to expand this initiative in order
to support more of the high-quality research, in particular to support
promising military-academia-industry partnerships and continue to
stimulate communication between these groups.
I understand that this Subcommittee is faced with difficult choices
and limited resources, but think about the return that you are getting
on the investment in this medical research. Diabetes currently affects
about 17 million people and cost this country $132 billion per year.
One out of every four Medicare dollars is spent on caring for people
with diabetes. Continued and substantial funding for the Technologies
in Metabolic Monitoring/Julia Weaver Fund Initiative could help to
ultimately save the United States billions of dollars in health care
costs, improve the quality of life for those with diabetes, and better
protect the lives of our men and women in the armed forces in the
field.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. You
give my family and I great hope that the daily burden of diabetes will
some day be eased as a result of the innovation arising from the TMM/
Julia Weaver Fund Initiative.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 RESEARCH SUMMARIES
Interstitial Metabolic Monitoring During Hemorrhagic Shock is a
plan to assess variations in interstitial concentrations of potassium,
lactate, pyruvate, glucose, calcium, and magnesium with the progression
of hemorrhagic shock. A method of microdialysis in an animal model is
used to provide continuous monitoring of tissue composition in skeletal
muscle and liver. Parameters are compared to their corresponding serum
concentrations and to hemodynamic parameters, cardiac contractility,
tissue levels of Na+, K+, ATPase and vascular smooth muscle membrane
potentials. The effects of fluid resuscitation in both early and late
stages of shock are being examined to evaluate the hypothesis that
decompensation results from potassium-mediated vasodilation and/or loss
of cardiac contractility.
Non-Intrusive Method of Measuring Internal Metabolic Processes is
developing a mathematical model describing the non-intrusive transfer
and collection of cortisol from cutaneous capillaries, a membrane based
microvolume cortisol assay, and a prototype sampling system to enable
transfer of sample to the detection membrane. After developing this
system they will evaluate the performance of the prototype sample
collection/sample detection system.
The Warfighter's Stress Response: Telemetric and Noninvasive
Assessment proposes to provide evidence for a noninvasive, objective
assessment of operational performance under highly stressful training
situations by developing baseline psychological and biological profiles
that predict superior performance under highly stressful training
situations. To accomplish this, the investigators plan to develop and
further refine models that characterize stress-induced psychological
and biological responses that are associated with superior performance
under highly stressful training situations and to develop and further
refine a telemetric device for the measurement of Heart Rate
Variability.
Integration and Optimization of Advanced, Non-invasive, Ambulatory
Monitoring Technologies for Operational Metabolic Monitoring is
developing a wireless monitoring platform that can accept information
from a variety of physiologic, environmental, and appropriate external
sensors that can be coupled to mathematical models that permit feedback
to the individual on the status of their physiological status.
Measurement of IGF-I During Military Operational Stress via a
Filter Paper Spot Assay is studying the Insulin-like Growth Factor-I
(IGF-I) to test the hypothesis that the filter paper blood spot method
will be an inexpensive and field-expedient method for monitoring the
metabolic and health status of soldiers during field and combat
situations. The aim of this study is to determine whether the filter
paper blood spot collected in a field environment can accurately
measure IGF-1 and IGF-I binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) and subsequent
changes during stressful training.
FISCAL YEAR 2002 RESEARCH SUMMARIES
Metabolic Rate Monitoring and Energy Expenditure Prediction Using a
Novel Actigraphy Method, (Principle Investigator, Daniel S. Moran) has
proposed to develop a new, simple, non-invasive method based on
actigraphy data for monitoring metabolic rate and predicting energy
expenditure.
Portable Physical Activity Monitors for Measuring Energy Metabolism
in ROTC Cadets, (Principle Investigator, Kong Y. Chen) has proposed to
develop and validate non-invasive, portable techniques for monitoring
detailed physical activity, to accurately predict EE, and to determine
specific PT-related energy costs and physiological responses in ROTC
cadets for short and long-term periods.
Skin Bioengineering: Non-invasive, Transdermal Monitoring,
(Principle Investigator, Richard H. Guy) has proposed to develop and
optimize a novel, non-invasive, iontophoretic approach for metabolic
monitoring via the skin.
Fluorescent Polymer Implant for Continuous Glucose Monitoring and
Feedback, (Principle Investigator, Ralph Ballerstadt) has proposed
develop and characterize a minimally invasive near-infrared fluorescent
polymer sensor designed for transdermal glucose monitoring in
interstitial fluid in dermal and subdermal skin tissue. The sensor is
designed to be implanted by injection just beneath the superficial
layers of the skin. Simple and inexpensive instrumentation can be used
to interrogate the fluorescent properties of the sensor that will vary
in response to local glucose concentrations. The concept of the
proposed implant device is one of most promising technologies currently
pursued in glucose-sensor research.
Towards Miniturized, Wireless-Integrated, and Implantable Glucose
Sensors, (Principle Investigator, Diane J. Burgess) has proposed to
develop autonomous sensory devices, using low-power CMOS
microelectronics architecture interfaced with an inductively coupled
power supply and with logic and communication functions, thus allowing
for total implantation. Integrate a glucose oxidase-based
electrochemical sensor with the above microelectronic device and
further equip it with recently developed coatings geared to improve
sensor stability.
Implantable Multi-Sensor Array for Metabolic Monitoring, (Principle
Investigator, David A. Gough) has proposed to develop a disc version of
the multi-sensor array and demonstrate its feasibility as a tissue
implant in hamster and pig models with signals conveyed by wire, and to
develop preliminary signal processing and data management strategies.
Improved Metabolic Monitoring and Hyperspectral Methods for Wound
Characterization, (Principle Investigator, Stuart Harshbarger) has
proposed to provide new tools and methods for monitoring metabolic
activity in the region of a wound, and to improve the ability to
predict the healing response of the wound to external stimuli such as
dietary intake and patient metabolic activity.
Evaluation and Refinement of a System and a Method for the Use of
Hyperspectral Imaging for Metabolic Monitoring, (Principle
Investigator, James Mansfield) has proposed to refine a prototype HSIMM
system and to characterize its ability to quantify local changes in
cutaneous hemoglobin saturation during a variety of types of metabolic
stress. The relationship of these changes to several factors
influencing cutaneous physiology will also be determined.
Non-Invasive Monitoring of Insulin-like Growth Factor-I During
Differential Physical Training Programs in Warfighters, (Principle
Investigator, Bradley C. Nindl) has proposed to non-invasively monitor
insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) during physical training in
Warfighters by employing a novel, patented method of sampling
interstitial fluid (ISF) via a non-invasive, continuous vacuum pressure
via micropores in the stratum corneum.
A Minimally-Invasive Dual-Analyte Miniturized Continuous Sensor for
Glucose and Lactate, (Principle Investigator, W. Kenneth Ward) has
proposed to develop a miniature (300 m) wire sensor for continuous and
simultaneous amperometric monitoring of interstitial glucose and
lactate.
A Hydrogel-Based, Implantable, Micromachined Transponder for
Wireless Glucose Measurement, (Principle Investigator, Babak Ziaie) has
proposed to develop a hydrogel-based, implantable, micromachined
transponder for wireless glucose measurement.
Senator Stevens. The next witness is General, Major General
Retired Robert McIntosh, Executive Director, Reserve Officers
Association.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT McINTOSH, USAFR
(RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
General McIntosh. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the members of
the Reserve Officers Association----
Senator Stevens. Thank you for bringing her in here,
General.
General Weaver. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. We all like to see your daughter. Thank
you.
Yes, go ahead.
General McIntosh. On behalf of the members of the Reserve
Officers Association (ROA) from each of the uniformed services,
I thank you for your generous support in the past and for the
opportunity to present the association's views and concerns
relating to the Reserve components in the National Defense
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004.
While the transformation process proposed by the Department
of Defense is visionary and bold, ROA is concerned about a
number of its provisions. We believe that there are
appropriations implications that have not been directly
addressed in the appropriations process, that there is a lack
of specificity regarding operating authority, and that there is
a ``one size fits all'' approach to some problems that are
raised on these difficult and complex budgeting issues.
In the interest of time, I will only cover two of our
concerns. The first is the address of the integrity of Reserve
component appropriations. The fiscal year 2004 defense budget
request was predicated in part upon a major change in the way
the services' active duty and Reserve component appropriations
are structured. Assuming congressional acquiescence, the
Department combined the personnel appropriations into a single
appropriation for each service. This was ostensibly done to
enhance funding efficiencies in management.
Unfortunately, it also undermines the Reserve chiefs'
authority as their component's funding directors and impairs
their accountability for preparing their components for
mobilization. It also, in our view, seriously compromises and
diminishes the Congress' constitutionally mandated
responsibility to provide oversight to the Armed Forces. It is
not in our view a good idea.
In the recent DOD transformation proposal, the Department
has requested authority to call reservists to active duty for
training for up to 90 days in preparation for mobilization.
This training would take place before issuance of mobilization
orders and thus would be in addition to, not a part of,
congressionally-mandated limitations on activation authorities.
Family and employer support could suffer. ROA believes that
any such training, particularly of significant length, should
be a part of the mobilization process and start the clock for
tour length and associated benefits. The question of when this
training begins is also significant. If it begins before the
mobilization process, it is a Reserve cost, which could
jeopardize other essential training. After mobilization, it is
an active duty cost that could deter gaining commanders from
including the Reserve component assets in war plans. The 90-day
activation for training proposal as written is in our view not
a good idea.
In conclusion, our Reserve forces have consistently
demonstrated their worth as combat multipliers and as a
critical link to the civilian community. They are the litmus
test and enabler of the Nation's resolve. With your continued
support, they will continue to perform in a superb manner as
essential elements of the total force.
We thank you, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Major General Robert A. McIntosh
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
members of the Reserve Officers Association from each of the uniformed
services, I thank you for the opportunity to present the association's
views and concerns relating to the Reserve components and the National
Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004.
To say that this is an extraordinary year, a year like no other in
recent history has become a truism that belies the harsh reality of
September 11th and its aftermath in Afghanistan and now Iraq. So much
has changed so obviously in our outlook, our way of living, and our
approach to doing the nation's business that it is requires no further
enumeration.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1991, the
Congress stated that ``the overall reduction in the threat and the
likelihood of continued fiscal constraints require the United States to
increase the use of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces. The
Department of Defense should shift a greater share of force structure
and budgetary resources to the Reserve components of the Armed Forces.
Expanding the Reserve components is the most effective way to retain
quality personnel as the force structure of the Active components is
reduced . . . The United States should recommit itself to the concept
of the citizen-soldier as a cornerstone of national defense policy for
the future.'' One can argue about the reduction of the threat, but the
increased use of the Reserve components is clearly upon us.
Greater Reliance on Reserve Components
The 50 years of reliance on a large, Cold War, standing military
have ended. Confronted with sizeable defense budget reductions, changes
in the threat, and new missions, America's military answer for the
future must be a return to the traditional reliance on its Minutemen--
the members of the Reserve components. Can America's Reservists fulfill
their commitment to the Total Force--can they meet the challenge?
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm proved that the Reserve
components were ready and able. During the Gulf War, more than 265,000
Reservists were called to active duty. Of the total mobilized, 32
percent were from the National Guard and 67 percent from ``the
Reserve.'' More than 106,000 Reservists were deployed to Southwest
Asia. About 20 percent of the forces in the theater were members of the
Reserve components.
In Bosnia and Kosovo, more than 48,000 Reservists have again
demonstrated their readiness and their capability to respond to their
nation's call. For the past several years, the Reserve components have
provided approximately 12.5 million support days to the Active
components annually. That equates to some 35,000 support-years
annually, the equivalent of two Army divisions. Thus far, Operation
Iraqi Freedom has seen nearly 230,000 Reservists called to active duty.
The demobilization has already begun for many; but many Reservists will
continue to serve on active duty in the theater of operations and here
in the United States and overseas.
A strong, viable Reserve force is an inseparable part of America's
military, a cost-effective augmentation to the Active force and the
marrow of the mobilization base. Ultimately, mobilizing Reserve forces
is the litmus test and the enabler of public support and national will.
The early and extensive involvement of the Guard and Reserve in the
Gulf War was instrumental in achieving the strong public support of the
military and our national objectives. However transformation plays out,
our Reserve forces will continue to have a major role.
Reserve Components' Cost-Effectiveness
ROA has long maintained that a proper mix of Active and Reserve
forces can provide the nation with the most cost-effective defense for
a given expenditure of federal funds. Reservists provide 55 percent of
the Total Force, but cost only 8.0 percent of the fiscal year 2004 DOD
budget. They require only 23 percent of active-duty personnel costs,
even when factoring in the cost of needed full-time support personnel.
We need only consider the comparable yearly personnel (only) costs for
100,000 Active and Reserve personnel to see the savings. Over a 4-year
period, 100,000 Reservists cost $3 billion less than 100,000 Active
duty personnel. If the significant savings in Reserve unit operations
and maintenance costs are included, billions more can be saved in the
same period. ROA is not suggesting that DOD should transfer all
missions to the Reserve, but the savings Reservists can provide must be
considered in transformation-driven force-mix decisions. It is
incumbent upon DOD to ensure that the services recognize these savings
by seriously investigating every mission area and transferring as much
structure as possible to their Reserve components.
Transformation Concerns
While the transformation process proposed by the Department of
Defense is visionary and bold, ROA is concerned about a number of its
provisions. We believe that there are appropriations implications that
have not been directly addressed in the appropriations process; that
there is a lack of specificity regarding operating authority; and that
there is a one-size-fits-all approach to some problems that raises more
difficulties than it resolves. Here we will mention only three:
--Integrity of Reserve Component Appropriations.--The fiscal year
2004 defense budget request was predicated in part upon a major
change in the way the services' active duty and Reserve
component appropriations are structured. Assuming congressional
acquiescence, the department combined the personnel
appropriations into a single appropriation for each service.
This was ostensibly done to enhance funding efficiency and
management. Unfortunately it also undermines the Reserve
chiefs' authority as their components' funding directors, and
impairs their accountability for preparing their components for
mobilization. It also, in our view, seriously compromises and
diminishes the Congress's constitutionally mandated
responsibility to provide oversight to the Armed Forces. It is
not a good idea.
--Term Limits.--The Department of Defense very recently requested
sweeping changes in the way it manages its workforce. No doubt
much of what was requested needs doing, but we are asked to
take a great deal on faith, and at least some of the changes
requested appear to us to be flawed. One proposal would
eliminate the congressionally established term limits for
specific key officials in the department's leadership. ROA is
concerned that eliminating such defined tour lengths (minimum
and maximum) will have a very negative impact on the ability of
Reserve component senior leaders to speak their minds freely
and to contribute meaningfully during the policy-making
process. In other words, the proposal to eliminate
congressionally mandated tour lengths for the Reserve component
chiefs would have a chilling effect on their ability to
represent the needs of the people they command--the Reserve
forces. The removal of minimum tour lengths would open the door
for early dismissal or retirement when what was expressed by
Reserve component leaders was not necessarily the desired
department solution. The proposal to eliminate mandated tour
lengths for Reserve component chiefs is not a good idea.
--Skill Training.--In the same proposal, the department has requested
authority to call reservists to active duty for training for up
to 90 days in preparation for mobilization. This training would
take place before issuance of mobilization orders, and thus
would be in addition to, not a part of, congressionally
mandated limitations on activation authorities. Family and
employer support could suffer. ROA believes that any such
training, particularly of significant length, should be a part
of the mobilization process and start the clock for tour length
and associated benefits. The question of when this training
begins is also significant. If it begins before the
mobilization process, it is a Reserve cost, which could
jeopardize other essential training; after mobilization, it is
an active duty cost that could deter gaining commanders from
including Reserve component assets in their war plans. The 90-
day activation for training proposal, as written, is not a good
idea.
I will now address service-specific issues.
ARMY RESERVE
We thank the Congress for its support of the Army and its approval
of the Army's Reserve component fiscal year 2003 budget request. These
funds will significantly improve the quality of life and training
capabilities of the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard as they
meet the challenges of the 21st century. While the Army is undergoing a
major transformation it is also engaged in the Global War on Terrorism
and in a major ground conflict in Iraq. While current operations
receive the major share of resources and attention we must also fund
the legacy force, modernization and fielding of equipment, the
education and training of today's and tomorrow's leaders, family
support programs to support the spouses and families left behind, the
evolving needs of homeland defense, and needed maintenance and repair
and recapitalization of the facility infrastructure.
For fiscal year 2004 the expected Army's total obligation authority
(TOA) for its Active, Guard, and Reserve components is $93.9 billion,
an increase of $3 billion over fiscal year 2003 but still only 24
percent of the total $379.9 billion defense budget. The fiscal year
2004 budget request, as have previous budgets, critically underfunds
the Army Reserve personnel, operation and maintenance, equipment
procurement, and military construction accounts. These resourcing
shortfalls will adversely affect readiness and training and ultimately
the quality of life, the morale, and the retention of these highly
motivated and patriotic citizen-soldiers.
The Army Reserve's projected share of the Army budget request in
the fiscal year 2004 DOD budget request is $5.3 billion or 5.8 percent
of the entire $94 billion Army request--a tremendous force structure
and readiness bargain for the investment. Separated into the Reserve
Personnel, Army (RPA) and the Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
(OMAR) accounts, the request is for approximately $3.62 billion RPA and
$1.9 billion OMAR. With the large number of Army Reservists mobilized
and receiving pay from the active duty pay accounts, initial
projections suggest that the fiscal year 2004 RPA account, with a few
exceptions, will adequately fund the majority of the RPA accounts.
However the OMAR, MILCON, and equipment accounts still require
considerable plus-ups to fully fund known requirements--requirements
that were identified during the development of the president's budget,
but because of insufficient funding fell below the line and were not
resourced.
Critical/executable funding shortfalls identified in the RPA and
OMAR areas alone are expected to exceed $248 million. Not included in
this $248 million shortfall is the Army Reserve's estimate that it will
require $1 billion to modernize and transform its aging equipment
inventory. Also not included in the overall shortfall of funding is the
estimated $1 billion backlog in required Army Reserve military
construction.
Reserve Personnel, Army (RPA)
The fiscal year 2004 requested end strength for the Army Reserve is
205,000. Reliance on the Guard and Reserve for involvement in real
world operations and domestic contingencies increased considerably
during the last decade and significantly in response to the events of
September 11 at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. The Army
Reserve is a full partner in the Army's real world operations, the war
against terrorism, and the ongoing war in Iraq. Adequate RPA funding to
support the training of the Reserve to enable it to support the Army
and our national military strategy remains critical. The most visible
funding shortfall for RPA in the fiscal year 2004 $3.62 billion RPA
budget request is funding for professional development training.
Professional Development Education.--Funding for this program
provides formal professional education programs of varying lengths
which qualify Reservists for promotion and train them to meet the
challenges of leadership and the ever evolving modernization and Army
transformation. Without the required funding Army Reservists will not
be educationally qualified for promotion and possibly be denied
continuation in the Army. The fiscal year 2004 $108.7 million program
has been funded at $72.4 million leaving an executable/critical
shortfall $36.3 million
Operations and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR)
The fiscal year 2004 DOD budget request for the Army Reserve
Operations and Maintenance (OMAR) account is $1.9 billion. We believe
there is at least a $212.6 million executable/critical OMAR shortfall
in the fiscal year 2004 budget request that will force the Army Reserve
to compensate by further reducing equipment and facility maintenance,
and supply purchases.
Currently the expected OMAR appropriation is experiencing serious
resourcing shortfalls in force protection and anti-terrorism,
environmental programs, secure communications, network service, BASOPS,
depot maintenance, and family support programs. Some critical
shortfalls are shown below:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Force Protection/Anti-Terrorism............................ 36.5
Environmental Programs..................................... 22.8
Secure Communications...................................... 23.9
Network Service/Data Center................................ 9.0
BASOPS to 95 percent....................................... 93.8
Depot Maintenance.......................................... 22.7
Family Support Programs.................................... 3.9
------------
Total................................................ 212.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secure Communications
There are insufficient resources to fund Army Reserve secure
communications needed to secure DOD's integrated world-wide common-user
network for exchanging secure and non-secure data, voice and video
information. The Army Reserve $49.4 million program is underfunded by
$23.9 million or 48 percent of its validated requirement. The $49.4
million program has been funded at $25.5 million (52 percent) leaving
an executable/critical shortfall of $23.9 million.
Army Reserve Base Operations (BASOPS)
BASOPS programs provide essential services at Army Reserve
controlled installations (including two of the Army's power projection
platforms) and USAR regional support commands. Services include the
operation of utilities; real estate leases; municipal services, to
include pest control, refuse handling operations, snow and ice removal,
public works management, master planning, fire and emergency services,
real property exchanges; information management; logistics services,
including maintenance of material transportation, supply, laundry and
dry cleaning and food services.
This shortfall could adversely affect physical security, logistical
support and the Army Reserve's ability to make payments for leases and
utilities. The Army's goal is to fund the program at the 95 percent
level. The $340.3 million program has been funded at $229.5 million (68
percent) leaving an executable/critical shortfall of $93.8 million at
the 95 percent funding level.
Army Reserve Fiscal Year 2004 Depot Maintenance
The Army has insufficient TOA to fully resource all depot level
maintenance required to meet wartime readiness levels. The lack of
funding will exacerbate the degradation of aging equipment and
negatively affect USAR unit readiness, specifically the tactical
wheeled vehicle fleet, and hinder the USAR's ability to provide combat
support/combat service support (CS/CSS) to Active Army combat forces.
Failure to fund this requirement delays the deployment of forces from
CONUS to the theater of operation as well as limits the Army Reserve's'
ability to respond to civil authorities in support of homeland
security. The $77.7 million program has been funded at $55.0 million
(71 percent) leaving an executable/critical shortfall of $22.7 million.
OMAR Summary
ROA urges the Congress to add $212 million to support these
neglected and critically underfunded Army Reserve OMAR programs.
National Guard and Reserve Equipment Request (USAR)
The Office of the Secretary of Defense in its February 2002
``National Guard and Reserve Equipment Report for fiscal year 2003'',
states that the Army Reserve has 93 percent of its Equipment Readiness
Code A (ERC A) equipment items on-hand for all of its units. Currently
the Army Reserve is short $1.75 billion of mission essential equipment
and a large portion of the equipment is nearing, or already past, its
Economical Useful Life (EUL). Realistically, the equipment on hand
(EOH) includes substituted equipment--some that is not compatible with
newer equipment in the Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army
Reserve equipment inventory and may not perform as required.
Substituted equipment continues to cause equipment compatibility
problems that degrade Army Reserve readiness and its ability to support
its CS and CSS mission.
The greatest source of relief to Army National Guard and Army
Reserve equipment shortfalls is the National Guard and Reserve
Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) that funds equipment requirements
identified by the services but not resourced due to funding shortfalls
in the FYDP. Since 1981 the Army Reserve has received, through the
oversight of Congress, over $1.5 billion in equipment through the
NGREA. Without the appropriation the Army Reserve would still be
struggling to reach 50 percent EOH. The NGREA works, and works well.
ROA urges the Congress to continue the NG&REA and to fund a minimum
$200 million of the Army Reserve's $866 million fiscal year 2004
Equipment Modernization Requirement.
AIR FORCE RESERVE
In the past three decades, Air Force Reserve members have seen the
lines blur between their being a part time force and a full time force
as they have increased their mission areas and proven that their
knowledge, experience, and diversity are important contributors to our
nation's security. The Air Force Reserve has built a force that can
reshape itself into quick responders or peace maintainers.
The Air Force Reserve is the fourth largest major command in the
Air Force and provides 20 percent of the Air Force capability for only
3.25 percent of the total Air Force budget. These remarkable numbers
are possible in part to the command leading the way in leveraging the
costs of forces by partnering with active duty in associate units, in
which reservists share flying and maintenance responsibilities by
augmenting active duty forces without additional physical structure.
The mobilizations for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Noble Eagle have shown us that many of the problems, which occurred
during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, were not peculiar to that effort
because they are reoccurring. The increased utilization of Reservists
underscores the need to reduce policy differences between active and
reserve, reduce the reservist out-of-pocket costs and maintain their
readiness.
From 1953 to 1990 the Air Force Reserve contributed forces to 11
contingency and real world operations during that 38-year period
compared to over 50 operations in 11 years from 1991 to now.
The ROA urges the Congress of the United States to appropriate
funds for the following:
MISSION SUPPORT
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Cost Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFR BMT Increases..................... $10.0 Adds 275 BMT and 3-level
technical training
quotas due to projected
increase in non-prior
service recruits.
Current accession
quotas do not sustain
force requirements--
brings BMT total to
2,434 annual accessions
across FYDP.
AFR Recruit Advertising............... 4.3 Past and current AFRC
advertising budget has
not kept pace with
increases in marketing
costs or with other
services.
AFR BMT Increase (Long Haul).......... 0.8 Adds 1,566 BMT and 3-
level tech training
quotas doe to projected
increases in non-prior
recruits. Current
accession quotas do not
sustain force
requirements--brings
BMT total to 4,000
annual accessions
across FYDP.
AFR Security Forces Manpower.......... 14.5 Provides Long Haul
growth of 588 total
authorized (548 enl.
AGRs, 38 civilian, 2
off. AGRs); plus 576 A/
B MoBags, weapons,
LMRs, vehicles and
other FP equip. 12 of
the AGRs require no
equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Lieutenant General James E. Sherrard, Chief of Air
Force Reserve, ``The first bombs fell from Reserve aircraft on 7
October, day one of Operation Enduring Freedom. Of the 75,000 members
in the command, 13,000 were activated with an additional 20,000
positions filled through volunteerism.'' As part of this, approximately
4,500 reservists continue to serve in a second year of mobilization.
Now as our country faces the challenges of Iraq, the Air Force Reserve
has contributed 13,000 members as of 20 March 2003.
The ROA urges the Congress of the United States to appropriate
funds for the following:
MODERNIZATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Location Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-5............................. Wright-Patterson Modernize C-5s for
AFB OH. Avionics
Lackland AFB TX Modernization
Westover AFB MA Program (AMP) and
Dover AFB DE Reliability
Travis AFB CA Enhancement Re-
engining Program
(RERP) to
increase
operational
ability and
reduce
maintenance
costs.
C-17............................ March ARB, CA..... Replace C-141s
being phased-out
of service by
fiscal year 2006.
WC-130J......................... Keesler AFB, MS... Complete upgrade
of aircraft for
the ``Hurricane
Hunters'' mission
and continue as a
Reserve mission.
C-40............................ Scott AFB, IL..... Replace C-9s being
phased out of
service by fiscal
year 2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002, the Air Force Reserve Command simultaneously met their
mission requirements in Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) rotations,
global exercises, ongoing operations and readiness training. While
balancing these demands, specialty missions for weather, aerial spray
and firefighting were also completed.
The ROA urges the Congress of the United States to appropriate
funds for the following:
EQUIPMENT
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Cost Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-130J Radar.......................... $50.0 Upgrade will correct
display inconsistencies
range, minimize startup
attenuation errors, and
add capability to
increase range distance
for identification of
hazards for 10
aircraft.
C-17 Aircrew Training System.......... 20.0 Procures aircrew
training system for
March ARB.
F-16 LITENING II AT Upgrade 16.2 LITENING II is a multi-
Modification. sensor pod providing a
precision strike
capability.
F-16 LITENING II AT POD Procurement... 14.4 Additional targeting
pods are needed for the
Air Force Reserve to
support ONE, OEF, local
training, pod
replacement and future
contingencies.
F-16 Color Display.................... 16.0 Hi-definition color
multifunction displays
will enable the F-16 to
display more precise,
informative pictures
improving
interpretation,
situational awareness,
and increasing visual
acuity for target
recognition with
electro-optical weapons
and targeting systems.
A-10 Targeting Pods................... 48.0 Additional targeting
pods are needed for the
AFRC to support ONE,
OEF, local training and
future contingencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAVAL RESERVE
The Naval Reserve has mobilized over 17,500 Selected Naval
Reservists in direct support of Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring
Freedom, and, most recently, Operation Iraqi Freedom. The majority of
these Naval Reservists have been recalled individually based on
specific skills. They include significant numbers of law enforcement
officers and augmentees to combatant commands. Entire units of the
naval coastal warfare commands were activated. Medical, supply, mobile
construction force, intelligence and other specialties have been
heavily tasked. Naval Reserve pilots are maintaining the flow of
personnel and materiel to the theater of operations.
Funding for fiscal year 2003 enabled the Naval Reserve to resource
peacetime contributory support, bonuses, a substantial pay raise, real
property maintenance, base operating support, and recruiting
advertising/support. It is clearly evident that Congress has given full
recognition to the significant and well-recognized compensating
leverage offered by today's Naval Reserve, which represents 19 percent
of the Navy, yet expends only 3 percent of the budget.
Although funding levels appropriated for fiscal year 2003 and
proposed for fiscal year 2004 sufficiently provide for the operation,
maintenance, and training of the Naval Reserve, continued Naval Reserve
force structure reductions represent a disturbing trend. Whether
structural reductions are accomplished in a good-faith effort toward
transformation or simply to provide a financial offset for a higher
priority active program, the net effect is a reduction in the
capability of the Naval Reserve to provide both peacetime contributory
support and a war time surge capability.
Structural reductions in the fiscal year 2004 budget include the
decommissioning of VFA-203, all eight NMCB augment units, one naval
construction force support unit and one of four Naval Reserve fleet
hospitals. Additionally, the Navy budget for fiscal year 2005 calls for
the decommissioning of VAW-78, as part of the elimination of much of
CAG-20, and the conversion of 3 of 7 VP squadrons to augment units. The
Navy has indicated that it intends to deconstruct the entire Reserve
helicopter wing in fiscal year 2005, to include decommissioning the
only two currently mobilized combat search air rescue (CSAR) squadrons,
HCS-4 and HCS-5, in the entire Navy.
ROA strongly urges the Congress to hold the line against these
major structural reductions. As a policy, it appears that the Navy is
embarking on the complete deconstruction of the Naval Reserve force
structure. ROA requests that the Congress hold hearings with the
objective of discovering the Navy's strategy, goals and anticipated
benefits of this deconstruction. Moreover, ROA strongly urges the
Congress to provide full funding as described below for the hardware
procurement and modernization required to maintain the Naval Reserve as
a viable and cost-effective force multiplier.
Equipment Modernization
Over the past years, much of the progress made in improving the
readiness and capability of Naval Reserve units has been the direct
result of congressional action. Specifically, the willingness of the
Congress to designate new equipment for the Naval Reserve in the
National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) and to
earmark funding for the Naval Reserve in the traditional procurement
appropriations was instrumental in maintain equipment currency and
operational readiness. In fiscal year 2004, the Navy included
additional funding in its budget request to support Naval Reserve
equipment modernization. Specifically, funding for one C-40A aircraft,
C-130T aircraft upgrades naval coastal warfare boats and equipment
upgrades and Naval Construction Force equipment procurement was
included in the budget submission to Congress. Although a major step in
the right direction, additional funding is urgently required to support
Naval Reserve equipment modernization unfunded requirements that exceed
$350 million in fiscal year 2004 alone.
As the number one equipment funding priority of the Naval Reserve,
the Boeing C-40A transport aircraft, which is replacing the Naval
Reserve's 27 C-9B and DC-9 aircraft, is of vital importance to
operational commanders, because the Naval Reserve provides 100 percent
of the Navy's organic lift capability in support of Naval Component and
Fleet Commanders logistics requirements. The average age of Naval
Reserve C-9 aircraft is nearly 30 years. Aircraft obsolescence is being
reached because of deficiencies in the avionics suite, power plant, and
the overall aging of the airframe. In addition, existing C-9 engines do
not meet current international environmental and noise abatement
requirements that eventually could result in the exclusion of C-9
aircraft from airspace in specific regions of the world. Finally, the
cost of maintaining the C-9 fleet increases annually as the aircraft
get older. The Navy has contracted for seven C-40A's and six have been
delivered. The balance of the Naval Reserve's requirement is for an
additional 20 C-40s.
Equipment modernization is a critical priority for the Naval
Reserve. ROA strongly urges the Congress to provide $330 million to
support the vital and continuing Naval Reserve unfunded equipment needs
in fiscal year 2004.
Marine Corps Reserve
With over 20,000 Marine Corps Reservists mobilized for Operations
Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle, over 50 percent of the
Marine Corps Reserve have been recalled under the partial mobilization
declared by the President. As we write, the 1st Marine Expeditionary
Force is streaming toward Baghdad, with approximately 15,000 Marine
Corps Reservists in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) and in the
battle. Marine Corps Reservists are integrated at every level of joint
operations, force structure and forward support, in theater and in the
United States. Marine Corps Reservists are in every theater of the war
on terrorism. In Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, they continue guarding Al Qaeda
detainees and in Afghanistan securing the heartland of the Taliban.
Every Marine, whether Active or Reserve, is first and foremost a Marine
and a rifleman.
ROA urges the Congress to maintain Selected Marine Corps Reserve
end-strength at 39,600 (including 2,261 Active Reservists).
Funding Shortfalls
The request to support the Marine Corps Reserve appears to be
underfunded in the Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve (O&MMCR), Reserve Personnel, Marine
Corps (RPMC) and Procurement, Marine Corps (PMC) appropriations.
Maintaining the necessary funding to pay, educate, and train our Marine
Reservists, and to enable the units of the Marine Forces Reserve to
conduct appropriate training and operations with current fleet
compatible equipment is the vital first step to combat readiness and
sustainability.
Additional O&MMCR funds are needed for initial issue of equipment,
replenishment and replacement of equipment, exercise support, and
organizational and depot maintenance. Only by equally equipping and
maintaining both the Active and Reserve forces will Total Force
integration be truly seamless. Foremost is the maintenance of aging
equipment. The Marine Corps Reserve armored vehicles' age, coupled with
increased use, contribute to this requirement. The Initial Issue
Program also continues to be a top priority. This program provides
Reserve Marines with the same modern field clothing and personal
equipment issued to their Regular Marine counterparts: improved load
bearing equipment, all purpose environmental clothing systems (APECS)/
3rd generation Gortex, small arms protective inserts, outer tactical
vests, light weight helmets, modular general purpose tent systems,
modular command post systems, and lightweight maintenance enclosures.
Modern equipment continues to be critical to the readiness and
capability of the Marine Corps Reserve. Although the Marine Corps
attempts to implement fully the single acquisition objective philosophy
throughout the Marine Corps Total Force (Active and Reserve), there are
some unfilled Reserve equipment requirements that have not been met
because of funding shortfalls.
To achieve the readiness necessary to quickly mobilize and augment
the Active Marine Forces in time of national emergency, Marine Forces
Reserve units must be equipped in the same manner as their Active force
counterparts. The top modernization requirement of Marine Corps Reserve
continues to be Engineering Change Proposal 583 (ECP-583), which will
make its F/A-18A aircraft compatible with the F/A 18 Cs utilized by the
Active force. As part of a complete modernization to achieve complete
Force interoperability and support compatibility, this initiative will
upgrade the aircraft to state of the art avionics and weapons systems.
A safe and consistent fielding of the V-22 Osprey tilt rotor flight
system is critical to the future readiness of Marine Corps aviation.
Reserve CH-46Es will not be replaced for at least another 10 years at
the current planned production rate. Further, until the V-22 is fielded
to the Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve will not be able to take full
advantage of the skills of V-22-trained Marines who separate from the
Active forces. The increasing cost of CH-46E maintenance and this
potential loss of V-22 expertise can be avoided by earlier fielding of
the V-22 across the Total Force. As current operations in Iraq
highlight, the CH-53 helicopter night vision system is critical to
success. This system provides an improved night and adverse weather
capability for this helicopter, a mainstay of forward deployed combat
operations. It provides aircrews and embarked ground force commanders
video displays with infrared imagery overlaid with flight information
and navigational data.
With network-centric warfare, it is vital that Marine Corps Reserve
units and individual Reservists be able to communicate securely and
robustly. Two major shortfalls are in the area of radio communications:
the PRC 117 multi-band radio for counterintelligence HUMINT Equipment
Program (CIHEP) and the PRC 148 handheld radio. The full purchase of
the PRC 148 will enable the consolidation of a half a dozen radio
systems into one Marine Corps-wide system.
AVIATION EQUIPMENT FUNDED THROUGH AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT NAVY
APPROPRIATION
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
Item Cost Req.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARINE CORPS RESERVE FISCAL YEAR 2004 UNFUNDED
EQUIPMENT NEEDS
F/A-18A ECP-583 (16 USMCR aircraft)................. $69.0 36
CH-53E Helicopter Night Vision System (HNVS) ``B'' 45.0 ........
Kits...............................................
MARINE CORPS RESERVE FISCAL YEAR 2004 UNFUNDED
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
Initial Equipment Issue (Reserves).................. 13.5 ........
Depot Level Maintenance Program..................... 7.5 ........
FISCAL YEAR 20O4 RESERVE PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
(PMC)
PRC 117 Multi Band Radio for Counterintelligence 2.1 59
HUMINT Equipment Program (CIHEP)...................
PRC 148 Handheld Radio.............................. 4.0 527
FISCAL YEAR 2004 RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
(RPMC)
Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW) for Marine for 9.1 125
Life Program--funds 125 Reserve Marines............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROA recommends that the Congress appropriate $150.2 million for
these critical unfunded Marine Corps Reserve priorities.
COAST GUARD
We are aware that this committee is not responsible for the direct
funding of the Coast Guard or the Coast Guard Reserve. Nevertheless, a
fully funded Coast Guard is vital to ensuring the security and safety
needs of America through the performance of its traditional core
missions and its increased homeland security posture. Similarly,
funding for the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy
remains constrained. The Coast Guard transferred from the Department of
Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003.
Therefore, it is vital to be farsighted as we cross into the 21st
century to ensure a continued robust sea power.
Homeland Security
The Coast Guard's homeland security efforts prior to September 11th
were directed toward executing and enhancing maritime safety and
security, environmental protection, and homeland defense in addition to
other normal peacetime missions. Through the NAVGUARD Board and other
mechanisms, the Coast Guard worked closely with the Department of the
Navy to address domestic force protection for naval assets. Jointly,
they were also preparing for the future by developing a methodology to
conduct initial domestic Port Vulnerability Assessments to identify
critical infrastructure and high-risk activities in our ports and to
target their limited resources against the greatest threats. In
addition, the Coast Guard promoted the concept of Maritime Domain
Awareness in cooperation with members of the National Security Council.
They were also planning for the establishment of domestic active-duty
Maritime Safety and Security Teams that will possess specialized law
enforcement and force protection capabilities to meet emerging port
security requirements in normal and heightened threat conditions.
Deepwater Capability
Beginning in 2002, the Coast Guard has undertaken the Integrated
Deepwater System Program in order to recapitalize its aging and
technologically obsolete cutters and aircraft over the next twenty
years. The Deepwater Program will provide the Coast Guard with the
capabilities it needs to operate effectively and efficiently in the
coming decades. From the Coast Guard's perspective, ``deepwater''
refers to any operation that requires an extended on-scene presence or
long transit to the operating area. They can be conducted in port, near
the coast or offshore.
The Coast Guard's current fleet has high personnel and maintenance
costs. Some ships have been in service for more than 50 years. The
continued protection of the public, at a lower cost, requires further
investment to enable the Coast Guard to design more capable and less
labor-intensive ships and aircraft. Without the necessary investment,
operations and maintenance costs will continue to increase rapidly and
performance will continue to erode. Adequate investment in the
Deepwater Program will sustain the Coast Guard's capability for
providing services critical to America's public safety, environmental
protection, and national security for the next 40 years--through the
replacement of assets that are at, or fast approaching, the end of
their service lives.
The Integrated Deepwater System Program will also strengthen the
Coast Guard's already close relationship with the Navy. The Coast
Guard's National Security Cutter, as well as other major cutters
acquired through the Deepwater program, will be readily available to
support critical Department of Defense operations such as maritime
surveillance and interception, convoy escort, search and rescue, and
enforcement of maritime sanctions. Such options allow Navy ``high end''
ships to be more effectively employed in higher threat/combat
operations.
The Reserve Officers Association urges the Congress to fully
support the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater System Program, its new
start authority, and the Navy's acquisition of assets for the Deepwater
program. In addition, the ROA strongly urges the Congress to examine
the desirability and feasibility of accelerating the Deepwater Program
in order to achieve the desired acquisition objectives within ten years
instead of the current estimated completion period of twenty years. The
Coast Guard Reserve The events of 11 September and their aftermath have
affected the Coast Guard Reserve more, perhaps, than the other Reserve
components. The Coast Guard Reserve was the first Reserve component
mobilized. On the afternoon of 11 September, the Secretary of
Transportation exercised his unique domestic recall authority and
authorized the largest recall of Coast Guard Reservists in history. By
week's end, over 1100 reservists were on duty throughout the nation
helping to ensure the security of the nation's seaports and waterways.
Eventually nearly one third of the entire Selected Reserve (SELRES) was
mobilized, proportionally far more than any other Reserve Component.
Without its Reserve, the Coast Guard could not have surged so rapidly
to increase the physical security of our vital ports and waterways.
Coast Guard Selected Reserve End Strength
ROA strongly urges congressional approval to increase the
authorized and appropriated end strengths of the Active and Reserve
Coast Guard. Specifically, the Coast Guard Reserve should be increased
from 9,000 to 10,000 in fiscal year 2004.
Coast Guard Reserve Funding
It is estimated that the administration has requested $115 million
for the support of reserve training and support for fiscal year 2004.
With the consolidation of the Operating Expenses (OE) and the Reserve
Training (RT) appropriation accounts, visibility is lost on the amount
of support provided to the Coast Guard Reserve. Given the present
procedures for reimbursement for operating expenses and direct payments
by the Coast Guard Reserve, this is the minimum needed to fund a
training program and to increase the force from 9,000 to 10,000. Given
the events of September 11th and the national priority on homeland
defense, we need a strong and vibrant Coast Guard Reserve, perhaps more
than ever before. Providing the adequate funding will help ensure
qualified and experienced members are available and prepared for the
next surge requirement.
As noted above, ROA objects to the loss of visibility of the amount
of support provided to the Coast Guard Reserve. ROA believes that the
Congress, in its capacity of providing constitutional oversight of the
execution of the Budget of the United States, must have the ability to
sufficiently review the documented Coast Guard Reserve program.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to represent the Reserve Officers
Association's views on these important subjects. Your support for the
men and women in uniform, both Active and Reserve is sincerely
appreciated. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Senator Burns [presiding]. General McIntosh, did you--in
your testimony did you give us any--how would you solve this
problem of the 90-day callup training period?
General McIntosh. I think if in law it was tied to starting
the mobilization clock, in other words if it was under a
partial mobilization contingency that was the reason they had
to be called for training, then the 2-year, maximum of 2 years
for recall under partial mobilization, that clock should start
the day they show up for training. And we believe that the 90
days should tie to the use of those forces in an actual
contingency or conflict.
Senator Burns. Okay, thank you very much. We will make note
of that and we thank you for your testimony. Sorry you have to
be handed off through this. This is a terrible way to run a
hearing, I will tell you. We thank you.
Now we will call Rodney Lester, CRNA with the American
Association of Nurse Anesthetists. In other words, you put
people to sleep.
STATEMENT OF RODNEY C. LESTER, CRNA, Ph.D., PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS
Dr. Lester. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. You would run out of work up here because we
do it naturally.
Thank you for coming today.
Dr. Lester. Senator Burns, good morning and thank you for
the opportunity to testify today. We appreciate it. My name is
Rodney Lester. I am a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist
(CRNA) and President of the American Association of Nurse
Anesthetists (AANA). In addition, I recently retired from the
Army after 5 years of active duty and 24 years as a reservist.
The AANA represents more than 30,000 CRNAs, including the
516 who are on active duty. Currently there are more than 360
CRNAs deployed in the Middle East providing anesthesia care.
That includes both active and reserve components.
To ensure modernization military medical readiness, we must
have anesthesia providers that can work independently and be
deployed at a moment's notice. For this reason, the AANA is
concerned over the recently proposed rule to include
anesthesiologist's assistants (AAs) as authorized providers
under the Tricare program. Before the rule was published, there
should have been full congressional review of the AA's safety
record, cost effectiveness, and limited scope of practice.
AAs are trained to assist the anesthesiologist in providing
anesthesia care and cannot act independently. Immediate and
independent action is required when providing anesthesia. AAs
are not recognized anesthesia providers in any branch of the
military and do not practice in all 50 States. There are only
five States that have separate licensure for AAs. If most of
the country does not recognize the AA practice, why should
Tricare have AAs providing anesthesia care to our military and
their dependents?
Since the introduction of AAs to the health care system 30
years ago, there are two schools in the country and only about
700 AAs practicing. This is in contrast to nurses, who have
been providing anesthesia care since prior to the Civil War.
Today we have 85 nurse anesthesia schools, with over 30,000
CRNAs practicing. AAs will not lower the anesthesia provider
vacancy rate within the DOD.
AANA urges members of the subcommittee and the full
committee to contact the DOD to urge their reconsideration of
the AA proposal.
Incentives for recruitment and retention of CRNAs in the
military are essential to make sure that the armed services can
meet their medical manpower needs. We would like to thank this
committee for funding the critical skills retention bonus,
CSRB, for fiscal year 2003. Sixty-six percent of the 516 active
duty CRNAs enjoy this benefit.
In addition, we would like to thank this committee for its
continued support in funding the incentive special pay (ISP)
for CRNAs in the military. As you know, there continues to be a
considerable gap between civilian and military pay, which was
addressed in the fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Act
with an ISP increase authorized from $15,000 to $50,000. The
AANA is requesting that this committee fund that increase in
the ISP at $50,000 for all services, enabling them to recruit
and retain CRNAs.
In conclusion, the AANA believes that the recruitment and
retention of CRNAs in the military service is of critical
concern in maintaining the military's ability to meet its
wartime and medical mobilization needs. The funding of the CSRB
and an increase in ISP will assist in meeting these challenges.
Also, we believe that the inclusion of AAs in the Tricare
system would not improve military medical readiness of any of
the services and therefore should not be approved.
I thank the committee members for their consideration of
these issues and would be happy to answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rodney C. Lester
The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) is the
professional association representing over 28,000 certified registered
nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) in the United States, including 516 active
duty CRNAs in the military services. The AANA appreciates the
opportunity to provide testimony regarding CRNAs in the military. We
would also like to thank this committee for the help it has given us in
assisting the Department of Defense (DOD) and each of the services to
recruit and retain CRNAs.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NURSE ANESTHETISTS
The practice of anesthesia is a recognized specialty within both
the nursing and medical professions. Both CRNAs and anesthesiologists
administer anesthesia for all types of surgical procedures, from the
simplest to the most complex, either as single providers or in a ``care
team setting.'' Patient outcome data has consistently shown that there
is no significant difference in outcomes between the two providers.
CRNAs and anesthesiologists are both educated to use the same
anesthesia procedures in the provision of anesthesia and related
services.
In the administration of anesthesia, CRNAs perform the same
functions as anesthesiologists and work in every setting in which
anesthesia is delivered including hospital surgical suites and
obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, health
maintenance organizations, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists,
ophthalmologists, and plastic surgeons. One of the differences between
CRNAs and anesthesiologists is that prior to anesthesia education,
anesthesiologists receive medical education while CRNAs receive a
nursing education. However, the anesthesia part of the education is
similar for both providers, and both professionals are educated to
perform the same clinical anesthesia services.
Today CRNAs administer approximately 65 percent of the anesthetics
given to patients each year in the United States. They are masters
prepared and meet the most stringent continuing education and
recertification standards in the field, helping make anesthesia 50
times safer now than 20 years ago according to the Institute of
Medicine's 1999 Report, ``To Err is Human.''
NURSE ANESTHETISTS IN THE MILITARY
Nurse anesthetists have been the principal anesthesia providers in
combat areas in every war in which the United States has been engaged
since World War I. Military nurse anesthetists have been honored and
decorated by the United States and foreign governments for outstanding
achievements, resulting from their dedication and commitment to duty
and competence in managing seriously wounded casualties. In World War
II, there were 17 nurse anesthetists to every one anesthesiologist. In
Vietnam, the ratio of CRNAs to physician anesthetists was approximately
3:1. Two nurse anesthetists were killed in Vietnam and their names have
been engraved on the Vietnam Memorial Wall. During the Panama strike,
only CRNAs were sent with the fighting forces. Nurse anesthetists
served with honor during Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and ``Operation
Enduring Freedom.'' Military CRNAs provide critical anesthesia support
to humanitarian missions around the globe in such places as Bosnia and
Somalia. Currently, there are approximately 364 nurse anesthetists
deployed in the Middle East for the military mission for ``Operation
Iraqi Freedom'' and ``Operation Enduring Freedom.''
Data gathered from the U.S. Armed Forces anesthesia communities'
reveal that CRNAs have often been the sole anesthesia providers at
certain facilities, both at home and while forward deployed. For
decades CRNAs have staffed ships, isolated U.S. Bases, and forward
surgical teams without physician anesthesia support. The U.S. Army
Joint Special Operations Command Medical Team and all Army Forward
Surgical Teams are staffed solely by CRNAs. Military CRNAs have a long
proud history of providing independent support and quality anesthesia
care to military men and women, their families and to people from many
nations who have found themselves in harms way.
When President George W. Bush initiated ``Operation Enduring
Freedom,'' CRNAs were immediately deployed. With the new special
operations environment new training was needed to prepare our CRNAs to
ensure military medical mobilization and readiness. Brigadier General
Barbara C. Brannon, Assistant Surgeon General, Air Force Nursing
Services, testified before this Senate Committee on May 8, 2003, to
provide an account of CRNAs on the job overseas. She stated, ``Lt. Col
Beisser, a certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) leading a
Mobile Forward Surgical Team (MFST), recently commended the seamless
interoperability he witnessed during treatment of trauma victims in
Special Forces mass casualty incident.''
In the most recent mission, ``Operation Iraqi Freedom,'' CRNAs were
deployed on both ships and ground. For example, Lt. Col. Steven
Hendrix, CRNA was in the Delta Force, U.S. special operations forces
that rescued Private Jessica Lynch.
This committee must ensure that we retain and recruit CRNAs for now
and in the future for the ever-changing military operation deployments
overseas.
INCLUSION OF AAS UNDER THE DOD HEALTH SYSTEM
The U.S. Department of Defense has proposed authorizing
anesthesiologist assistants (AAs) as providers of anesthesia care under
the TRICARE health plan for military personnel and dependents, in a
proposed rule published in the Federal Register April 3 (68 FR 16247,
4/3/2003). In addition, the Director of Anesthesia Services of the
Veterans Affairs (VA) Department is apparently in the process of adding
AAs as a new anesthesia provider as well. There has been no
congressional review about adding these new providers, and no
assessment of their safety record or cost-effectiveness.
--There are only two AA schools in the entire country (Ohio and
Georgia) since AA introduction to the healthcare system over 30
years ago;
--AAs are not required to have any healthcare training or experience
before they enter AA training. This differs from Certified
Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) who must have a
bachelor's degree, be a registered nurse and have at least one
year of acute care training prior to beginning the program;
--AAs have a very limited scope of practice, as they are required by
law to administer anesthesia only under the close supervision
of an anesthesiologist. Since AAs must work under the close
supervision of an anesthesiologist, they cannot act
independently and quickly in an emergency situation. Immediate
and independent action is required when providing anesthesia,
especially for those patients in the TRICARE and VA systems.
AAs cannot be deployed in military situations without
anesthesiologists; by contrast, CRNAs are predominantly the
anesthesia provider in military situations & need not be
anesthesiologist supervised.
--Only five states provide separate licensure for AAs (Alabama,
Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and South Carolina). Some
anesthesiologists in these states actually have opposed AA
recognition. If most of the country does not specifically
recognize their practice, why would TRICARE and the VA allow
AAs to administer anesthesia to our nation's veterans and
military families?
--The scope of training for AAs is severely limited. For example, the
Emory program in Georgia does not provide clinical instruction
in the administration of regional anesthesia. The AA curriculum
is characterized by training that allows them to ``assist'' the
anesthesiologist in technical functions. By contrast, nurse
anesthetists are capable of high-level independent function and
receive instruction in the administration of all types of
anesthesia including general and regional anesthesia, conscious
sedation, and monitored anesthesia care. The ability to make
independent judgments and provide multiple anesthetic
techniques are critical to meeting an array of patient and
surgical needs.
--The use of AAs is bad healthcare policy. This attempt to introduce
AAs into federal programs sets the stage for anesthesiologists
to control the entire anesthesia market since they will have
substantial control of AA practice, including education,
accreditation, certification, practice, payment, and
employment. This degree of control is intended to eliminate any
chance of competition in the anesthesia market and to allow
only anesthesiologists to bill for anesthesia services, even if
provided by a technical assistant.
--The AA certification examination process emphasizes employability
over thorough testing: The National Commission for
Certification of Anesthesiologist Assistants (NCCAA) allows AA
students to take the AA certification examination up to 180
days before graduation. Scores can be released immediately
after the NCCAA has received documentation of the student's
graduation. Given that an AA student can take the exam six
months before he or she graduates (i.e., after only 18 months
of being in an AA program), the rigors of the exam appear
questionable. How can an AA (with no required healthcare
training prior to entering an AA program) be tested when six
months remain in an AA's education? Nurse anesthetists are not
eligible to take their certification exam until they have
graduated from their nurse anesthesia program.
COMPARE ANESTHESIOLOGISTS, CRNAS, AND ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Anesthesiologists CRNAs AAs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educated in all aspects of anesthesia?........................... Yes Yes No
Authorized to practice in all 50 states?......................... Yes Yes No
Serves in U.S. military settings?................................ Yes Yes No
May practice without anesthesiologist supervision?............... N/A Yes No
Mandatory prior healthcare experience before anesthesia training? Yes Yes No
Recertified every 2 years?....................................... No Yes Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAs may not be the solution to address anesthesia vacancies in
these programs since they need to practice under the direct supervision
of an anesthesiologist. Including AAs under TRICARE would indeed add to
the current anesthesia provider problem within the military, because
there is a current shortage of anesthesiologists in the military to
supervise the AAs, to say nothing of the additional cost.
AANA urges this subcommittee and full committee members to contact
the DOD to urge their reconsideration of this DOD proposal.
CRNA RETENTION AND RECRUITING HOW THIS COMMITTEE CAN HELP DOD
In all of the Services, maintaining adequate numbers of active duty
CRNAs is of utmost concern. For several years, the number of CRNAs
serving in active duty has consistently fallen short of the number
authorized by DOD as needed providers. This is further complicated by
the shortage of CRNAs in the nation. A letter dated March 14, 2002 from
the Asst. Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, William
Winkenwerder, Jr., MD, to the former AANA President, Debbie A.
Chambers, CRNA, MHSA, stated that, ``The Nurse Anesthetist specialty
has been identified by the Department as a critical wartime shortage
for the last several years.''
Recruitment of nurse anesthetists for the military becomes
increasingly difficult when the civilian sector faces such critical
shortages, too. Currently, the number of nurse anesthetist vacancies
increased 250 percent from 1998-2001, according to CRNA managers'
surveys. Health professions staffing firms report CRNA recruitment
rising by up to ten-fold from 1997-2000, making nurse anesthesia the
second most recruited health professional specialty. In addition, this
is compounded by the impact of baby boomers retiring. As the number of
Medicare-eligible Americans climbs, it compounds the number of surgical
procedures requiring anesthetics. Indeed, among those retiring
Americans are CRNAs themselves.
In addition, the AANA cited a decline in anesthesiology resident
positions, as well as an increase in office-based surgery and surgery
in places other than hospitals as driving the increased need for CRNAs.
Additionally, with managed care continuing to pursue cost-cutting
measures, coverage plans are recognizing CRNAs for providing high-
quality anesthesia care with reduced expense to patients and insurance
companies. The cost-efficiency of CRNAs helps keep escalating medical
costs down.
This Committee can greatly assist in the effort to attract and
maintain essential numbers of nurse anesthetists in the military by
their support of increasing special pays.
Critical Skills Retention Bonus
Last year on May 8, 2002, Brigadier General Barbara C. Brannon,
Assistant Surgeon General, Air Force Nursing Services, testified before
this Senate Committee requesting the expansion of the critical skills
retention bonus, authorized in the fiscal year 2001 Defense
Authorization Act, to health professionals with critical skills.
Brigadier General Brannon stated:
``Currently, the Secretary of Defense is evaluating whether health
professions will be designated as a critical skill. In anticipation,
the TriService Health Professions Special Pay Working Group is
evaluating future funding, and we have identified our critical nursing
specialties. These specialties include obstetrical nurses, mental
health, medical-surgical, neonatal intensive care, CRNAs and Women's
Health Nurse Practitioners.''
In the fall of 2002, CRNAs were designated as health professions
with critical skills in the military, and were given a $10,000 critical
skills retention bonus (CSRB) to stay in the military for an additional
year after their service obligation. Brigadier General Brannon thanked
this committee for their help in granting a CSRB to CRNAs in her recent
testimony to this committee on April 30, 2003:
``The TriService Health Professions Special Pay Working Group
Identified Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists as critically manned
and therefore eligible for the retention bonus. The program was
enthusiastically welcomed with 66 percent of the eligible CRNAs
applying for a CSRB in exchange for a one year service commitment.''
The AANA also thanks this committee for their hard work. The CSRB
for fiscal year 2003 was funded by this committee, and is assisting
each of the service branches to both retain and recruit CRNAs. We hope
you will continue to fund the CSRB for fiscal year 2004.
The AANA thanks the committee for funding the Critical Skills
Retention Bonus (CSRB) for fiscal year 2003 to ensure the retention of
CRNAs in the military services. We hope you will support continued
funding for CSRB for fiscal year 2004.
The Incentive Special Pay for Nurses
According to a March 1994 study requested by the Health Policy
Directorate of Health Affairs and conducted by DOD, a large pay gap
existed between annual civilian and military pay in 1992. This study
concluded, ``this earnings gap is a major reason why the military has
difficulty retaining CRNAs.'' In order to address this pay gap, in the
fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization bill Congress authorized the
implementation of an increase in the annual Incentive Special Pay (ISP)
for nurse anesthetists from $6,000 to $15,000 for those CRNAs no longer
under service obligation to pay back their anesthesia education. Those
CRNAs who remain obligated receive the $6,000 ISP.
Both the House and Senate passed the fiscal year 2003 Defense
Authorization Act Conference report, H.Rept. 107-772, which included an
ISP increase to $50,000. The report included an increase in ISP for
nurse anesthetists from $15,000 to $50,000. There had been no change in
funding level for the ISP since the increase was instituted in fiscal
year 1995, while it is certain that civilian pay has continued to rise
during this time. The AANA is requesting that this committee fund the
new increase for the ISP at $50,000 for all the branches of the armed
services to retain and recruit CRNAs now and into the future.
There still continues to be high demand and low supply of CRNAs in
the health care community leading to higher incomes widening the gap in
pay for CRNAs in the civilian sector compared to the military. The
fiscal year 2002 AANA Membership survey measured income in the civilian
sector by practice setting. The median income in a hospital setting is
$110,200, MDA group $100,534, and self-employed CRNA $130,000 (includes
Owner/Partner of a CRNA Group). These median salaries include call pay,
overtime pay, and bonus pay. These salaries are still higher than the
median salary of $74,000 across all military service branches.
In civilian practice, all additional skills, experience, duties and
responsibilities, and hours of work are compensated for monetarily.
Additionally, training (tuition and continuing education), health care,
retirement, recruitment and retention bonuses, and other benefits often
equal or exceed those offered in the military.
Rear Admiral Nancy Lescavage, Director of the Navy Nurse Corps, and
Commander of the Naval Medical Education and Training Command testified
before this Senate Committee at the April 30, 2003 hearing:
``The increase of the maximum allowable compensation amount for
Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist Incentive Special Pay (CRNA ISP)
and the Nurse Accession Bonus (NAB) in the fiscal year 2003 National
Defense Authorization Act will further enhance our competitive edge in
the nursing market.''
Salaries in the civilian sector will continue to create incentives
for CRNAs to separate from the military, especially at the lower grades
without a competitive incentive from the military to retain CRNAs.
Therefore, it is vitally important that the Incentive Special Pay (ISP)
be increased to $50,000 to ensure the retention of CRNAs in the
military
AANA thanks this Committee for its support of the annual ISP for
nurse anesthetists. AANA strongly recommends the continuation and an
increase in the annual funding for ISP from $15,000 to $50,000 for
fiscal year 2004, which recognizes the special skills and advanced
education that CRNAs bring to the DOD health care system.
Board Certification Pay for Nurses
Included in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization bill was
language authorizing the implementation of a board certification pay
for certain non-MD health care professionals, including advanced
practice nurses. AANA is highly supportive of board certification pay
for all advanced practice nurses. The establishment of this type of pay
for nurses recognizes that there are levels of excellence in the
profession of nursing that should be recognized, just as in the medical
profession. In addition, this pay may assist in closing the earnings
gap, which may help with retention of CRNAs.
While many CRNAs have received board certification pay, there are
many that remain ineligible. Since certification to practice, as a CRNA
does not require a specific master's degree, many nurse anesthetists
have chosen to diversify their education by pursuing an advanced degree
in other related fields. But CRNAs with master's degrees in education,
administration, or management are not eligible for board certification
pay since their graduate degree is not in a clinical specialty. Many
CRNAs who have non-clinical master's degrees either chose or were
guided by their respective services to pursue a degree other than in a
clinical specialty. Many feel that diversity in education equates to a
stronger, more viable profession. CRNAs do utilize education and
management principles in their everyday practice and these skills are
vital to performance of their duties. To deny a bonus to these
individuals is unfair, and will certainly affect their morale as they
work side-by-side with their less-experienced colleagues, who will
collect a bonus for which they are not eligible. In addition, in the
future this bonus will act as a financial disincentive for nurse
anesthetists to diversify and broaden their horizons.
AANA encourages DOD and the respective services to reexamine the
issue of awarding board certification pay only to CRNAs who have
clinical master's degrees.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the AANA believes that the recruitment and retention
of CRNAs in the Services is of critical concern. The efforts detailed
above will assist the Services in maintaining the military's ability to
meet its wartime and medical mobilization through the funding of the
Critical Skills Retention Bonus and an increase in ISP. Also, we
believe that the inclusion of Anesthesiologists Assistants (AAs) in the
TRICARE system would impair the military medical readiness capability
of the services, and should not be approved. In addition we commend and
thank this committee for their continued support for CRNAs in the
military.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Dr. Lester. Would you
tell me, just real briefly, the difference in training between
a CRNA and an AA?
Dr. Lester. A CRNA is based--first, to be a CRNA you have
to be a registered nurse first and to have critical care
experience.
Senator Burns. AA does not?
Dr. Lester. No, sir. They have to have a bachelor's degree
and may be required to have some basic science courses, but
there is no requirement in any of their programs, their two
programs, that they have any medical background at all prior to
entering the AA training program.
Senator Burns. Do you know if my State of Montana is one of
those States that you mentioned, one of the five?
Dr. Lester. I do not believe so.
Senator Burns. No?
Dr. Lester. I do not believe so.
Senator Burns. The reason I ask you the question is that
this has come up in conversation. I have a daughter that is a
medical doctor. She is a family physician, but she used to
deliver babies until the insurance became prohibitive and so
she decided to drop that part of her practice. And this kind of
came up in a conversation.
So I appreciate your testimony today and thank you for
coming forward.
We would like to call Dr. John Sommerer, Chief Technology
Officer for the Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins
University, Coalition for National Security Research. Dr.
Sommerer, thank you for coming this morning.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SOMMERER, Ph.D., CHIEF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICER, APPLIED PHYSICS LAB, JOHNS HOPKINS
UNIVERSITY; ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION FOR
NATIONAL SECURITY RESEARCH
Dr. Sommerer. Thank you, Senator. My name is John Sommerer
and I am the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) for the Johns
Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab. I am here today on
behalf of the Coalition for National Security Research, a
broadly based group of over 50 scientific, engineering,
mathematical, behavioral societies, universities, and
industrial associations committed to a stronger defense science
and technology base.
First, I would like to thank this committee for your strong
support of defense science and technology. Without the
appropriated funding levels for the past few years, we would
not be working on some very important national security
technology today.
This year we have concerns in three areas of the S&T budget
that your committee should consider. First, its overall
investment level. The budget request is $600 million less than
last year's appropriations. Various studies and recommendations
suggest that to remain competitive DOD should invest about 3
percent of its budget every year in science and technology, or
about $11.4 billion total. That proposition has been repeatedly
endorsed by the administration.
In order to continue important research already in
progress, about $11 billion will be required, which would move
closer to the administration's goal of 3 percent. We urge your
support in achieving this goal within the next several years.
Second, we want to express some concern with DOD's plan to
transfer the S&T programs presently under Office of Secretary
of Defense management to the individual services. The purpose
of such a move appears to be to remove OSD staff from the day-
to-day program management of individual programs and allow a
better focus on long-term planning and oversight, and we agree
with such management efficiencies. But our concern is what
happens to the science and technology products that need a
broader management perspective than that provided by the
individual services.
We urge caution to ensure that these programs will continue
to address the fundamental cross-cutting technologies
originally intended and we would suggest that OSD retain
oversight of the University Research Initiative and other
critical research initiatives until management plans are in
place to ensure that critical work remains on track.
Finally, in the area of basic research, let me urge that
DOD's 6.1 basic research program be provided stable funding
over many years. I cannot derive a specific number for you, but
we do know that it must be gradually increased each year as the
national needs for technology change. We also know that lack of
stability in this account significantly impedes the progress of
research as well as the transition of that research to
practical application.
In closing, Senator Burns, let me cite some of the Applied
Physics Laboratory's (APL) science and technology work that is
making a difference in national security. We saw during
Operation Iraqi Freedom the tremendous military advantages
offered by precision guided weapons. As it turns out, the road
to that capability started in the very office where I work
every day. One of my predecessors, Dr. Frank McClure, invented
satellite navigation there in 1958.
Notwithstanding the genius of his vision, it took many
years of research in areas as diverse as computing,
electronics, atomic clocks, and space physics to come to
fruition. Satellite navigation now makes it possible for our
military forces to reliably hit a target whose coordinates are
known day or night, in any weather.
Today the Applied Physics Laboratory continues to advance
the concept of precision engagement, but the challenge now
focuses on rapidly identifying the targets, locating them, and
engaging them before they can move. In one project we are
developing the capability for groups of uninhabited air
vehicles to operate in a coordinated way to locate, confirm,
and relay coordinates, all without operator intervention.
Another S&T program is developing the propulsion technology
to enable next-generation strike weapons to reach targets in
minutes after launch rather than the hours now taken by our
most advanced cruise missiles.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Department of
Defense science and technology program. It would be a pleasure
to welcome you, other members of the committee, and your staff
to APL to see first-hand some of the exciting research being
done with the support of DOD and this subcommittee.
I would be happy to answer any questions, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. John Sommerer
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
here to testify today on behalf of the Coalition for National Security
Research, a broadly based group of scientific, engineering,
mathematical and behavioral societies, universities and industrial
associations committed to a stronger defense science and technology
base.
There are three issues of primary importance in looking at the
defense Science and Technology (S&T) budget this year: overall
investment levels, appropriate balance among the accounts, and the
department's proposal to devolve--or transfer--programs currently under
the Office of the Secretary (OSD) to the services.
On funding, we urge the subcommittee to approve robust and stable
funding for Department of Defense (DOD) basic (6.1), applied (6.2) and
advanced technology development (6.3) elements in fiscal year 2004.
Specifically, CNSR joins many other organizations in urging the
subcommittee to increase the S&T program to $11.4 billion in fiscal
year 2004, or 3 percent of the overall departmental budget, as
recommended by the Defense Science Board, the Quadrennial Defense
Review, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and numerous
departmental officials. These programs are the foundation of the
Department's Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E)
activity. They feed our procurement needs, enhance our readiness and
modernization efforts, provide technologies to protect our forces, and
contribute to the most technologically advanced, best trained, lethal,
fighting force in the world. As we have seen in numerous recent news
reports, investments made in innovative research over the last 30 years
have yielded impressive and flexible technological results and tools to
address the current challenges we face. I want to express deep
appreciation for the Committee's past support and for the fiscal year
2003 funding approved for these programs.
With consideration of the fiscal year 2004 budget, it is important
to recognize the critical role DOD S&T plays in ensuring the future
national security of the United States and the safety and effectiveness
of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Simultaneously, these
defense science programs contribute to the research enterprise of the
country and to the education of tomorrow's scientists, engineers and
policy makers. The Department provides a critical investment in several
disciplines--including engineering, physical, math, computer and
behavioral sciences--vital to our future national security.
As you are aware, previous investments in defense science and
technology have led to breakthrough developments in areas such as
thermobaric bombs, distributed networking, advanced materials, global
navigation, precision guidance, and stealth technology that have
equipped America's men and women in uniform with the finest
technologies in the world.
As we have seen in recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
research in remotely-operated mini-robots, unmanned air, land and sea
vehicles, remote medicine, chemical and mechanical sensors, large scale
battlefield simulations and advanced data memory systems protect the
warfighters of the future by removing them from harm's way, providing
on-site emergency medical care, identifying dangerous environments,
improving training and speeding data availability and usability.
The support of this subcommittee is critical to ensuring that we
maintain a viable S&T base to meet our future security needs on land,
in the air, and at sea.
A second issue related to funding, I would like to mention deals
specifically with support for the department's most basic and
innovative research programs. Diversion of funds from 6.1 accounts to
meet shortages in other accounts undermines the long-term goal of
defense transformation and future capabilities development. As our
nation's leaders address future challenges and the transformation of
our national defense, long-term 6.1 projects must again become a
centerpiece of the department's S&T program and must remain focused on
real frontiers of discovery.
The final issue on which I want to touch briefly concerns the
department's plans to transfer about $500 million in S&T programs from
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to the services. CNSR
supports the Department of Defense's goal of moving resources from the
``bureaucracy to the battlefield'' and plans by OSD to focus activities
on long term strategic planning. Nevertheless, we are concerned that
some proposals for implementation of this worthy goal will negatively
impact transformation efforts, the long term technological superiority
of the United States military, and the science and engineering
workforce on which it relies.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress for the department
would transfer--or devolve--a group of critical, joint,
multidisciplinary programs from OSD to the services. Given the results
of previous, similar reorganization proposals, we believe such a move
could damage the unique nature and design of these programs and would
inherently inhibit cross-service integration and coordination, while
placing additional burdens on the services and offering very little
benefit toward stated goals.
CNSR is confident that an increased focus on long-term strategic
needs of the armed services would highlight the important role S&T
programs, like the University Research Initiative, play in training the
needed scientific and engineering workforce required by this nation,
and in assuring that the latest technology is always available to meet
changing threats and evolving challenges. Given the long-term nature of
basic research, any damage to the programs, though it may not be easily
spotted in the near term, will result in the loss of the U.S.
technology lead and will require an even greater corrective investment
in the future.
In order to continue moving toward stated overall investment goals
for S&T and to carry out strategic decisions most effectively, OSD--as
the most appropriate entity to facilitate jointness--will need
controlling authority over basic research programs and budgets. OSD
should retain current oversight and management of the University
Research Initiative and other critical research initiatives until
management plans are detailed and tested.
I have provided some additional information below to highlight some
examples of the results of DOD S&T investments, which have both
national security and domestic applications. Thank you for your time,
Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington,
Seattle, has developed under U.S. Navy sponsorship, a high resolution,
imaging sonar for underwater mine detection and identification in poor
visibility waters such as those commonly encountered in ports and
harbors. The unique sonar, based on acoustic technology that mimics the
optical lens and retina of the human eye, produces a picture-like
image. One version of the sonar is designed to be the eyes' of the
unmanned, autonomous, underwater vehicles being developed for mine
clearance and special operations. A hand-held version enables a diver
to easily and accurately distinguish between mines and false targets
such as mine-like debris, and to identify specific mine types in zero-
visibility water. It is intended to assist Special Forces and Explosive
Ordnance Disposal teams and has been used in Bahrain.
In response to the need to deter and counter the use of biological
and chemical weapons of mass destruction, the Applied Physics
Laboratory of the Johns Hopkins University is working under DARPA
sponsorship to develop and test new technologies that will protect both
military and civilian populations. Advanced Time-of-Flight Mass
Spectrometer instruments are being tested to rapidly detect a broad
range of biological pathogens and chemical warfare agents. Background
Environmental Characterization and Biosurviellance networks are being
tested to measure anomalous behavior that could signal the terrorist
use of biological and chemical warfare agents. These developments will
give us the capability to deal with today's threat spectrum and future
emerging threats.
The University of South Carolina, through its DEPSCoR supported
Industrial Mathematics Institute (IMI), has developed algorithms and
software that enable the rapid display, querying and registration of
Digital Terrain Maps. This software is of potential value in mission
planning, autonomous and semi-autonomous navigation, rapid targeting
and post battlefield assessment.
A DOD-funded researcher at the University of California at
Berkeley, using a pair of Plexiglas wings he called ``Robofly,'' for
the first time provided a comprehensive explanation of how insects fly.
The research could lead to the development of tiny flying devices that
could be dispatched in swarms to spy on enemy forces.
Improved energy efficiency throughout the Defense Department and
its mission activities--testing, training, operations, facilities--has
the potential to save the federal government, and in turn the taxpayer,
millions per year. Fuel cells are among the most promising sources of
clean energy needed for numerous civil and military devices. The
development of efficient electrocatalysts is essential to the
improvement of fuel cell performances. Researchers at the University of
South Carolina, supported by DOD S&T funding, are applying theoretical
and computational methods to the understanding of electrocatalysis,
focusing on the electron reduction of oxygen on platinum electrodes.
No one foresaw the enormous range of applications and whole
industries that have evolved from the Defense-sponsored discovery of
lasers. The basic concepts leading to the development of the laser were
discovered in a microwave research program at Columbia University
funded by the three Services. Lasers were combined with transistors and
the billion-dollar fiber optic industry resulted. Fiber optic
communications, compact disk players, laser printers, procedures to
reattach eye retinas and new cancer surgeries all exist because of
these breakthroughs, the result of Defense Basic Research.
In response to threats due to inadequate or outdated mission
terrain mapping tools, the Georgia Institute of Technology developed
Falcon View, a laptop-mapping software. Designed for the U.S. Air
Force, U.S. Special Operations Command and the U.S. Navy, Falcon View
integrates aeronautical charts, satellite images and other data to
provide detailed, up-to-date data imagery to flight crews conducting
mission planning using relatively simple laptop computers. The system
is credited with reducing typical mission planning time from seven
hours or more down to twenty minutes.
DARPA and ONR-sponsored researchers at Duke University Medical
Center and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have tested a
neural system in animals that utilizes implanted electrodes to assist
brain signals in controlling robotics. Scientists transmitted the brain
signals over the Internet, remotely controlling a robot arm 600 miles
away. The recording and analysis system could form the basis for a
brain-machine interface that would allow paralyzed patients to control
the movement of prosthetic limbs. The finding also supports new
thinking about how the brain encodes information, by spreading it
across large populations of neurons and by rapidly adapting to new
circumstances.
In the late 1960's, DOD-initiated research to explore linking
computers in different geographical locations to improve communication
between their users. The research produced the world's first packet-
switched network, the ARPANET, which connected major universities. As a
result, more and more people gained access to more powerful computers.
Innovation in network design and improved research spawned a new breed
of information scientists who expanded the network to every corner of
the country and the world. Electronic mail, which was considered
earlier to be of minor interest to users, has become the most used
service of computer networks. Through ARPANET, Defense Basic Research
made it possible to launch the National Information Infrastructure.
Senator Burns. Dr. Sommerer, you hit on an area that I
worked very hard on over on the Commerce Committee, which is
R&D and the work that we have done especially in science and
technology. I have made many speeches and there has been one
invention in the last 50 years that has completely been the
bridge to everything that we have ever done electronically
since. I do not think there are very many people in the world
that understand how big the invention of the transistor was to
electronics and everything that we do now, especially with the
smart equipment that we are using now. That could never have
been done had that invention never happened.
The ramifications it has had in the last--well, I guess it
will be 50 years.
Dr. Sommerer. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. Gosh, that was--I remember when it happened.
I am getting pretty damned old here.
But the ramifications that that has had have been enormous.
So your end of this world is a very important one to us and we
appreciate your testimony today and we thank you for coming.
Dr. Sommerer. Thank you, sir.
Senator Burns. You bet.
We now call Captain Robert C. Hurd, Headquarters Liaison to
Congress, the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps. Thank you
for coming, Captain.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN ROBERT C. HURD, USN (RETIRED),
HEADQUARTERS LIASION TO CONGRESS, UNITED
STATES NAVAL SEA CADET CORPS
Captain Hurd. Well, thank you for having me, sir. The Naval
Sea Cadet Corps is a congressionally-chartered youth
development and education program sponsored by the Navy League,
supported by the Navy and Coast Guard, with over 10,000 cadets,
run by 2,000 adult volunteers. Our goals are development of
young men and women ages 11 through 17 by promoting interest
and skill in seamanship and aviation, instilling a sense of
patriotism, courage, self-reliance, confidence, and those
qualities which mold strong moral character and self-discipline
in a drug-free and a gang-free environment.
Cadets attend boot camp and in the following summers they
train on board Navy and Coast Guard ships or, in specific areas
of advanced disciplines, ashore. They drill one weekend a month
and they take Navy correspondence courses, the basis for
accelerated promotion of a cadet who decides to enlist in the
Navy or the Coast Guard.
There are now 466 ex-Sea Cadets attending the U.S. Naval
Academy. Annually between 400 and 600 ex-cadets enlist in the
services, pre-screened, highly motivated, and well prepared.
Prior Sea Cadet experience has been proven to be an excellent
indicator of a potentially high career success rate. Navy
annual accession recruiting costs average over $11,000 per
person, which, applied to the number of Sea Cadet accessions,
represents a significant financial benefit to the Navy.
Whether or not they choose a service career, all Sea Cadets
carry forth learned values of good citizenship, leadership, and
moral courage that will ultimately benefit themselves and our
country.
The major difference between this and all the other
federally-chartered military youth programs is that Sea Cadets
pay for all their own expenses, including their uniforms, their
travel, insurance, and training costs, which can run $400 to
$500 a year. We are also particularly sensitive to the fact
that no young person be denied access to the program because of
his or her social or economic background.
Federally funded at only half of the $2 million requested
to fill the unfunded Navy budget requirement for the past 3
years, all of these funds are used to help offset cadets' out
of pocket costs and to conduct background checks for the adult
volunteers. With the Federal funding received, training
participation has increased by over 30 percent, 37 percent.
However, for a variety of reasons the current level of funding
can no longer sustain this program. They include inflation,
all-time high cadet enrollment, base closures, reduced base
access due to the terrorism alerts, reduced afloat training
opportunities due to the Iraq War, and nonavailability of
previously provided space A transportation, on-base open bay
berthing, and transportation.
It is therefore considered to be a matter of extreme
importance to us that the full requested $2 million be
authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2004 and we
respectfully request your consideration and support to this
end. Unfortunately, time precludes my sharing stories with you
about, such as the State of Washington recently honoring an 11-
year-old Sea Cadet for singlehandedly putting out a major
restaurant fire, or for the Ohio unit fulfilling a World War II
veteran's dying wish to be buried in uniform, which the cadets
purchased and then followed through by providing military
graveside honors for the family, or the post-9/11 story of the
Sea Cadets volunteering to be buried in the rubble of Ground
Zero so that the body-sniffing dogs could maintain their
proficiency by seeking them out.
These and many more stories like them are the stories that
you do not read about in the press, and we really think our
kids are worthy of all the support we can give them.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain Robert C. Hurd
REQUEST
Funded in fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002 and again in fiscal
year 2003, continued Congressional appropriation in the Navy Recruiting
Budget (Operations and Maintenance Navy--Title II, Budget Activity 3)
is essential to expand the Naval Sea Cadet Corps into more communities.
Unlike all other federally chartered military youth groups, the Sea
Cadets themselves pay almost all program costs, including uniforms,
training costs, insurance and transportation to/from training. Funding
to offset Cadet out-of-pocket training costs at a level commensurate
with that received by other federally chartered military related youth
programs, as well as adult volunteer training costs, is needed to
increase program access by America's youth, regardless of economic or
social background, and develop the fine citizens our country needs and
deserves.
Request fiscal year 2004 authorization and appropriation of the
full requested amount of $2 million for the Naval Sea Cadet Corps.
BACKGROUND
At the request of the Department of the Navy, the Navy League of
the United States established the Naval Sea Cadet Corps in 1958 to
``create a favorable image of the Navy on the part of American youth.''
On September 10, 1962, the U.S. Congress federally chartered the Naval
Sea Cadet Corps under Public Law 87-655 as a non-profit civilian youth
training organization for young people, ages 13 through 17. A National
Board of Directors, whose Chairman serves as the National Vice
President of the Navy League for Youth Programs, establishes NSCC
policy and management guidance for operation and administration. A
full-time Executive Director and small staff in Arlington, Virginia
administer NSCC's day-to-day operations. These professionals work with
volunteer regional directors, unit commanding officers, and local
sponsors. They also collaborate with Navy League councils and other
civic, or patriotic organizations, and with local school systems.
In close cooperation with, and the support of, the U.S. Navy and
U.S. Coast Guard, the Sea Cadet Corps allows youth to sample military
life without obligation to join the Armed Forces. Cadets and adult
leaders are authorized to wear the Navy uniform, appropriately modified
with a distinctive Sea Cadet insignia.
There are currently over 338 Sea Cadet units with a program total
of 11,577 participants (2,107 adult Officers and Instructors and 9,470
Cadets (about 33 percent female). This is an all time high enrollment
for the program.
NSCC OBJECTIVES
Develop an interest and skill in seamanship and seagoing subjects.
Develop an appreciation for our Navy's history, customs, traditions
and its significant role in national defense.
Develop positive qualities of patriotism, courage, self-reliance,
confidence, pride in our nation and other attributes, which contribute
to development of strong moral character, good citizenship traits and a
drug-free, gang-free lifestyle.
Present the advantages and prestige of a military career.
Under the Cadet Corps' umbrella is the Navy League Cadet Corps
(NLCC), a youth program for children ages 11 through 13. While it is
not part of the federal charter provided by Congress, the Navy League
of the United States sponsors NLCC.
NLCC was established ``. . . to give young people mental, moral,
and physical training through the medium of naval and other
instruction, with the objective of developing principles of patriotism
and good citizenship, instilling in them a sense of duty, discipline,
self-respect, self-confidence, and a respect for others.''
BENEFITS
Naval Sea Cadets experience a unique opportunity for personal
growth, development of self-esteem and self-confidence. Their
participation in a variety of activities within a safe, alcohol-free,
drug-free, and gang-free environment provides a positive alternative to
other less favorable temptations. The Cadet Corps introduces young
people to nautical skills, to maritime services and to a military life
style. The program provides the young Cadet the opportunity to
experience self-reliance early on, while introducing this Cadet to
military life without any obligation to join a branch of the armed
forces. The young Cadet realizes the commitment required and routinely
excels within the Navy and Coast Guard environments.
Naval Sea Cadets receive first-hand knowledge of what life in the
Navy or Coast Guard is like. This realization ensures the likelihood of
success should they opt for a career in military service. For example,
limited travel abroad and in Canada may be available, as well as the
opportunity to train onboard Navy and Coast Guard ships, craft and
aircraft. These young people may also participate in shore activities
ranging from training as a student at a Navy hospital to learning the
fundamentals of aviation maintenance at a Naval Air Station.
The opportunity to compete for college scholarships is particularly
significant. Since 1975, 141 Cadets have received financial assistance
in continuing their education in a chosen career field at college.
ACTIVITIES
Naval Sea Cadets pursue a variety of activities including
classroom, practical and hands-on training as well as field trips,
orientation visits to military installations, and cruises on Navy and
Coast Guard ships and small craft. They also participate in a variety
of community and civic events.
The majority of Sea Cadet training and activities occurs year round
at a local training or ``drill'' site. Often, this may be a military
installation or base, a reserve center, a local school, civic hall, or
sponsor-provided building. During the summer, activities move from the
local training site and involve recruit training (boot camp),
``advanced'' training of choice, and a variety of other training
opportunities (depending on the Cadet's previous experience and
desires).
SENIOR LEADERSHIP
Volunteer Naval Sea Cadet Corps officers and instructors furnish
senior leadership for the program. They willingly contribute their time
and effort to serve America's youth. The Cadet Corps programs succeed
because of their dedicated, active participation and commitment to the
principles upon which the Corps was founded.
Cadet Corps officers are appointed from the civilian sector or from
active, reserve or retired military status. All are required to take
orientation, intermediate and advanced Officer Professional Development
courses to increase their management and youth leadership skills.
Appointment as an officer in the Sea Cadet Corps does not, in itself,
confer any official military rank. However, a Navy-style uniform,
bearing NSCC insignia, is authorized and worn. Cadet Corps officers
receive no pay or allowances. Yet, they do derive some benefits, such
as limited use of military facilities and space available air travel in
conjunction with carrying out training duty orders.
DRUG-FREE AND GANG-FREE ENVIRONMENT
One of the most important benefits of the Sea Cadet program is that
it provides participating youth a peer structure and environment that
places maximum emphasis on a drug and gang free environment. Supporting
this effort is a close liaison with the U.S. Department of Justice Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA offers the services of all
DEA Demand Reduction Coordinators to provide individual unit training,
as well as their being an integral part of our boot camp training
program.
Among a variety of awards and ribbons that Cadets can work toward
is the Drug Reduction Service Ribbon, awarded to those who display
outstanding skills in he areas of leadership, perseverance and courage.
Requirements include intensive anti-drug program training and giving
anti-drug presentations to interested community groups.
TRAINING
Local Training Local training, held at the unit's drill site,
includes a variety of activities supervised by qualified Sea Cadet
Corps officers and instructors, as well as Navy and Coast Guard
instructors.
Cadets receive classroom instruction in basic military
requirements, seamanship, water safety, core personal values, social
amenities, drug/alcohol abuse, cultural relations, Navy history,
customs and traditions and other nautical skills. Training may be held
aboard ships, small boats or aircraft, depending upon the availability
of a platform. Cadets also learn about civilian and military career
opportunities during special career counseling sessions such as fire
fighting and law enforcement.
Special presentations by military and civilian officials are part
of the local training as are educational tours, briefings and
attendance at special events. Participation in parades, social work and
other civic activities are encouraged as part of the whole-person-
training concept.
During the Cadets' first several months, they receive basic
indoctrination to the Sea Cadet program at their local training site in
preparation for summer recruit training.
The Navy League Cadet Corps training program teaches younger Cadets
the virtues of personal neat-ness, loyalty, obedience, courtesy,
dependability and a sense of responsibility for shipmates. In
accordance with a Navy-oriented syllabus, this education prepares them
for the higher level of training they will receive as Naval Sea Cadets.
SUMMER TRAINING
First-year Sea Cadets attend a two-week recruit training period at
the Navy's Recruit Training Command or at a regional recruit training
site. Instructed by Navy or NSCC Recruit Division Commanders, Cadets
receive a condensed version of the basic training which Navy enlistees
receive. Recruit training occurs at a number of regional sites to
handle the overflow from the Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes and
to reduce travel costs to the Cadet as well as the adult volunteer
staff.
A Cadet who successfully completes recruit training is eligible for
advanced training in various fields of choice. Cadets can experience
the excitement of ``hands-on'' practical training aboard Navy and Coast
Guard vessels, ranging from tugboats and cutters to the largest
nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Female Cadets may also train aboard
any ship that has females assigned as part of the ship's company.
Qualified Cadets choose from such Sea Cadet advanced training as
basic/advanced airman, SEAL training, amphibious operations,
leadership, submarine orientation and training in occupational
specialties, including health care, music, master-at-arms and
construction.
The Cadet Corp programs excel in quality and diversity of training
offered, with more than 7,250 training orders carried out for the 2002
summer training program. Cadets faced a myriad of challenging training
opportunities designed to instill leadership and develop self-reliance,
enabling them to become familiar with the full spectrum of Navy and
Coast Guard career fields.
The positive results of federal funding for both 2001 and 2002,
were that for each summer the NSCC has experienced increased recruit
training attendance of about 1,500 cadets per summer over those years
in which federal funding was not available.
While recruit training acquaints cadets with Navy life and Navy
style discipline, advanced training focuses on military and general
career fields and opportunities, and also affords the cadets many
entertaining, drug free, disciplined yet fun activities over the
summer. The popularity of the training continues to grow not with just
overall numbers but also as evidenced with over 500 cadets performing
multiple two week training sessions during the summer of 2002.
Advanced training highlights for 2002
With federal funding available in 2002, the NSCC's focus was
continuing and/or expanding many of the initiatives started in 2001
with a few new advanced training opportunities added.
They included:
--Continued keeping Cadet costs for summer training at a reduced
price of only the deposit ($25 or $50, same as 2001) plus
transportation.
--Accommodated 9/11 required adjustments through training relocations
and/or alternate arrangements to maintain cadet training
opportunity and quotas at above 2001 levels.
--Maintained expanded recruit training and advanced training
opportunity with a grand total of over 7,500 orders issued, a
record high.
--Expanded adult professional development participation.
--Increased total cadet participation in summer and winter training
evolutions to over 6,000 cadets.
--Added two classes in legal (JAG) training.
--Expanded SEAL Orientation under the sponsorship of the UDT-SEAL
Association and Museum Association with the sponsorship of the
Okeechobee County, Florida Sheriff's Department. Maintained
SEAL Orientation training at NAB, Little Creek, VA.
--Maintained East and West Coast sailing training at NAS, Pensacola,
and NAB, Coronado, with expanded classes at each.
--Nearly doubled class size for seamanship training at the State
University of New York Maritime Academy at Fort Schuyler, and
for the second summer in a row maintained seamanship training
aboard USNS merchant ships, homeported on the West Coast.
--Continued 2001 initiative for Honor Guard training in Texas.
--Maintained expanded YP training on the Great Lakes at participation
levels above 2001.
--Placed 4 cadets onboard USCG Barque Eagle for two, three week
underway orientation cruises.
--Maintained placement of cadets aboard USCG stations, cutters, and
tenders for what many consider among the best of the training
opportunities offered in the NSCC.
--Once again filled all quotas for the popular, merit based,
International Exchange program, with 72 cadet participants and
20 escorts for 2002.
--Kept all quotas filled to all the NSCC Petty Officer Leadership
Academies, (POLA) graduating over 270 cadets at 10 training
sites.
--Maintained SCUBA training opportunities with two classes in 2002.
--Increased MAA and police science from 4 classes to 5.
--Maintained placement of cadets onboard USN ships under local orders
as operating schedules and opportunity permitted.
--As was the case in 2001 and all prior years, once again enjoyed
particularly outstanding support from members of the United
States Naval Reserve, whose help and leadership remains
essential for summer training.
INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE
NSCC operates an international exchange program with Naval Sea
Cadet units in Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan,
Korea, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
Each summer, outstanding Cadets are selected to serve as young
ambassadors and train with their global counterparts. The NSCC
continued in 2002 its' redesigned, highly competitive, merit based, and
very low cost to the cadet, International Exchange Program and placed
cadets in Australia, Korea, Hong Kong, United Kingdom, Sweden,
Netherlands, and Bermuda to train with fellow cadets in these host
nations. The NSCC and Canada maintained their traditional exchanges in
Nova Scotia and British Columbia, and the NSCC hosted visiting cadets
in Norfolk for two weeks of U.S. Navy style training.
NAVY LEAGUE CADET TRAINING
In 2002, over 1,185 Navy League Cadets and escorts attended
orientation training at 15 different sites. This diversity in location
made training accessible and reasonably available to each Cadet who
wished to attend. Over 373 League Cadets and escorts attended advanced
training at several sites. The advanced program was developed in
recognition of the need to provide follow-on training for this younger
age group to sustain their interest and to better prepare them for the
challenges of Naval Sea Cadet Corps training. Navy League Cadets who
attend recruit orientation training are exceptionally well prepared for
Sea Cadet ``boot camp.'' The number of NLCC Cadets who participated in
summer training was a third higher than normal. Again, this was
directly attributable to the federal funding received.
TRAINING GRANTS
Through contributions from Douglas and Christine Peterson, the
Donner Foundation, and the federal funds, every Cadet who desired to
attend summer training had that opportunity. Approximately 1500 more
Cadet orders were written than in previous years. This milestone is a
direct result of funds received for NSCC/NLCC to participate in the
Corps' summer training.
SCHOLARSHIPS
The Naval Sea Cadet Corps Scholarship program was established to
provide financial assistance to deserving Cadets who wished to further
their education at the college level. Established in 1975, the
scholarship program consists of a family of funds: the NSCC Scholarship
Fund; the Navy League Stockholm Scholarship; the San Diego Gas &
Electric Fund; grants from the Lewis A. Kingsley Foundation; and the
NSCC ``named scholarship'' program, designed to recognize an
individual, corporation, organization or foundation. Under this latter
program two new funds have been established to commence scholarships.
The estate of June Howell has forwarded funds to establish a
scholarship in the name of her parents--Harry and Rose Howell. Also,
from the estate of Robert C. Hutton, an aviation orientation
scholarship has been established. Since the inception of the
scholarship program, 149 scholarships have been awarded to 141 Cadets
(includes some renewals) totaling over $160,000.
SERVICE ACCESSIONS
The Naval Sea Cadet Corps was formed at the request of the
Department of the Navy as a means to ``enhance the Navy image in the
minds of American youth.'' To accomplish this, ongoing presentations
illustrate to Naval Sea Cadets the advantages and benefits of careers
in the armed services, and in particular, the sea services.
While there is no service obligation associated with the Naval Sea
Cadet Corps program, many Sea Cadets choose to enlist or enroll in
Officer training programs in all the Services.
Annually, the NSCC conducts a survey to determine the approximate
number of Cadets making this career decision. This survey is conducted
during the annual inspections of the units. The reported Cadet
accessions to the services are only those that are known to the unit at
that time. There are many accessions that occur in the 2-3 year
timeframe after Cadets leave their units, which go unreported. For
example, for the year 2000, with about 83 percent of the units
reporting, the survey indicates that 510 known Cadets entered the armed
forces during the reporting year ending 31 December 2000. Of these, 30
ex-Sea Cadets were reported to have received appointments to the U.S.
Naval Academy. Further liaison with the USNA indicates that in fact,
there are currently 466 Midshipmen with Sea Cadet backgrounds--almost
10 percent of the entire Brigade. Navy accession recruiting costs have
averaged over $11,000 per person, officer or enlisted, which applied to
the number of Sea Cadet accessions represents a significant financial
benefit to the Navy. Equally important is the expectation that once a
more accurate measurement methodology can be found, is, that since Sea
Cadets enter the Armed Forces as disciplined, well trained and
motivated individuals, their retention, graduation and first term
enlistment completion rates are perhaps the highest among any other
entry group. USNA officials are currently studying graduation rates for
past years for ex-Sea Cadets as a group as compared to the entire
Brigade. Their preliminary opinion is that these percents will be among
the highest. It is further expected that this factor will be an
excellent indicator of the following, not only for the USNA, but for
all officer and enlisted programs the Sea Cadets may enter:
--Extremely high motivation of ex-Cadets to enter the Service.
--Excellent background provided by the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet
experience in preparing and motivating Cadets to enter the
Service.
--Prior U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps experience is an excellent pre-
screening opportunity for young men and women to evaluate their
interest in pursuing a military career. This factor could
potentially save considerable tax-payer dollars expended on
individuals who apply for, then resign after entering the
Academy if they decide at some point they do not have the
interest or motivation.
--U.S. Naval Sea Cadet experience prior to entering the Service is an
excellent indicator of a potentially high success rate.
Data similar to the above has been requested from the United States
Coast Guard Academy and the United States Merchant Marine Academy.
Whether or not they choose a service career, all Sea Cadets carry
forth learned values of good citizenship, leadership and moral courage
that will benefit themselves and our country.
Program Finances
Sea Cadets pay for all expenses, including travel to/from training,
uniforms, insurance and training costs. Out-of-pocket costs can reach
$400-$500 each year. Assistance is made available so that no young
person is denied access to the program, regardless of social or
economic background.
Federally funded at the $1,000,000 level (of the $2,000,000
requested) in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003, all of these fund were
used to offset individual Cadet's individual costs for summer training,
conduct of background checks for adult volunteers and for reducing
future enrollment costs for Cadets. In addition to the federal fund
received ($1 million), NSCC receives under $700,000 per year from other
sources, which includes around $226,000 in enrollment fees from Cadets
and adult volunteers. For a variety of reasons, this current level of
funding can no longer sustain this program:
--All time high in number of enrolled Sea Cadets (and growing).
--General inflation of all costs.
--Some bases denying planned access to Sea Cadets for training due to
increased terrorism threat level alerts and the associated
tightening of security measures--requiring Cadets to utilize
alternative, and often more costly training alternatives
--Reduced availability of afloat training opportunities due to the
Navy's high level of operations related to the Iraq war.
--Reduced training site opportunities due to base closures.
--Non-availability of open bay berthing opportunities for Cadets due
to their elimination as a result of enlisted habitability
upgrades to individual/double berthing spaces.
--Lack of available ``Space Available'' transportation for group
movements.
--Lack of on-base transportation, as the navy no longer ``owns''
busses now controlled by the GSA.
Because of these factors, Cadet out-of-pocket costs have
skyrocketed to the point where the requested $2,000,000 alone is
insufficient to handle cost increases, not to mention the impact if, as
in past years, only $1,000,000 is approved and appropriated.
It is therefore considered a matter of urgency that the full amount
of the requested $2,000,000 be authorized and appropriated for fiscal
year 2004.
Senator Burns. Thank you. Thank you, Captain Hurd. Not only
are the kids good kids, but they have got a great advocate,
too.
Captain Hurd. Thank you, sir.
Senator Burns. Thank you for coming today.
Captain Hurd. Thank you.
Senator Burns. We now call Dennis Achgill, Director of
Public Affairs, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. I may
have to run here. Does anybody know where Stevens is?
Thank you for coming today, by the way, and I apologize for
the conditions under which you have to testify.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS ACHGILL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL
ENGINEERS
Mr. Achgill. Thank you very much. I appear before you today
as a representative of a committee of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) International, concerned with
Federal funding of research and development. ASME International
has 125,000 members, including 20,000 students.
Mechanical engineers are a major part of the Nation's
technology base, a base that is essential for the Nation's
defense. The DOD's science and technology program contains
elements incorporating significant mechanical engineering
research. DOD has been the dominant source of Federal research
funding, 70 percent and 66 percent respectively, for the
electrical and mechanical engineering disciplines. Therefore,
we appreciate the opportunity to appear before your
subcommittee to present our views on the importance of the S&T
accounts.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Defense
Science Board, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and the
President's Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace
Industry, and based on the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
request for the Department of Defense, we urge the members of
this subcommittee to provide 3 percent of the total DOD budget,
or $11.4 billion, for the Department's core science and
technology programs for fiscal year 2004.
During the past decade funding for the defense S&T programs
has been below this threshold and essentially flat in constant
dollars. As a result, the job market for engineers in the
defense sector has shrunk, leaving little incentive for young
engineers to seek defense-related career opportunities. The
defense industry has thus had great difficulty in attracting
and retaining the best of the best engineering and scientific
talents of this Nation.
In addition, universities are having difficulty attracting
postgraduate students who rely on S&T funding for their
support. Doctoral engineering enrollments are at a 10-year low.
Students from overseas who study in the United States are
increasingly returning to their home countries for more
attractive opportunities.
Continued unabated, the repercussions of a stagnant defense
investment in research will inevitably extend to the commercial
sector as well. Without question, America's civil aviation
industry has benefited greatly from technological advances in
defense. The situation facing the United States could be a
technologically deficient military together with a subpar civil
aviation industry. Obviously, neither scenario is in the best
interests of the Nation.
The valuable contributions of our engineers and scientists
have been a constant and powerful force over the past century.
These contributions could not have been made without the vision
and support of Members of Congress like yourselves who promote
the continued strengthening of this Nation's investment in the
DOD science and technology programs. Your continued support in
strengthening defense-related engineering sciences is essential
for meeting the future needs of the country.
Therefore, we urge the members of this subcommittee to
continue to provide a robust and stable investment in the
science and technology programs of the Department of Defense to
ensure our national security and protect our homeland while
educating the future defense science and engineering workforce.
It will take a great deal of continued attention to Defense R&D
to ensure that the best engineering and scientific minds are
once again willing to apply their talents to meeting the future
defense needs of the Nation.
Thank you for this opportunity to offer our views. I will
be pleased to respond to any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis Achgill
The Department of Defense (DOD) Task Force of the ASME Inter-
Council Committee on Federal Research and Development (ICCFRD) of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME International) is
pleased to provide the following comments on the fiscal year 2004
budget request for the Department of Defense.
FINDINGS
The Department of Defense (DOD) Basic Research (category 6.1),
Applied Research (category 6.2) and Advanced Technical Development
(category 6.3) accounts provide the fundamental building blocks for
Defense Science and Technology (S&T) programs.
The President's proposed fiscal year 2004 budget request for the
DOD S&T Program is $9.93 billion, 7.8 percent lower than the fiscal
year 2003 appropriated levels. Basic Research and Applied Research are
down $109 million (7.7 percent) and $618 million (14.4 percent),
respectively. Advanced Technology Development has increased $186
million (3.7 percent), mostly because of increases to classified
programs. Individually, the Army and Navy are experiencing cuts of 27
percent and 21 percent after accounting for programs devolved from the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The Air Force budget is up
3.5 percent, but mostly due to increases to a classified 6.3 program.
In the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD set an S&T funding goal
of 3 percent of the department's Total Obligational Authority (TOA) as
part of its transformation objectives. For the last two years, that
goal has been achieved only after Congress added more than $1 billion
to the President's request in each of those years. The 3 percent goal
was recently reaffirmed by the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and three senior
officers representing the three services at a March 31st hearing before
the Senate Armed Services, Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee. This reaffirmation is in contradiction to a barely
greater than inflation growth in fiscal year 2004 President's budget
Request (PBR) over the fiscal year 2003 PBR and a Future Years Defense
Plan that shows a gradual decline in the percent of TOA budgeted to
S&T.
Defense agencies have historically been the largest source of
federal funding for engineering research in our industry, as well as at
the nation's universities. The universities are significant
collaborators with industry and are the source for young engineering
talent for the defense sector, both public and private. Federal funding
for defense basic and applied research has also provided the majority
of financial support for graduate level education in defense related
fields. DOD has been the dominant source of federal funding, 70 percent
and 66 percent respectively, for the electrical and mechanical
engineering disciplines. DOD also funds more than 40 percent of
academic research in the aerospace and materials engineering fields.
After a decade of defense S&T funding cuts but steady population
growth, it should be no surprise that doctoral engineering enrollments
are at a ten year low. Foreign students who were once counted on to
remain in the United States after graduation are increasingly returning
to their home countries for more attractive opportunities. As a result
of an overall decline in engineering enrollments for much of the past
decade, federal defense laboratories and the defense industry have had
great difficulty in attracting and retaining the best-of-the-best
engineering and scientific talents of this nation. This problem has
only become more critical with the increased focus on security and the
concomitant need to employ citizens in sensitive technology areas.
Nearly a decade of funding declines accompanied by dramatic budget
instability and a pattern in which advanced technology demonstration
programs, designed to accelerate the insertion of research efforts,
were stretched out, delayed and cancelled, resulted in a waste of
valuable resources, and has been a deterrent to attracting a generation
of highly skilled, highly motivated engineers and scientists, the folks
who transform ideas into reality. The decline in support has led to the
loss of irreplaceable research facilities and infrastructure to reduce
federal and corporate overhead costs. In the academic institutions,
many aerospace and other defense related programs of study were
discontinued, thereby weakening the important contributions that these
universities make to the U.S. defense technology base. As research and
development budgets were reduced, the job market for engineers in the
defense sector shrunk, leaving little incentive for young engineers to
seek defense-related career opportunities. The recent budget increases
by the administration and the Congress for DOD S&T must be sustained to
reverse these alarming trends.
The Department of Defense and defense industry now have a workforce
whose average age is increasing at an alarming rate and will continue
to do so until our intellectual resources are replenished. Just as our
country's recent and prolonged economic expansion was largely the
outcome of technological advances that were created by the world's
premier group of talent--U.S. technologists--so has our recent and
prolonged success in military engagements been the outcome of
technological advances made by this national treasure. A February 2003
report by the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) stated, ``Federal support for science and engineering students
enhances economic growth.'' Strengthening defense-related engineering
sciences is essential for meeting the future needs of the DOD and our
economy.
The President's Commission on the Future of the United States
Aerospace Industry has documented the workforce and funding issues
above and recommended in its November 2002 Final Report ``that DOD's
annual science and technology (6.1-6.3) funding must be sufficient and
stable to create and demonstrate the innovative technologies needed to
address future national security threats. An amount no less than three
percent of DOD Total Obligational Authority, ``fenced'' from budget
cuts, would be sufficient.''
In 1998, the Defense Science Board recommended that the
department's science and technology budget be about 3.5 percent of the
total budget. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review stated that, ``A
robust research and development effort is imperative to achieving the
Department's transformation objectives. DOD must maintain a strong
science and technology (S&T) program that supports evolving military
needs and ensures technological superiority over potential
adversaries.'' The review further called ``for a significant increase
in funding for S&T programs to a level of three percent of DOD spending
per year.'' Unfortunately, the current year budget takes a step back
from the progress made last year and the out-year budget projections of
the department project a declining percentage of TOA devoted to S&T.
S&T budgets within the services have also typically experienced
great fluctuations, as the services have struggled to maintain long-
term, stable funding for basic research. Given the long-term nature of
basic research, any damage to the programs, though it may not be easily
spotted in the near term, will result in the loss of the U.S.
technology lead and will require an even greater corrective investment
in the future.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress for the department
would transfer--or devolve--a group of critical, joint,
multidisciplinary programs from the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) to the services. In order to continue moving toward stated
overall investment goals for S&T and to carry out strategic decisions
most effectively, the OSD--as the most appropriate entity to facilitate
jointness--will need controlling authority over basic research programs
and budgets. OSD should retain current oversight and management of
critical research initiatives until management plans are detailed and
tested.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Task Force supports the findings and recommendations of the
Quadrennial Defense Review and the Defense Science Board Task Force to
provide 3 percent of the total Defense Department Budget, or $11
billion for the DOD basic (6.1), applied (6.2) and advanced technology
development (6.3) accounts, which make up the S&T program.
DOD S&T programs provide critical investments in scientific
disciplines vital to ensuring future security--including engineering,
mathematics, and physical, computer, and behavioral sciences. We
strongly concur with the recommendations made in the February 2003
report by the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
for a balanced portfolio of physical and life sciences achieved by a
healthy increase to engineering and physical science budgets such as
DOD's for fiscal year 2004, and beyond. Supporting DOD S&T will ensure
that the best engineering and scientific minds are once again available
and willing to apply their talents to meet the future defense needs of
this nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer our views.
Senator Stevens [presiding]. We do not have any questions,
Mr. Director, but I am sure that you know we work very hard to
support engineering and research, particularly the nanoresearch
area. I appreciate the briefing that the people involved in the
Mechanical Engineers' Society gave us on nanoengineering and
technology and the nanotechnology concepts.
We appreciate your testimony. We will do our best to see to
it we increase that funding.
Mr. Achgill. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Fran Visco--pardon me. First is Chris Hudgins, the Public
Policy Associate, National Prostate Cancer Coalition.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS HUDGINS, PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATE,
NATIONAL PROSTATE CANCER COALITION
Mr. Hudgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
distinguished members of the subcommittee: I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to share my remarks here today.
My name is Chris Hudgins and I am part of the public policy
team at the National Prostate Cancer Coalition.
Since its inception in 1996, the National Prostate Cancer
Coalition has been dedicated to eradicating a disease which
will afflict over 220,000 men this year and claim nearly 29,000
lives. You may be surprised to see someone who is only 25 years
old here today talking about what once was thought to be an old
man's disease.
Senator Stevens. Be careful now. I had it.
Mr. Hudgins. Well, that is why it was once thought, sir.
Unfortunately, I know all too well the story of prostate
cancer and its effect on America's families. In 2000 my
grandfather was diagnosed with prostate cancer. This was quite
shocking to me because I had always thought of him as a strong
and powerful man. He had served his country as a marine during
World War II and during the occupation of Japan. He returned
home and began a career in academics and eventually rose to the
level of president, first at Meredith College in Raleigh, North
Carolina, and later at the University of Richmond in Virginia.
Then he was crippled by a silent killer.
Thanks to the availability of the prostate-specific antigen
(PSA) blood test and the digital rectal exam, both of which are
recommended by the National Prostate Cancer Coalition, my
grandfather was able to catch the disease in its early stages
when it was the most treatable. After having a radical
prostatectomy, my grandfather fully recovered and has returned
to his post as chancellor of the University of Richmond.
Now the focus turns to the other men in my family. As you
may be aware, a person with one close family member with
prostate cancer is twice as likely to develop the disease. My
father, much like the majority of the baby boom generation, is
now in his early fifties. I say this because he, along with 22
million men, in the next 10 years will be in the target age
group for increased risk of prostate cancer.
Since my grandfather's diagnosis, I have encouraged him to
keep a close eye on his PSA level. This is not only because I
love him, but because if he is diagnosed then my and my
brother's risk of the disease will increase fivefold.
As our Nation welcomes home the soldiers who fought so
bravely in Iraq, I cannot help but think of my grandfather
returning home from Japan in 1947. I believe our Nation has a
responsibility to protect America's soldiers on the battlefield
and long after the fighting has ended. Veterans like my
grandfather and the approximately 2.2 million men currently
serving in active or reserve duty must know that their
government is doing everything it can to protect them from
prostate cancer.
Therefore, to effectively fight prostate cancer the
National Prostate Cancer Coalition requests that you allocate
at least $100 million in fiscal year 2004 for the prostate
cancer research program conducted by the Department of
Defense's congressionally-directed medical research program.
Since its inception in 1998, the prostate cancer research
program has been the most efficient Federally-directed prostate
cancer research program because it builds sound accountability
mechanisms into its fundamental operation. The program is also
focused on non-duplication of effort, fostering the science of
projects that are unique and are not receiving funding from
other sources.
The prostate cancer research program has engaged survivors
of prostate cancer into its accountability practices from its
outset. This consumer input helps drive the program to become
more ambitious and creative in seeking out new areas of
research because it maintains its focus on what is important to
survivors, advocates, and researchers.
The prostate cancer research program offers awards such as
the idea development and new investigator grants that seek
innovative and revolutionary studies that deviate from previous
research. The goal is to stimulate venture research projects
that reward sometimes speculative but promising ideas that can
lead to huge returns on investments. Other grant awards focus
on researching the disproportionate impact of prostate cancer
on African American men.
While the prostate cancer research program's award
mechanisms continue to stimulate exciting new research, the
program is unable to fund its clinical trials awards
appropriately. At least $100 million is needed to allow the
program to resume sound clinical trials, which are paramount in
translating research from the lab into new patients for
treatments.
On behalf of our community of advocates, families,
researchers, physicians, and others touched by the disease, I
would like to thank you and the committee once again for your
time and leadership. Together we can eliminate prostate cancer
as a threat to grandfathers, fathers, brothers, and families
like mine.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Hudgins
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I would
like to thank you for the opportunity to share my remarks. My name is
Chris Hudgins, and am part of the public policy team at the National
Prostate Cancer Coalition (NPCC). Since its inception in 1996, NPCC has
been dedicated to eradicating prostate cancer through awareness,
outreach, and advocacy.
You may be surprised to see someone who is only 25 years old
talking about what was once thought to be an ``old man's disease.''
Unfortunately, I know all to well the story of prostate cancer and its
effects on America's families. I was introduced to the disease a few
years before I began my employment with the NPCC. In 2000, my
grandfather was diagnosed with prostate cancer. This was quite shocking
to me because I had always thought of him as a strong and powerful man.
He had served his country as a Marine during World War II and during
the occupation of Japan. He returned home and studied at five different
institutions. After serving in administrative capacities throughout the
southeast for various colleges, universities and the Tennessee
Department of Education, he rose to level of President, first at
Meredith College in Raleigh, NC and later at the University of
Richmond. Then, he was crippled by a silent killer.
As you can imagine, this was a particularly stressful time for me
and my family. While, at the time of my grandfather's diagnosis, I had
heard of the disease I was not aware of how prevalent prostate cancer
had become among men. I now know that prostate cancer will affect about
220,000 men and their families this year, and 28,900 men will lose
their battle with the disease. It's unfathomable to think that so many
people will be subjected to the anguish my family has experienced.
Thanks to the availability of the prostate specific antigen (PSA)
and the digital rectal exam (DRE), both of which are recommended by
NPCC, my grandfather was able to catch the disease early when it is the
most treatable. After having a radical prostatectomy, my grandfather
fully recovered and has returned to riding his Harley-Davidson around
the University of Richmond campus. Now the focus turns to the other men
in my family.
As you may be aware, a person with one close family member with
prostate cancer is twice as likely to develop the disease. My father,
much like the majority of the baby-boom generation, is now in his early
fifties. I say this because he, along with about 22 million men in the
next ten years, is in the target age group for increased risk of
prostate cancer. Since my grandfather's diagnosis, I have encouraged my
father to keep a close eye on his PSA. This is not only because I love
him but also because if he is diagnosed then my and my brother's risk
of the disease increases five fold.
While my grandfather--and my family--benefited from early
detection, others are not so lucky. In the past few years, I have had
the advantage of learning about the risks of prostate cancer and how
early detection can save lives, but the truth is I am in the minority.
We must focus on those individuals who do not have the benefit of this
knowledge. We must also continue important research in prostate cancer
to develop new treatments until a cure is found. That's why, Mr.
Chairman, we all need your help.
As the nation prepares to bring home the soldiers that fought so
bravely in Iraq, I can't help but think of my grandfather returning
home from Japan in 1947. I believe our nation has a responsibility to
protect America's soldiers on the battlefield and long after the
fighting has ended. Men like my grandfather, veterans exposed to
defoliants, who may bear a disproportionate risk of prostate cancer,
and those who are about to return from the Middle East, must know that
their government is doing everything they can to protect them from
prostate cancer. As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated at the
dedication of the National Institutes of Health in 1940, ``we cannot be
a strong nation unless we are a healthy nation.''
While I cannot predict the impact of prostate cancer among our men
in uniform, I can offer some estimates. We know that about 85 percent
of individuals serving in active or reserve duty are men, approximately
2.2 million. If one applies the average risk to this group, over
350,000 men will be diagnosed with the disease in their lifetimes.
That's more than the number of American servicemen lost in both World
Wars.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) estimates that there will
be nearly 25 million veterans living in the United States by September
2003. Of these, 94 percent will be male, 81 percent will be age 45 or
older and 17 percent will be minorities. The Veterans Health
Administration also estimates that nearly 50,000 new cancer cases are
diagnosed in VA patients each year--the second leading killer of
veterans. It's easy to see the impact prostate cancer could have on
America's servicemen.
To effectively fight prostate cancer, NPCC requests that you
allocate at least $100 million in fiscal year 2004 for the Prostate
Cancer Research Program (PCRP) conducted by the Department of Defense
through the extramural Congressionally Directed Medical Research
Program (CDMRP). The PCRP is a model program, and it offers ``awards to
fill gaps in ongoing research and complement initiatives sponsored by
other agencies.'' The program has received $85 million in funding in
fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, but without at least $100
million, PCRP cannot appropriately conduct clinical trials research in
which cutting-edge treatments can be offered to patients who need them
most.
Since its inception in fiscal year 1997, the PCRP has been the most
efficient federally directed prostate cancer research program because
it builds sound accountability mechanisms into its fundamental
operation. Its research is dedicated to increase evidence-based
medicine, and it subjects itself to regular reviews of this effort. The
program is also focused on non-duplication of effort, fostering the
science of projects that are unique and are not receiving funding from
other sources. The PCRP has engaged survivors of prostate cancer into
its accountability practices from its outset. Several of NPCC's friends
and colleagues have the honor of sitting on the Prostate Cancer
Integration Panel, joining other consumers and a diverse group of
scientists in the oversight of the CDMRP program and its projects. This
consumer input helps drive the program to become more ambitious and
creative in seeking new areas of research, because it maintains its
focus on what is important to survivors, advocates and researchers.
The CDMRP prostate cancer program is clear-cut in its mission,
process, goals and results; it is easy to see where--and how
efficiently--every dollar the PCRP receives is spent. Among the
research resources funded by the federal government, the CDMRP is the
only program to offer organ site-specific research grants. Each grant
awarded through the PCRP is 100 percent dedicated to prostate cancer.
The impact on solving the problem of prostate cancer is not subjected
to the complex--and too often fuzzy--calculations of organ site
relevance that other agencies weigh when considering research
opportunities.
As stated in its annual report, the PCRP has ``challenged the
scientific community to design innovative prostate cancer research that
would foster new directions, address neglected issues and bring new
investigators into the field.'' Cornerstones of the program's research
efforts are the ``Idea Development'' and ``New Investigator'' grants.
Both of these awards seek innovative and revolutionary studies that
deviate from previous research. Their goal is to stimulate ``venture
research'' projects that reward sometimes speculative but promising
ideas that can lead to huge returns on investments.
The PCRP also offers grants to explore why certain populations
suffer higher disease incidence. Grants such as the ``Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Collaborative Partnership'' and
the ``Health Disparity Training'' awards focus on researching the
disproportionate impact of prostate cancer on African-American men and
encouraging HBCU scientists to enter the prostate cancer research
field.
In fiscal year 2003, the PCRP has added several new awards. Perhaps
the most exciting new grant is the ``Exploration-Hypothesis Development
Award'' which allows researchers to explore ``innovative, untested,
potentially groundbreaking concepts in prostate cancer.'' Unlike
similar grants awarded by the PCRP to new and innovative research
ideas, the award is centered on new approaches without requiring any
preliminary data. Such awards contrast other agencies' grant processes
that tend to favor research in which ``proof-of-principle'' has already
been established. The program is also offering the ``Physician Research
Training Award'' which is designed to draw new scientists into the
field and train them for a career in prostate cancer research. Also
awarded for the first time in fiscal year 2003 are the prostate cancer
consortium awards. These large awards, which can be up to $10 million,
are focused on bringing together leading researchers and clinicians to
concentrate on specific areas of prostate cancer research to accelerate
advances in the field.
Unfortunately, the PCRP is not always able to make awards to
worthwhile projects. In fiscal year 2002, the program received nearly
700 proposals but was only able to recommend 150 for funding compared
to the over 300 for breast cancer research. Despite funding fewer than
25 percent of proposals received over the last five years, the program
is still producing exceptional results. Data from more than 450
research projects have been published in scientific journals, and over
25 projects have received a patent or licensing.
As I mentioned, funding for the PCRP must return to its fiscal year
2001 level of $100 million to allow the program to conduct needed
clinical research appropriately. While many advancements are being
made, we must capitalize on discoveries by translating them and testing
them on patients. Clinical trials research conducted through the CDMRP
breast cancer program has already produced a revolutionary new drug
called Herceptin, which impacts a specific pathway in the growth of
cancer cells. Studies have already shown that Herceptin, when used
correctly, increases survivorship of breast cancer patients by one-
third. Once prostate cancer research is afforded the same opportunity,
who knows what kinds of new treatments may become available to men.
Dr. William G. Nelson, a prominent prostate cancer research
professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine once stated,
``It's nice to be able to cure rats and mice, but curing humans is what
we're all about--you can't do that without clinical trials.'' We
believe Dr. Nelson's statement speaks for itself. That's why funding
must increase to at least $100 million in fiscal year 2004.
Mr. Chairman, we also ask that you provide at least $10 million in
funding for the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
(USUHS) and Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) program called the
Center for Prostate Disease Research (CPDR).
The CPDR is the intramural prostate cancer research program at DOD.
Among other achievements, the CPDR has helped determine the
effectiveness of the prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening exam. A
recent CPDR study found a significant increase in five-year survival
rates of those diagnosed with the disease and a decreased chance of
losing life to the disease, both attributed to the implementation of
PSA screening. NPCC supports early detection through screening and
believes that the PSA test along with the DRE saves lives.
On behalf of our community of advocates--families, researchers,
physicians, and others touched by the disease, I would like to thank
you and the Committee once again for your time and leadership. The
investments we make today can greatly reduce medical costs and save
lives tomorrow. Together, we can eliminate prostate cancer as a threat
to grandfathers, fathers, brothers, and families like mine.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. It may interest
you to know my grandfather, my father, and my oldest brother
all died of prostate cancer, and I have had it, and you have a
point. But there is a limit to what we can do to increase
Federal funding for this research. You should do more to raise
money in the private sector.
Mr. Hudgins. All right. Thank you for your leadership in
the past, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. They really have--there should be--I think
I may put a matching funds requirement on the money in this
year's prostate cancer research and say that it can only be
made available if it is matched by private funds.
Mr. Hudgins. Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Fran Visco, please.
STATEMENT OF FRAN VISCO, J.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
BREAST CANCER COALITION
Ms. Visco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Fran Visco, a 16-
year breast cancer survivor and the president of the National
Breast Cancer Coalition. As you know, the coalition is an
organization of more than 600 organizations from around the
country and over 70,000 individuals, all dedicated to
eradicating breast cancer through action and advocacy. I am
here on their behalf to thank you and the committee for its
leadership in the breast cancer research program.
Since 1992 this program has set the standard for biomedical
research in this country and in other countries. It has created
new models of research. It has created new mechanisms to
attract scientific ideas, innovative, cutting edge ideas from
around the world. It is a model that has been copied, not just
by other programs within the DOD and the National Cancer
Institute, but also other countries. It has created new
collaborations and partnerships for the military with the
leaders in the scientific community around the world, and the
Army itself has copied the program and used what is happening
in this program in many of its other areas of endeavor.
This year the program itself submitted its annual report
September 30, 2002, and it is their report on all of the
congressionally-directed medical research programs. We have
also submitted testimony on behalf of the coalition, and 65 of
your colleagues in the Senate have written to you and to Mr.
Inouye asking for continuation of the program.
All of those materials lay out the reason why this program
must continue. It is not duplicative. It fills gaps. It is
creating new relationships for the Army and it is creating hope
and real progress for women and their families.
So I am here to urge you to continue this program and again
to thank you for the incredible leadership that you have shown,
and I am available to answer any questions you have. I wanted
to point out another thing of this program that truly is a
model, and that is the meeting that is called the Era of Hope.
Every 2 years the breast cancer research program conducts a
meeting where everyone who has been funded by the program must
report on their research to the American public. This is
probably the only time that the taxpayers learn what is
happening, specifically and directly what is happening with
their tax dollars. It again is a wonderful model that is being
replicated elsewhere.
So for all of these reasons, we urge you to continue this
program and thank you for your support to date.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fran Visco
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense for your exceptional leadership in the effort
to increase and improve breast cancer research. You and your Committee
have shown great determination and leadership in searching for the
answers by funding the Department of Defense (DOD) Peer-Reviewed Breast
Cancer Research Program (BCRP) at a level that has brought us closer to
eradicating this disease.
I am Fran Visco, a breast cancer survivor, a wife and mother, a
lawyer, and President of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. On
behalf of NBCC, and the more than 3 million women living with breast
cancer, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
The DOD BCRP's decade of progress in the fight against breast
cancer has been made possible by this Committee's investment in breast
cancer research. To continue this unprecedented progress, we ask that
you support a $175 million appropriation for fiscal year 2004. The
program was cut back from $175 million to $150 million two years ago as
part of an across-the-board cut in Congressionally directed health
programs. However, there continues to be excellent science that goes
unfunded which is why we believe that the BRCP should be appropriated
$175 million for fiscal year 2004.
As you know, the National Breast Cancer Coalition is a grassroots
advocacy organization made up of more than 600 organizations and tens
of thousands of individuals and has been working since 1991 toward the
eradication of this disease through advocacy and action. NBCC supports
increased funding for breast cancer research, increased access to
quality health care for all women, and increased influence of breast
cancer activists at every table where decisions regarding breast cancer
are made.
OVERVIEW OF THE DOD BREAST CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM
In the span of only ten years, the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer
Research Program has established itself as model medical research
program, respected throughout the cancer community for its innovative
and accountable approach. The groundbreaking research performed through
the program has the potential to benefit not just breast cancer, but
all cancers, as well as other diseases. Biomedical research is being
transformed by the BCRP's success.
This program is both innovative, and incredibly streamlined. It
continues to be overseen by a group of distinguished scientists and
activists, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Because
there is no bureaucracy, the program is able to quickly respond to what
is currently happening in the scientific community. It is able to fill
gaps, with little fuss. It is responsive, not just to the scientific
community, but also to the public.
Since its inception, this program has matured from an isolated
research program to a broad-reaching influential voice forging new and
innovative directions for breast cancer research and science. The
flexibility of the program has allowed the Army to administer this
groundbreaking research effort with unparalleled efficiency and skill.
In addition, an inherent part of this program has been the
inclusion of consumer advocates at every level, which has created an
unprecedented working relationship between advocates and scientists,
and ultimately led to new avenues of research in breast cancer. Since
1992, more than 600 breast cancer survivors have served on the BCRP
review panels. Their vital role in the success of the BCRP has led to
consumer inclusion in other biomedical research programs at DOD. In
addition, this program now serves as an international model.
It is important to note that the DOD Integration Panel that designs
this program has a plan of how best to spend the funds appropriated.
This plan is based on the state of the science--both what scientists
know now and the gaps in our knowledge--as well as the needs of the
public. This plan coincides with our philosophy that we do not want to
restrict scientific freedom, creativity and innovation. While we
carefully allocate these resources, we do not want to predetermine the
specific research areas to be addressed.
UNIQUE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Developments in the past few years have begun to offer breast
cancer researchers fascinating insights into the biology of breast
cancer and have brought into sharp focus the areas of research that
hold promise and will build on the knowledge and investment we have
made. The Innovative Developmental and Exploratory Awards (IDEA) grants
of the DOD program have been critical in the effort to respond to new
discoveries and to encourage and support innovative, risk-taking
research. The IDEA grants have been instrumental in the development of
promising breast cancer research. These grants have allowed scientists
to explore beyond the realm of traditional research and have unleashed
incredible new ideas and concepts. IDEA grants are uniquely designed to
dramatically advance our knowledge in areas that offer the greatest
potential.
IDEA grants are precisely the type of grants that rarely receive
funding through more traditional programs such as the National
Institutes of Health, and academic research programs. Therefore, they
complement, and do not duplicate, other federal funding programs. This
is true of other DOD award mechanisms as well.
For example, the Innovator awards are structured to recognize
talented individuals, rather than projects, from any field of study by
providing funding and freedom to pursue creative, potentially
breakthrough research that could ultimately accelerate the eradication
of breast cancer. In the area of training, the DOD BCRP has launched
innovative programs such as Physician-Scientist Training Awards, which
are intended to support the training of new breast cancer clinical
research physicians.
Also, Historically Black Colleges and Minority Universities/
Minority Institutions Physicians' Training Awards (``Minority
Institution'' awards) are intended to provide assistance at an
institutional level. The major goal of this award is to support
collaboration between multiple investigators at an applicant Minority
Institution and a collaborating institution with established investment
in breast cancer research, for the purpose of creating an environment
that would foster breast cancer research, and in which Minority
Institute faculty would receive training toward establishing successful
breast cancer research careers.
These are just a few examples of innovative approaches at the DOD
BCRP that are filling gaps in breast cancer research. It is vital that
these grants are able to continue to support the growing interest in
breast cancer research--$175 million for peer-reviewed research will
help sustain the program's momentum.
The DOD BCRP also focuses on moving research from the bench to the
bedside. A major feature of the awards offered by the BCRP is that they
are designed to fill niches that are not offered by other agencies. The
BCRP considers translational research to be the application of well-
founded laboratory or other pre-clinical insight into a clinical trial.
To enhance this critical area of research, several research
opportunities have been offered. Clinical Translational Research
Awards, for investigator-initiated projects that involve a clinical
trial within the lifetime of the award, make up the majority of the
BCRP's translational research portfolio. The BCRP expanded its emphasis
on translational research by offering 5 different types of awards that
support work at the critical juncture between laboratory research and
bedside applications.
SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS
The BCRP research portfolio is comprised of many different types of
projects, including support for innovative ideas, infrastructure
building to facilitate clinical trials, and training breast cancer
researchers.
One of the most promising outcomes of research funded by the BCRP
was the development of Herceptin, a drug that prolongs the lives of
women with a particularly aggressive type of advanced breast cancer.
This drug could not have been developed without first researching and
understanding the gene known as HER2-neu, which is involved in the
progression of some breast cancers. Researchers found that over-
expression of HER-2/neu in breast cancer cells results in very
aggressive biologic behavior. Most importantly, the same researchers
demonstrated that an antibody directed against HER2-neu could slow the
growth of the cancer cells that over-expressed the gene. This research
led to the development of the drug Herceptin. This research was made
possible in part by a DOD BCRP-funded infrastructure grant. Other
researchers funded by the BCRP are currently working to identify
similar kinds of genes that are involved in the initiation and
progression of cancer. They hope to develop new drugs like Herceptin
that can fight the growth of breast cancer cells.
Several studies funded by the BCRP will examine the role of
estrogen and estrogen signaling in breast cancer. For example, one
study examined the effects of the two main pathways that produce
estrogen. Estrogen is often processed by one of two pathways; one
yields biologically active substances while the other does not. It has
been suggested that women who process estrogen via the biologically
active pathway may be at a higher risk of breast cancer. It is
anticipated that work from this funding effort will yield insights into
the effects of estrogen processing on breast cancer risk in women with
and without family histories of breast cancer.
One DOD IDEA award success has supported the development of new
technology that may be used to identify changes in DNA. This technology
uses a dye to label DNA adducts, compounds that are important because
they may play a role in initiating breast cancer. Early results from
this technique are promising and may eventually result in a new marker/
method to screen breast cancer specimens.
Another DOD BCRP IDEA award has generated a new vaccine targeted
against ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a malignant, non-invasive
lesion that can develop into an invasive breast cancer. The vaccine is
being tested on mice that develop spontaneous mammary tumors that over
express the HER-2/neu protein. Mice treated with the vaccine show a
markedly decreased rate of tumor development when compared to that
generated for the prevention of tumor formation in women at risk for
the development of HER-2/neu expressing tumors.
Investigators funded by the DOD have developed a novel imaging
technique that combines two-dimensional and novel three-dimensional
digital mammographic images for analysis of breast calcifications.
Compared to conventional film screen mammography, this technique has
greater resolution. Ultimately, this technique may help reduce the
number of unnecessary breast biopsies.
Despite the enormous successes and advancements in breast cancer
research made through funding from the DOD BCRP, we still do not know
what causes breast cancer, how to prevent it, or how to cure it. It is
critical that innovative research through this unique program continues
so that we can move forward toward eradicating this disease.
FEDERAL MONEY WELL SPENT
The DOD BCRP is as efficient as it is innovative. In fact, 90
percent of funds go directly to research grants. The flexibility of the
program allows the Army to administer it in such a way as to maximize
its limited resources. The program is able to quickly respond to
current scientific advances, and is able to fill gaps by focusing on
research that is traditionally under-funded. It is also responsive, not
just to the scientific community, but also to the public. This is
evidenced by the inclusion of consumer advocates at both the peer and
programmatic review levels. The consumer perspective helps the
scientists understand how the research will affect the community, and
allows for funding decisions based on the concerns and needs of
patients and the medical community.
Since 1992, the BCRP has been responsible for managing $1.2 billion
in appropriations, which has resulted in 2,837 awards for fiscal year
1992-2000. The areas of focus of the DOD BCRP span a spectrum and
include basic, clinical, behavioral, environmental sciences, and
alternative therapy studies, to name a few. The BCRP benefits women and
their families by maximizing resources; the program offers awards that
fill existing gaps in breast cancer research. Scientific achievements
that are the direct result of the DOD BCRP are undoubtedly moving us
closer to eradicating breast cancer.
The outcomes of the BCRP-funded research can be gauged, in part, by
the number of publications, abstracts/presentations, and patents/
licensures reported by awardees, to date. There have been 2300
publications in scientific journals, 1800 abstracts and 30 patents/
licensure applications.
The federal government can truly be proud of its investment in the
DOD BCRP.
POSITIVE FEEDBACK ON THE DOD BCRP
The National Breast Cancer Coalition has been the driving force
behind this program for many years. The success of the DOD Peer-
Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has been illustrated by two
unique assessments of the program. The Institute of Medicine (IOM),
which originally recommended the structure for the program,
independently re-examined the program in a report published in 1997.
Their findings overwhelmingly encourage the continuation of the program
and offer guidance for program implementation improvements.
The 1997 IOM review of the DOD Peer-Review Breast Cancer Research
Program commended the program and stated that, ``the program fills a
unique niche among public and private funding sources for cancer
research. It is not duplicative of other programs and is a promising
vehicle for forging new ideas and scientific breakthroughs in the
nation's fight against breast cancer.'' The IOM report recommends
continuing the program and establishes a solid direction for the next
phase of the program. It is imperative that Congress recognizes the
independent evaluations of the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program, as
well as reiterates its own commitment to the Program by appropriating
the funding needed to ensure its success. The IOM report has laid the
groundwork for effective and efficient implementation of the next phase
of this vital research program, now all that it needs is the
appropriate funding.
The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program not only
provides a funding mechanism for high-risk, high-return research, but
also reports the results of this research to the American people at a
biennial public meeting called the ``Era of Hope.'' The 1997 meeting
was the first time a federally funded program reported back to the
public in detail not only on the funds used, but also on the research
undertaken, the knowledge gained from that research and future
directions to be pursued. The transparency of the BCRP allows
scientists, consumers and the American public to see the exceptional
progress made in breast cancer research.
At the 2002 Era of Hope meeting, all BCRP award recipients from
fiscal years 1998-2000 were invited to report their research findings
and many awardees from previous years were asked to present
advancements in their research. Scientists reported important advances
in the study of cancer development at the molecular and cellular level.
Researchers presented the results of research that elucidates several
genes and proteins responsible for the spread of breast cancer to other
parts of the body, and, more importantly, reveals possible ways to stop
this growth. The meeting, which marked the 10th Anniversary of the
program, also featured grant recipients who are working towards more
effective and less toxic treatments for breast cancer that ``target''
the unique characteristics of cancer cells and have a limited effect on
normal cells.
The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has attracted
scientists with new ideas and has continued to facilitate new thinking
in breast cancer research and research in general. Research that has
been funded through the DOD BCRP is available to the public.
Individuals can go to the Department of Defense website and look at the
abstracts for each proposal.
COMMITMENT OF THE NATIONAL BREAST CANCER COALITION
The National Breast Cancer Coalition is strongly committed to the
DOD program in every aspect, as we truly believe it is one of our best
chances at finding cures and preventions for breast cancer. The
Coalition and its members are dedicated to working with you to ensure
the continuation of funding for this program at a level that allows
this research to forge ahead.
In May of 1997, our members presented a petition with over 2.6
million signatures to the Congressional leaders on the steps of the
Capitol. The petition called on the President and the U.S. Congress to
spend $2.6 billion on breast cancer research between 1997 and the year
2000. Funding for the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program
was an essential component of reaching the $2.6 billion goal that so
many women and families worked to gain.
Once again, NBCC is bringing its message to Congress. Just last
week, many of the women and family members who supported the campaign
to gain the 2.6 million signatures came to NBCC's Annual Advocacy
Training Conference here in Washington, D.C. More than 600 breast
cancer activists from across the country joined us in continuing to
mobilize behind the efforts to eradicate breast cancer. The
overwhelming interest in, and dedication to eradicate this disease
continues to be evident as people are not only signing petitions, but
are willing to come to Washington, D.C. from across the country to
deliver their message about our commitment.
Since the very beginning of this program, in 1993, Congress has
stood in support of this important investment in the fight against
breast cancer. In the years since then, Mr. Chairman, you and this
entire Committee have been leaders in the effort to continue this
innovative investment in breast cancer research.
NBCC asks you, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to
recognize the importance of what you have initiated. What you have done
is set in motion an innovative and highly efficient approach to
fighting the breast cancer epidemic. What you must do now is continue
to support this effort by funding research that will help us win this
very real and devastating war against a cruel enemy.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony and for
giving hope to the 2.6 million women living with breast cancer.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. I think we started this
research 11 years ago.
Ms. Visco. Yes.
Senator Stevens. Twelve years ago. And every year we have
put the money up for this research and prostate cancer research
in increasing amounts. But I have not seen a similar response
from the private sector. While we are going to continue to
support research for prostate cancer and breast cancer, I am
going to urge Congress to start requiring matching funds at
least of some amount to come forward from the private sector.
We cannot continue to increase the amount of money that
comes out of the defense bill for this research when the more
money we put up the less you get from the private sector. I
think that trend has to stop and we have to see a strong
response from the private sector for us to continue our support
for these research--particularly when it is requested from this
subcommittee for money from the defense account.
Now, we have many women in the armed services now and they
deserve to have the military proceeding to deal with one of
their major concerns, which is breast cancer. We will continue,
but I do think that the research that we are doing with defense
dollars, it benefits the whole society, but the society ought
to respond more to the demands for this research money as it
has in the past.
Ms. Visco. Mr. Chairman, we would be happy, the National
Breast Cancer Coalition would be happy, to work with your staff
to give you information on what is being done now in the
community outside of the government, so we can work from there.
We would be happy to work with you in that regard.
Senator Stevens. I would like to see that. I would like to
see to it that the organizations that are asking for taxpayers'
money are reaching out and trying to raise non-taxpayers' money
to continue this research.
Ms. Visco. Yes, sir. We will give you that information.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Martin B. Foil, member of the Board of
Directors, National Brain Injury Research and Treatment and
Training Foundation.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN B. FOIL, JR., MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL BRAIN INJURY
RESEARCH, TREATMENT AND TRAINING FOUNDATION
Mr. Foil. Thank you, Senator Stevens, Mr. Chairman. It is
good to be back. We appreciate everything that you and your
folks here on the committee have been doing.
My name is Martin Foil. I am the father of a man with a
severe brain injury. I am happy to be here on behalf of the
wonderful men and women in our armed services. Really, I know
we are all proud of what they did and their valiant performance
in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I am privileged to come here today to request $5 million in
funding for the Defense Veterans Head Injury Program (DVHIP),
which provides treatment and services to thousands of military
people injured annually. As you know, the DVHIP is a component
of the military health system, providing direct care at
treatment facilities in veterans hospitals throughout the
Nation. While there is a research component, it provides mainly
state-of-the-art medical care and rehabilitation to our
personnel who sustain concussions and more severe brain injury.
Our goal is to get them back to work as soon as possible.
Since the war on terrorism began, DVHIP has treated some 40
troops injured in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and
Iraqi Freedom. On two occasions, President Bush has visited a
few of these soldiers who were being treated at our lead site
at Walter Reed. My written testimony includes examples of
military personnel who have recently received care under the
full spectrum of the DVHIP program from acute care to
rehabilitation to community reentry and, more importantly,
return to work.
Some highlights of the program include collaborating with
leading researchers on battlefield biomarkers for mild brain
injury and injury recovery. The goal here is to see if they
need to be taken back from the front line or if they are going
to be well in a few hours or a few days. Working with the U.S.
Army Aeromedical Laboratory at Fort Rucker, we are working and
implementing phase two of the paratrooper's helmet study at
Fort Bragg, a very interesting study. We have also been asked
to assist in evaluation of potential concussions as a result of
blast injuries, particularly those from land mines.
I respectfully request your support for the $5 million from
the DOD appropriations bill under health affairs operations and
maintenance for fiscal year 2004. This funding request is
supported by Senators Reed, Kennedy, Hagel, Allen, Rockefeller,
and Boxer, and the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force.
Indeed, we are all grateful for your support over the
years. We hope you again support our efforts to provide the
best care for our brave men and women in uniform.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Martin B. Foil, Jr.
Dear Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and Members of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense: My name is Martin B. Foil, Jr.
and I am the father of Philip Foil, a young man with a severe brain
injury. I serve as a volunteer on the Board of Directors of the
National Brain Injury Research, Treatment and Training Foundation
(NBIRTT) \1\ and Virginia NeuroCare in Charlottesville, Virginia
(VNC).\2\ Professionally, I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of Tuscarora Yarns in Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NBIRTT is a non-profit national foundation dedicated to the
support of clinical research, treatment and training.
\2\ VNC provides brain injury rehabilitation to military retirees,
veterans and civilians through an innovative and cost effective day
treatment program.
\3\ I receive no compensation from this program. Rather, I have
raised and contributed millions of dollars to support brain injury
research, treatment, training and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of the thousands of military personnel that receive brain
injury treatment and services annually, I respectfully request that $5
million be added to the Department of Defense (DOD) Health Affairs
budget for fiscal year 2004 under Operation and Maintenance for the
Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program (DVHIP).
I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony regarding this
important program which is a collaborative effort among DOD, Department
of Veterans Affairs (DVA), the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the
Advancement of Military Medicine and the Uniformed Services University
of the Health Sciences (USUHS).
The Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program (DVHIP)
Established in 1992, the DVHIP is a component of the military
health care system that integrates clinical care and clinical follow-
up, with applied research, treatment and training. The program was
created after the Gulf War to address the need for an overall systemic
program for providing brain injury specific care and rehabilitation
within DOD and DVA. The DVHIP seeks to ensure that all military
personnel and veterans with brain injury receive brain injury-specific
evaluation, treatment and follow-up. Over time, the research conducted
by the DVHIP has come to define optimal care for military personnel and
veterans with brain injuries. A multi-center clinical care and clinical
research program, the program's motto is ``working for a cure.''
The DVHIP has been proactive since its inception, developing
numerous innovative programs that enable patients to have a variety of
treatment options at each site. Clinical care and research is currently
undertaken at seven DOD and DVA sites and one civilian treatment
site,\4\ allowing single and multi-center trials to be conducted
informing future clinical care and treatment strategies. In addition to
providing treatment, rehabilitation and case management at each of the
8 primary DVHIP traumatic brain injury (TBI) centers, the DVHIP
includes a regional network of additional secondary veterans hospitals
capable of providing TBI rehabilitation, and linked to the primary lead
centers for training, referrals and consultation. This is coordinated
by a dedicated central DVA TBI coordinator and includes an active TBI
case manager training program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC; James A. Haley
Veterans Hospital, Tampa, FL; Naval Medical Center San Diego, San
Diego, CA; Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis,
MN; Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA;
Virginia Neurocare, Inc., Charlottesville, VA; Hunter McGuire Veterans
Affairs Medical Center, Richmond, VA; Wilford Hall Medical Center,
Lackland Air Force Base, TX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DVHIP is a model program of efficient and effective
collaboration between DOD and DVA.
DVHIP Stands Ready to Treat Troops and Veterans Sustaining Brain
Injuries
Head injury is a leading combat concern in modern warfare.
Neurotrauma (traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries) accounts for
almost 25 percent of combat casualties. In addition, secondary brain
injuries--resulting from stroke, cerebral ischemia, seizures, ionizing
radiation, low blood pressure due to loss of blood volume, nerve
agents, cyanide, toxic concentrations of oxygen, neurotoxicity due to
central nervous system (CNS) malaria or treatment with antimalaria
agents, and other CNS traumas, have a significant impact on the health
and readiness of military personnel. Many of the currently feared
terrorist threats would involve secondary brain injuries, particularly
those involving chemical or biological neurological insults.
The DVHIP sites have provided clinical care for over 40 casualties
from the War on Terrorism to date. Thorough evaluation, referral for
appropriate clinical supports, prompt discharge to home or military
unit, and focus on returning service members to active duty have been
the primary goals of the clinical care provided to these war fighters.
Additional service members have been identified who were promptly
discharged back to their units. These individuals will be actively
followed to ensure that they receive specialized clinical care and
follow-up as needed.
The DVHIP is prepared to provide a full continuum of care for
military personnel injured during any and all future hostilities.
Examples of Military Personnel Injured, Treated and Returning to Work
The following are examples of injured active duty military
personnel who recently received care provided by the DVHIP:
--On April 11, 2003, President Bush visited soldiers being treated at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) who were injured during
Operation Iraqi Freedom. At least 2 patients were under the
care of DVHIP staff.
--On January 16, 2003, President Bush visited WRAMC and saw five
soldiers who had been injured during Operation Enduring Freedom
in Afghanistan, one of whom sustained a brain injury along with
a fractured skull and other broken bones. The Washington Post
reported on the President's visit and noted that some 200
troops have been injured in Afghanistan. The soldier with the
brain injury was treated by DVHIP staff.
--Another soldier treated at WRAMC was featured on the front page of
WRAMC's publication Stripe, on January 17, 2003. A photo showed
First Sgt. Colin Robert Rich, A Company, 1st Battalion 504th
Parachute Infantry Regiment, receiving a visit from Secretary
of the Army Thomas E. White. Sgt. Rich had been shot in the
head on December 28, 2002 while serving in Afghanistan. Stripe
reported that Sgt. Rich explained to the Secretary that the
round went through his Kevlar helmet, ``which decelerated it
enough that it didn't blow my head up. It ricocheted and it did
shatter the skull.'' Rich added, `` `Love your Kevlar', sir,
that's my motto.'' Rich received initial acute care at a
hospital in Germany within 15 hours of being shot and arrived
at WRAMC on January 4 where he was cared for by DVHIP staff
before being discharged home on January 16, 2002.
--In June of 2002, a 32 year old female Air Force Tech Sgt. customer
service and unit deployment manager fell asleep while driving
and rear-ended a stationary 18-wheeler at highway speed. She
sustained a severe brain injury and remained in a coma for 7
days at Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston, Texas. She was
transferred to the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care
System for inpatient rehabilitation by the DVHIP on July 11,
2002. Her admission evaluation revealed multiple neurological,
physical and cognitive symptoms.\5\ By August 13, 2002 she was
discharged with improved neurological, physical and cognitive
abilities and returned home to San Antonio with her husband and
two young children. She received outpatient therapy at Warm
Springs Rehabilitation Hospital in San Antonio through the end
of the year. On November 20, 2002 she was evaluated by the
medical board at Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) and showed
mild residual symptoms.\6\ The board recommended trial of duty,
initially half days with close supervision. She was evaluated
six months post injury by DVHIP staff at WHMC on February 5,
2003 and underwent a driving re-evaluation on February 7, with
full driving privileges recommended. She began her trial of
duty on February 11, 2003 and anticipates going to the NCO
academy if her recovery continues as anticipated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Her symptoms included mild dizziness, headaches, continued
diminished rapid toe and finger movements on the right, abnormal gait
but walking unassisted, difficulties with fluency, naming, reading and
word-finding difficulties. Greatest cognitive impairments continued in
the areas of memory and problem solving--modified independent level of
function in bathing and dressing due to wearing a brace for the
vertebral fracture. Independent in all other area of basic self-care.
\6\ Improved speech, persistent mild facial numbness, mild
disequilibrium without vertigo, walking independently, continued
weakness in verbal memory but effective use of compensatory techniques;
able to care for 4 year-old and 10-month old children at home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Sgt. MF, a 39 year old Army Recruiter was involved in a motorcycle
accident in July 2002, resulting in a traumatic brain injury.
His initial evaluations showed a very serious brain injury to
the right and left sides of the brain with a sub-dural hematoma
and massive swelling. He underwent major surgery to remove part
of the bleed and resulting damage to the right side of the
brain. He received his acute care in Louisville, Kentucky, and
was subsequently transferred to McGuire Veterans Hospital in
Richmond, Virginia, for post-acute rehabilitation and then to
Virginia NeuroCare (VNC) in October 2002 for community re-entry
rehabilitation. He was discharged to the Medical Holding
Company Unit at his Army station of origin on March 8, 2003. MF
stated that he was very satisfied with his care throughout his
entire recovery and rehabilitation. He stated that the DVHIP
staff at the Richmond VA and Virginia NeuroCare took a one-on-
one interest in him and he was pleased with his rehabilitation
experience.
At VNC, Sgt. MF was particularly appreciative of the opportunity to
live independently in a transitional apartment. He reported that the
therapy program was good, and he appreciated the fact that the program
was tailored to individual needs. His volunteer placement at the local
Army Recruiting Station during the final phase of his rehabilitation at
VNC was a positive experience that led him to believe he would get his
life back.
These are just a few examples of what DVHIP does for hundreds of
military personnel each year--from being ready to care for injured
troops in the acute care setting to neuro-rehabilitation involving the
entire patient to full community integration.
DVHIP Support for Families after Brain Injury
Every military commander and soldier knows the importance of taking
care of their families so that they may focus on performing their
critical duties. This is especially important in times of conflict, as
demonstrated during Operation Iraqi Freedom. When soldiers sustain
brain injuries in conflict, taking care of families is even more
important. This is because the impact of brain injury on the family is
particularly traumatic, in that not only life and death are at stake,
but there are also significant disruptions to family systems for months
or years thereafter as the rehabilitation and recovery process ensues.
On May 3, 2003, Deputy Commander Lt. General Doug Brown of Special
Operations had the opportunity to observe first hand the support
services provided to families of our soldiers and veterans when he was
visiting a soldier undergoing rehabilitation at Tampa VAMC for a brain
injury from shrapnel sustained during Operation Iraqi Freedom. General
Brown participated in the program's family support group and listened
to the stories of the families and survivors. General Brown expressed
his appreciation for the treatment and services offered and the
importance and usefulness of the family support group.
Support groups have been provided by the DVHIP since the program's
inception in 1992. Family support groups provide a great deal of
support, education, and information to families. The family support
program at the Tampa VA also holds bi-annual reunions in which former
patients and families come from around the country.
Educating Care Providers
On April 30, and May 1, 2003, DVHIP and the WRAMC Department of
Psychology, Neuropsychology Postdoctoral Fellowship held the first
joint sponsored brain injury conference, entitled ``Innovative Concepts
In Traumatic Brain Injury: Neurobiological and Neurobehavioral
Aspects.'' The presenters, David A. Hovda, Ph.D. from UCLA and Jeffrey
T. Barth, Ph.D. from UVA are both internationally recognized
scientists-practitioners in the area of brain injury. The conference
targeted both experienced health-care professionals and postgraduate
trainees and residents the areas of neurology, neuropsychology,
neurosurgery, psychiatry, and physical medicine and rehabilitation, as
well as other professionals with an interest in learning about the
neurobiological and neurobehavioral aspects of traumatic brain injury.
With this audience in mind the conference presented a balance of both
an overview of the basics of the biomechanical aspects of TBI as well
as cutting edge research. The two-day conference was attended by over
70 professionals and trainees from the DOD and VA throughout the
National Capital Area and a story on the conference appeared in the May
2, 2003 edition of Stripe.
Education of corpsmen and other military medical providers on
concussion care continues to be one of the primary objectives at the
DVHIP at Camp Pendleton. Additionally, standardized educational
programs are being developed this year by the DVHIP educational core in
order to reach a greater number of medical providers. DVHIP plans to
make these educational materials available on its website to enhance
this outreach and provide information to providers in austere locations
where travel for on-site training would not be possible.
Additional DVHIP Accomplishments and Ongoing Research Initiatives
Provided successful rehabilitation and return to work and community
re-entry for active duty military personnel and veterans.
Established the War on Terrorism Brain Injury Registry to identify
individuals with brain injury and examine clinically relevant issues in
the management of brain injury sustained in theatre.
Ongoing studies are being conducted with Army paratroopers and
cadets and U.S. Marines at Fort Bragg, West Point, and Camp Pendleton.
These studies are investigating brief evaluation instruments for use on
the battlefield to determine which injured service members require
immediate treatment and which can return to duty. The goal of these
studies is to preserve our nation's fighting strength while conserving
medical resources for those injured and requiring treatment.
Completed enrolling patients in a research protocol on functional
rehabilitation versus cognitive rehabilitation for severe brain injury.
A randomized controlled study of sertraline for post concussive
syndrome is being carried out in all DVHIP military and VA sites.
Started new randomized controlled trial of valproate for brain
injury related agitation at James A. Haley Veterans Hospital, Tampa,
Florida.
A new DVHIP website is currently under construction. The website
will provide information to individuals with brain injury, their
families and caregivers, as well as to clinicians, researchers and the
general public.
Fiscal year 2004 Goals
Expand clinical capacity to meet the need to care for an increasing
number of injured military personnel and veterans.
Improve rehabilitation and treatment program for active duty
service members with mild cognitive impairment following possible
chemical or biological exposure.
Establish a multi-center trial to provide the first evidence on the
effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation and stimulant medication
early in recovery from severe brain injury.
Conduct the study of enhanced protection from parachute injury by
field testing approved novel helmet configurations at Fort Bragg.
Develop return to duty guidelines through analysis of data
collected in the West Point sports concussion study and the Fort Bragg
concussion study.
Examine biomarkers in mild brain injury and injury recovery in
collaboration with Ron Hayes, Ph.D. at the Evelyn F. and William L.
McKnight Brain Institute at the University of Florida.
Examine the utility of mobile transcranial Doppler ultrasonography
to identify cerebral blood flow alterations in mild brain injury and
recovery patterns.
Report to the U.S. Army the findings from the War on Terrorism
Brain Injury Registry regarding incidence of closed head injury and the
impact of early wound closure in penetrating brain injury.
Extend outcomes research through the evaluation of long-term work
and duty status in DVHIP rehabilitation trial participants.
Disseminate evidence based guidelines on pharmacological management
of neurobehavioral consequences of brain injury.
Expand the DVHIP Registry to include patients from additional DVA
and DOD medical facilities. Broaden the spectrum of care for military
personnel and veterans who have sustained brain injuries by using the
DVHIP Registry to identify individuals in need of additional treatment
and support.
Expand the content and services of the DVBIC website. Future
website applications will include enhanced educational materials and
the capability to make referrals and gain access to care.
Conclusion
As a part of the military health program, the DVHIP is in a unique
position to help prevent, treat, and provide education regarding brain
injury and to lead efforts to better the lives of active duty and
retired military personnel affected by brain injury. The DVHIP stands
ready to assist in the care of troops injured in any and all potential
hostilities.
I respectfully urge your support for $5 million for the DVHIP in
the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations bill in the DOD Health
Affairs budget under Operation and Maintenance to continue this
important program.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much for appearing again.
We appreciate your concern.
Mr. Foil. Always a pleasure to be here, sir.
Senator Stevens. We will do our best.
Next, Captain Marshall Hanson, U.S. Naval Reserve, Acting
Chair of Associations for America's Defense. Good morning, sir.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARSHALL HANSON, USNR (RETIRED),
ACTING CHAIR, ASSOCIATIONS FOR AMERICA'S
DEFENSE
Captain Hanson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. The
Associations for America's Defense (A4AD) thanks you for the
opportunity to testify today.
A4AD first met in March of 2002 because it felt that
certain defense issues were not being addressed in the MSO
community. At the initial meeting were Enlisted Association of
the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS), Marine Corps
Reserve Officer's Association (MCROA), Naval Reserve
Association (NRA), Naval Enlisted Reserve Association (NERA),
National Association of Uniformed Services (NAUS), The Retired
Enlisted Association (TREA), Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW),
and the Center for Strategic Policy. Military Order of World
Wars (MOWW), the Navy League, and ROA have since joined.
Collectively we represent over 2.5 million members.
A4AD looks at national defense, equipment, force structure,
funding, and policy issues. We are submitting what we feel are
the top equipment requirements for the active and Reserve Armed
Forces in our written statement.
In the President's budget, DOD has made clear its intent to
consolidate all pay and operations and maintenance (O&M)
accounts into one appropriation per service. A4AD strongly
opposes the proposed consolidation. While we support seeking
efficiencies, we view the proposed business consolidation as
ill-conceived and as an attempt to reduce congressional
oversight.
Further, the Defense Transformation for the 21st Century
Act of 2003 recommends amending Title 10 to allow the Secretary
of Defense (SECDEF) to transfer 2\1/2\ percent of appropriated
funds for military functions. A4AD is opposed to this degree of
authority. Two-and-a-half percent is too high a sum of money
and allows a high risk that items authorized by Congress could
be stripped of funding to support a DOD project viewed as
underfunded.
We further disagree with an increase of the $10 million
limit to $20 million to allow reprogramming of acquisition
funds.
The United States is still at war, as evidenced by this
week's bombing in Riyadh. While Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
claims that there are no plans for reduction, subtle pressures
are to be found encouraging personnel cuts. Defense planners
within each service see the writing on the wall with money
being moved by DOD from personnel to research and weapons
systems and they are going to preemptively recommend select
personnel cuts to save portions of their programs starting in
fiscal year 2005 and 2006.
It should be remembered that it is a mixture of legacy
forces and 21st century technology that has brought a swift
victory against Saddam. The presence of troops on the ground is
enabling us to capture members of the Iraqi regime. While the
vision of joystick warfare, with operators removed from the
battle site, is a subject of magazine articles, it is the blood
and sweat of our young men and women who capture and win the
battlefield.
The Senate authorization has agreed to the President's
fiscal year 2004 numbers. The House has included increases.
A4AD supports full funding for end strengths proposed by the
House. We also solicit your input and backing for maintaining
or increasing end strengths in future budgets.
A core of military and veterans associations are now
looking beyond just personnel matters to the broader issues of
national defense. As a group, we will continue to meet in the
future and we hope to provide your committee with our inputs.
Thank you for your ongoing support for the Nation, the
armed services, and the fine young men and women who defend our
country. I stand by for questions.
Senator Stevens. I do not have any questions. Thank you
very much for presenting your statement. We appreciate your
comments and will do our very best to follow through on them.
We appreciate your concern.
Captain Hanson. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain Marshall Hanson
INTRODUCTION
Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, The
Associations for America's Defense (A4AD) are very grateful for the
invitation to testify before you about our views and suggestions
concerning current and future issues facing the defense appropriations.
Founded in 2002, the Association for America's Defense is a
recently formed adhoc group of Military and Veteran Associations that
have concerns about National Security issues that are not normally
addressed by The Military Coalition, and the National Military Veterans
Alliance. The participants are members from each. Among the issues that
are addressed are equipment, end strength, force structure, and defense
policy. Collectively, we represent about 2.5 million members.
--Enlisted National Guard Association of the United States
--Marine Corps Reserve Association
--Military Order of World Wars
--National Association for Uniformed Services
--Naval Enlisted Reserve Association
--Naval Reserve Association
--Navy League of the United States
--Reserve Officers Association
--The Retired Enlisted Association
--Veterans of Foreign Wars
Collectively, the preceding organizations have over two and a half
million members who are serving our nation, or who have done so in the
past. The number of supporters expands to beyond five million when you
include family members and friends of the military.
A4AD, also, cooperatively works with other associations, who
provide input while not including their association name to the
membership roster.
CURRENT AND FUTURE ISSUES FACING DEFENSE
The Associations for America's Defense would like to thank this
Committee for the stewardship that it has demonstrated on issues of
Defense. Its pro-defense and non-partisan leadership sets the example.
In keeping with this, A4AD would like to submit what its membership
feel are the top equipment requirements for the Armed Forces. Over the
last six months, A4AD has compiled this list to provide the committee
with a consolidated listing which does not favor a particular service
and is a compilation from numerous sources. Both Active and Reserve
requirements are provided for the major four of the uniformed services.
The services are not listed in priority order.
Top Equipment Requirements:
Air Force Active:
F/A-22's
Tanker Modernization
Space-Based Infrared System SBIRS
Air Force Reserve:
C-17's (replaces aging C-141)
F-16 Upgrades; sensor, targeting pods, displays
A-10 Targeting Pods
C-40's Medivac (replaces aging C-9A)
Air Guard:
C-17's
KC-135 Re-engine
Litening II targeting pods
Army Active:
Recapitalize The M1A1 & M2 force
AH-64 and CH-47 Aviation Upgrades
Objective Force Future Combat Systems
Army Reserve:
Light Medium Tactical Vehicles (LMTV)
Medium Tactical Vehicles (MTV)
High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV)
IHFR Radio
Army Guard:
UH-60 Black Hawks
AH-64 Apaches
Active Marine Corps:
JSF Joint Strike Fighter
V-22 Osprey Program
AAAV Program
Reserve Marine Corps (and Active):
F/A-18 ECP-583 Upgrade
CH-53E HNVS ``B'' Kits (Forward Looking Infrared)
Initial Issue equipment
Active Navy:
Littoral Combat Ship
F/A-18 E/F Procurement
DD(X)
Naval Reserve:
C-40A's Airlift Aircraft (replace aging C-9B)
LITTORAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, LSS
F/A-18 ECP-560 Upgrades
Language delaying decommissioning of Navy's Coastal Patrol Craft
(PCs) and Aviation Squadrons
Equipment requirements on the above equipment list were purposely
broken out by Active and Reserve requirements.
Maintaining the Reserve Equipment List
Issue.--The Active Duty leadership has fallen short of fulfilling
the Congressional mandate of responsibility for funding Reserve as well
as Active Duty equipment through budgetary planning. The active
solution seems to be suggesting that Reserve equipment should be
returned to the Active Duty. This would be a mistake.
Position.--The overwhelming majority of Reserve and Guard members
join the RC to have hands-on experience with equipment. The training
and personnel readiness of Guard and Reserve members depends on
constant hands-on equipment exposure. Historical records show that
Guard and Reserve units maintain hardware and equipment at or higher
than average material readiness and often have better training
readiness.
In Operation Iraqi Freedom, Reserve and Guard units have proven
their readiness. Current and future war fighting requirements will need
these highly qualified units when the Combatant Commanders require
fully ready units. The personnel readiness, retention, and training of
Reserve and Guard members will depend on them having Reserve equipment
that they can utilize, maintain, train on, and deploy with when called
upon.
Depending on Active Component hardware has never been successful
for many functional reasons. History shows that this can only be
accomplished through Reserve and Guard equipment, since the training
cycles of Active Components are rarely, if ever, synchronized with the
training or exercise times of Guard and Reserve units. The A4AD
recommends strengthening the appropriations for Reserve and Guard
equipment in order to maintain highly qualified trained Reserve and
Guard personnel.
We ask this committee to provide appropriations against unfunded
equipment requirements. To appropriate funds to Reserve equipment would
help emphasize to the Active Duty that it is exploring dead-ends by
suggesting the transfer of Reserve equipment away from the Reservists.
Not Combining Active and Reserve Appropriations:
Issue.--The fiscal year 2004 Defense budget request makes it clear
that OSD intends to consolidate all pay and O&M accounts into one
appropriation per service. These consolidations would require various
legislative changes before they could become law. The rationale for the
consolidations is to provide greater flexibility for the Active chiefs
to move monies from the Reserve and Guard pay accounts to fund Active
component pay and O&M shortfalls. Managing fewer appropriations would
also make managing pay and O&M easier.
Position.--The Associations for America's Defense strongly opposes
the proposed consolidation of all Guard, Reserve and Active pay into
one service pay appropriation. We similarly oppose the proposed
consolidation of all Guard, Reserve and Active operations and
maintenance accounts into one service O&M appropriation. While we
support seeking efficiencies wherever possible, we view the proposed
``business'' consolidation as ill conceived, misrepresented as
inefficient, and as an attempt to reduce Congressional oversight. We
oppose it for a variety of other reasons, as well.
Under current law, the Reserve chiefs are the directors for their
respective Reserve pay and O&M appropriations. Public Law 90-168, as
amended by the fiscal year 1997 NDAA, vested in the Reserve chiefs full
management and control of their respective Reserve financial resources.
Consolidating Reserve and Active pay into one appropriation would
divest the Reserve chiefs of this authority and preclude their
executing the programs and responsibilities, and maintaining the
readiness mandated by Congress.
Much of the Guard and Reserve annual training occurs during the
fourth quarter of a fiscal year, the same time frame when the Active
components are most likely to run short of funds and may desire to use
Reserve pay and O&M to fund their own shortfalls. Allowing the Active
components the ``flexibility'' to use Reserve funds whenever they need
to pay Active component bills means that somewhere a Reserve soldier or
sailor will not be paid, a Reserve unit will not be trained for
mobilization, or Reservist will not receive the specialized training
needed for promotion, and ultimately retention. The Active Component
will have flexible funding at the cost of Reserve Readiness.
Opposition to: Proposed Revision to authorization on
Appropriations Funding
Issue.--The Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003
recommends under Title IV, Subtitle A, Section 411, that Section 2214
of title 10 be amended to ``enhance General Transfer Authority and
allow authority to SECDEF to permit the transfer of 2.5 percent of the
total appropriations or funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for that fiscal year of working capital funds of DOD for military
functions (except MILCON); increasing to five percent in times of war
or emergency.
Position.--A4AD is opposed to this degree of authority. Two and a
half percent of $400 billion is $10 billion. This is the same amount
that the Bush Administration asked for in funding, without detailing
utilization, which Congress turned down. This is too high a sum of
money, and permits a high risk that items authorized by Congress could
be stripped of funding to support a DOD project viewed as under funded.
Issue.--The Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003
recommends under Title IV, Subtitle A, Section 412, that Section 2214
of title 10 be amended to permit the transfer of funds to correct
specific acquisition.
Position.--This requested change from a $10 million to a new $20
million limit of reprogramming of funds provides too much
``flexibility'' to the Secretary of Defense, reducing Congressional
oversight.
Maintaining or Increasing End Strength
Issues.--The United States is at War. While Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld has publicly opposed increases, and claims there are no plans
for reduction, subtle pressures are to be found encouraging personnel
cuts. It has been reported that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld throttled
down on the troop presence in Iraq, even though the commanders in the
field wanted more. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force
General Richard Myers, is already on record saying that, ``leaner
forces contributed to tactical surprise, success in Iraq.'' The
Presidential budget suggested an 1,100 person cut in the Navy and a
1,900 (2.2 percent) person cut in the Naval Reserve, as a start. DoN
planners are suggesting another 11 percent cut in the Naval Reserve for
fiscal year 2005.
Position.--It should be remembered that it is a mixture of legacy
forces and 21st century technology is what brought us swift victory
against Saddam's regime. The presence of troops on the ground is
enabling us to capture members of the Iraqi regime. While the vision of
a ``joy stick'' warfare, with operators removed from the battle site,
is the subject of magazine articles; it is the blood and sweat of our
young men and women who capture and win the battleground. We are
decades away from bucolic warfare.
A4AD has continuing concerns about the mismatch between reducing
active duty and reserve force strengths and the increasing mission
requirements. While retention remains at record highs, and military
members seem ready and willing to make personal sacrifices on behalf of
their country in the War on Terrorism, this luxury of manpower will not
last. The Navy, the first service to suffer manpower cuts, set record
deployment lengths during Iraqi Freedom. The President/DOD should not
be even implying cuts while the U.S.A. is at war.
A4AD believes the Administration and Congress must make it a high
priority to maintain if not increase end strengths of already
overworked military forces, even though DOD seems to want to work these
forces even harder. End strengths need to be closely examined by both
the House and Senate as a first step in addressing this situation.
Full funding for proposed end strengths is sought by A4AD. We also
solicit your input and support for maintaining or increasing end
strength in future debates.
The 4 percent solution
Issue.--Despite increases in the Defense budget, demands will be
outstripping the availability of dollars. As money begins to be
reprogrammed into Research and Development, the active duty programs
will be stressed by perceived shortfalls. Resulting covetous possession
will distort long term planning as planners seek to preserve favorite
programs, surrendering the vulnerable and obsolete as a means to
maintain the ``strong''. Such acquisitiveness will stifle innovation,
and eradicate retention.
Position.--A4AD urges the President of the United States and
members of Congress to continue to increase defense spending to a
minimum of 4 percent of Gross Domestic Product. The Armed Forces are an
instrument of National Security and Defense, and are in affect an
insurance policy to this Country; as demonstrated by events since 9-11-
2001. Americans should be willing to invest as much into defense as we
do into the personal insurance policies.
CONCLUSION
A core of military and veteran associations are looking beyond
personnel issues to the broader issues of National Defense. As a group,
we will continue to meet in the future, and hope to provide your
committee with our inputs.
Thank you for your ongoing support of the Nation, the Armed
Services, and the fine young men and women who defend our country.
Senator Stevens. Steven Garrett, the Deputy Legislative
Director of the Retired Enlisted Association.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN L. GARRETT, DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION
Mr. Garrett. On behalf of The Retired Enlisted Association
(TREA), I would like to thank the committee for allowing us to
testify today. TREA is an association that focuses its
attention on the issues related to senior active duty personnel
and especially military retirees. I will focus my testimony on
these concerns.
Understanding the differences between the duties of the
appropriators and the authorizers, I will do my best to stay
within the boundaries of this committee's jurisdiction. In
short, I will emphasize the need for funding currently
authorized programs, areas TREA would like the committee to
keep in mind, and finally a few extraneous issues.
As I am sure you are aware, the 2003 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) includes the combat-related special
compensation provision, and TREA would like to emphasize that
this measure is a welcome step in the right direction and we
anticipate continued progress. In the meantime, we ask for the
proper appropriation to fund this new entitlement.
The basic allowance for housing was also authorized an
increase. Here again, we request that it receive the necessary
funding from this committee.
Thirdly, TREA would like to join Congress and the rest of
the country in its appreciation for the sacrifices of the Guard
and the Reserve and ask that these vital components be fully
funded so that they will be ready to act as quickly as we call
on them.
A couple of issues to keep in mind. It is with great
emphasis that TREA encourages the members of this committee to
stay current with issues, issues of concurrent receipt,
survivor benefit plan, and health care, with regard to further
base realignment and closures, or BRAC. These closures have
significant impact on the beneficiaries using Tricare that
needs to be taken into consideration if Congress deems BRAC
necessary. We are working these issues with the authorizing
committee and it is our goal that they will be authorized and
brought before your committee in the near future.
Before closing, I would like to mention a quick concern.
TREA is cautious of the DOD request the assume more control of
its spending. It concerns us that this authority may come at
the expense of personnel and retirement issues. We urge this
committee to scrutinize this proposal with this thought in
mind.
In addition to the above statements, I ask that you look
carefully at the written statements of the Military Coalition
and the National Military Veterans Alliance. These groups
represent veterans and retiree communities in a very positive
manner, and as an active member of both organizations TREA
requests that you give them close attention.
Again, I thank the committee for the opportunity to present
our issues and concerns and we look forward to working with you
to improve the quality of life for veterans, retirees, and
their families.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven L. Garrett
On behalf of The Retired Enlisted Association I would like to thank
the committee for allowing me to testify today. The Retired Enlisted
Association is an association whose members are enlisted military
retirees and their families.
HEALTH CARE FOR MILITARY BENEFICIARIES
Today, there are approximately 8.2 million beneficiaries in the
military health care program. Military retirees and their dependents
make up nearly one half of that number, and over 500,000 retirees have
lost or will lose their access to military health care as a result of
the closure of approximately 40 percent of military treatment
facilities. Access to affordable health care, regardless of age, status
or location, has represented a major concern among military retirees.
The creation of TRICARE for Life and a TRICARE Senior Pharmacy
benefit in Public Law 106-398 was an historic triumph for Congress and
those 1.3 million Medicare-eligible military retirees and dependents.
While TRICARE for Life came with its own funding stream in fiscal year
2002, authorization must be budgeted to provide for the program for
fiscal year 2004. The Retired Enlisted Association recommends that you
continue to improve this important program by providing the necessary
funding. The Retired Enlisted Association also applauds your work last
year in eliminating TRICARE co-payments for active duty family members.
We also salute the Department of Defense for reducing active duty time
for Reservists to 30 days for their families to be eligible for
TRICARE.
Although Congress enacted legislation to restore TRICARE to
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries as a wraparound to Medicare (TRICARE
for Life) and to improve TRICARE for active duty families, further
improvements are still needed, especially for retired beneficiaries
under age 65. TRICARE must be a consistent, reliable and equitable
health care benefit for all uniformed services beneficiaries,
regardless of age or geography.
The fiscal year 2001 NDAA eliminated copays for active duty family
members enrolled in Prime, and enacted TRICARE For Life (TFL) and
TRICARE Senior Pharmacy (TSRx) for Medicare-eligibles. With TFL
implementation complete Congress and DOD must turn their attention to
improving serious shortcomings in healthcare benefits for TRICARE
beneficiaries under the age of 65.
--Low reimbursement rates are causing providers to refuse any TRICARE
patients or reduce the number of TRICARE patients they will
treat, limiting beneficiary access and choice. Solution:
Increase statutory (Medicare) payment rates; require use of
existing authority to raise TRICARE rates where necessary to
ensure sufficient numbers of participating providers.
--TRICARE is cumbersome to use and causes administrative hassles for
providers and beneficiaries attempting to obtain authorization,
expedite claim repayment, or move between regions. Solution:
Improve TRICARE Prime enrollment procedures, portability, and
beneficiary education. Decrease administrative burdens,
eliminate non-availability statement requirements, streamline
claims processing requirements with greater reliance on
electronic claims technology, and eliminate unnecessary
reporting requirements. Require TRICARE contractors to assist
beneficiaries in finding TRICARE Standard providers.
--Institute ``benefits plus benefits'' reimbursement methodology. TFL
pays beneficiary expenses not covered by Medicare (``benefits
plus benefits''). For TRICARE Standard beneficiaries with other
health insurance (OHI), TRICARE seldom pays expenses not
covered by other insurance (``benefits less benefits'').
Solution: Restore TRICARE reimbursement policy to pay up to
what TRICARE would have paid had there been no OHI coverage (as
was the policy before 1993).
Since the commencement of the first class of graduates of the
Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS) in 1980, over
3,200 physicians continue to pursue careers as physicians in the Army,
Navy, Air Force and the U.S. Public Health Service each year. The USUHS
education process emphasizes primary care medicine and also provides
special training in military medicine and combat stress courses not
found in civilian medical school curricula. USUHS graduates have also
proven themselves willing to accept operational overseas assignments
often viewed as less than desirable by civilian medical school
graduates.
Both the fiscal year 1996 National Defense Appropriations Act and
the National Defense Authorization Act prohibit the closure of USUHS.
The Defense Authorization Act also provided a five year prohibition on
reducing the staffing levels of USUHS below the levels established as
of October 1, 1993. The Retired Enlisted Association urges the Congress
to resist any efforts to circumvent the law to downscale or close the
USUHS. The Retired Enlisted Association is convinced that the USUHS is
an economical source of career medical leaders who serve this nation
during peace and war and provide military health care consistency and
stability. The Retired Enlisted Association urges the Congress to
retain and fully fund USUHS as a continued source of career military
physicians for the Army, Navy, Air Force and U.S. Public Health
Service. The Retired Enlisted Association also supports the
construction of an Academic Center to accommodate the USUHS Graduate
School of Nursing.
OTHER MILITARY RETIREE ISSUES
The Retired Enlisted Association believes strongly that quality-of-
life issues for retired military members and families also are
important to sustaining military readiness over the long term. If the
Government allows retired members' quality-of-life to erode over time,
or if the retirement promises that convinced them to serve are not
kept, the retention rate in the current active-duty force will
undoubtedly be affected. The old adage that you enlist a recruit, but
you reenlist a family is truer today than ever as more career-oriented
servicemembers are married or have dependents.
Accordingly, The Retired Enlisted Association believes Congress and
the Administration must place high priority on ensuring that these
long-standing commitments are honored:
--VA Compensation Offset to Military Retired Pay (Retired Pay
Restoration).--Under current law, a military retiree with
compensable VA disabilities cannot receive full military
retirement pay and VA disability compensation. The military
retiree's retirement pay is offset (dollar-for-dollar) by the
amount of VA disability compensation awarded. We would like to
thank the committee for providing funding for the authorized
special compensation programs; however, The Retired Enlisted
Association supports restoration of retired pay (concurrent
receipt) for all disabled military retirees. The purposes of
these two compensation systems are fundamentally different.
Longevity retirement pay is designed primarily as a force
management tool to attract large numbers of high quality
members to serve for at least 20 years. A veteran's disability
compensation is paid for an injury or disease incurred or
aggravated during military service. Monetary benefits are
related to the residual effects of the injury or disease or for
the physical or mental pain and suffering and subsequently
reduced employment and earnings potential. The Retired Enlisted
Association also urges that disabled retired Reservists' and
those retired under the early retirement authority be eligible
for the authorized Special Compensation programs. What better
time to authorize and fund concurrent receipt than during this
period of War?
--Social Security Offsets to the Survivors' Benefits Plan (SBP).--The
Retired Enlisted Association supports amending Public Law 99-
145 to eliminate the provision that calls for the automatic
offset at age 62 of the military SBP with Social Security
benefits for military survivors. Military retirees pay into
both SBP and Social Security, and their survivors pay income
taxes on both. The Retired Enlisted Association believes that
military survivors should be entitled to receipt of full Social
Security benefits which they have earned in their own right. It
is also strongly recommended that any SBP premium increases be
assessed on the effective date, or subsequent to, increases in
cost of living adjustments and certainly not before the
increase in SBP as has been done previously. In order to see
some increases in SBP benefits, The Retired Enlisted
Association would support a gradual improvement of survivor
benefits from 35 percent to 55 percent over the next five-year
period. The Retired Enlisted Association also supports
initiatives to make the military survivors' benefits plan more
attractive. Currently, about 75 percent of officers and 55
percent of enlisted personnel are enrolled in the Plan.
--Reducing the Retired Reservist age from 60 to 55.--The Retired
Enlisted Association believes that retirement pay should be
paid sooner as many of these retirees will not live to their
60th birthday. Similarly, these retirees and their dependents
should be eligible for TRICARE health care and other military
privileges when they turn 55.
--Military Retired Pay COLAs.--Servicemembers, current and future,
need the leadership of this Subcommittee to ensure Congress
remains sensitive to long-standing contracts made with
generations of career military personnel. A major difficulty is
the tendency of some to portray all so-called ``entitlement''
programs, including military retirement, as a gratuitous gift
from the taxpayer. In truth, military retired pay is earned
deferred compensation for accepting the unique demands and
sacrifices of decades of military service. The military
retirement system is among the most important military career
incentives. The Retired Enlisted Association urgently
recommends that the Subcommittee oppose any changes to the
military retirement system, whether prospective or retroactive,
that would undermine readiness or violate contracts made with
military retirees.
--The SBP Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) Offset
for Survivors.--Under current law, the surviving spouse of a
retired military member who dies from a service connected
disability and was also enrolled in SBP, the surviving spouse's
SBP benefits are offset by the amount of DIC (currently $948
per month). A pro-rated share of SBP premiums is refunded to
the widow upon the member's death in a lump sum, but with no
interest. The Retired Enlisted Association believes that SBP
and DIC payments, like military retirement pay and disability
compensation, are paid for different reasons. SBP is elected
and purchased by the retiree based on his/her military career
and is intended to provide a portion of retired pay to the
survivor. DIC payments represent special compensation to a
survivor whose sponsor's death was caused directly by his or
her uniformed service. In principle, this is a government
payment for indemnity or damages for causing the premature loss
of life of the member, to the extent a price can be set on
human life. These payments should be additive to any military
or federal civilian SBP annuity purchased by the retiree. There
are approximately 31,000 military widows/widowers affected by
the offset under current law. Congress should repeal this
unfair law that penalizes these military survivors.
--Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA).--The
Retired Enlisted Association urges Congressional support for
amending language to Public Law 97-252, the Uniformed Services
Former Spouses Protection Act. This law continues to unfairly
penalize active-duty armed forces members and military
retirees. USFSPA has created an even larger class of victims
than the former spouses it was designed to assist, namely
remarried active-duty service members or military retirees and
their new family. The Retired Enlisted Association believes
this law should be rescinded in its entirety, but as an
absolute minimum, the provision for a lifetime annuity to
former spouses should be terminated upon their remarriage. This
is consistent with most divorce decrees. Based on this current
provision, monthly provisions for life are being granted to
former spouses regardless of marital status, need, or child
custodial arrangements. The time has come to cease lifetime
annuities to former military spouses, should they remarry.
Judicial determinations of appropriate support should be
determined on a case-by-case basis and not be viewed as an
``entitlement'' by former spouses as exists under current law.
The Retired Enlisted Association urges hearings on the USFSPA.
A CONCERN
TREA is cautious of the DOD request to assume more control of its
spending. It concerns us that this authority may come at the expense of
personnel and retirement issues. We urge Congress to scrutinize this
latest proposal.
CONCLUSION
In addition to the above statements I ask that you all look
carefully at the written statements of The Military Coalition and The
National Military Veterans Alliance. These groups represent veterans
and retirees communities in a very positive manner, and as an active
member of both organizations, TREA requests that you give each close
attention. Again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to present
our issues and concerns, and we look forward to working with you to
improve the quality of life for veterans and retirees and their
families.
Senator Burns [presiding]. Mr. Garrett, thank you for your
testimony. We are playing tag up here again.
Mr. Garrett. Sure, sure.
Senator Burns. I want to just say thank you. We enlisted
your help a little bit with regard to people that had taken
early retirement and some miscommunications as far as the
benefits they receive and how they receive those, and we got
some great information from your organization. Now we are
pursuing making some changes in that so that people are ensured
they get their benefits whenever they took early retirement.
And we thank you for your testimony today.
Mr. Garrett. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
Now we call Joseph Barnes, National Executive Secretary of
the Fleet Reserve Association. Thank you for coming today, sir,
and let us apologize for the conditions in which you have to
offer your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. BARNES, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Barnes. Not a problem, Senator. Thank you very much.
The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) appreciates the opportunity
to present its views on the 2004 defense budget. The
association thanks the distinguished subcommittee for its
leadership, support, and strong commitment to important quality
of life programs benefiting service members, their families,
and military retirees.
My statement today addresses several priority issues. FRA
recommends continued progress towards closing the military pay
gap by 2006 and beyond by funding higher than civilian level
pay increases. The Senate Armed Services Committee endorsed at
least a 3.7 percent pay increase for all uniformed services
personnel and FRA requests the appropriations necessary to
implement this increase on January 1, 2004.
FRA strongly recommends full funding for the Defense health
program and adequate appropriations to revitalize the Tricare
Standard program. The association also believes Tricare should
be available for reservists and their families on a cost-
sharing basis. Bob Washington, FRA's Director of Legislative
Programs, earlier addressed other health care concerns on
behalf of the association and the Military Coalition.
FRA supports benchmarking the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB)
education benefits to the cost of an average 4-year college
education. Noteworthy is the fact that a significant percentage
of Navy enlisted personnel have no education benefits and they
should be afforded an opportunity to enroll when reenlisting.
The military survivor benefit plan provides an annuity to
surviving spouses equal to 55 percent of covered retired pay.
This amount is reduced to 35 percent when the beneficiary
begins receiving social security. FRA believes that the program
should be funded at the intended 40 percent level rather than
at the current level, which is less than 17 percent.
Additional issues addressed in our statement include:
continuing support for an increase in end strengths to ease
both operational and personnel tempos; funding for spouse
employment opportunities, which are integral to the well-being
and retention of service members; and supplemental impact aid
funding for school districts with large numbers of military-
sponsored students.
FRA strongly supports funding to maintain the commissary
benefit at the current level and restates its continued
opposition to privatization. The benefit is an integral part of
the total compensation package. In addition, limitations on
access for Guard and Reserve personnel should be lifted due to
the increased reliance on these service members.
Finally, FRA advocates retention of the full final month's
retired pay by the retiree's surviving spouse and the extension
of the dislocation allowance to retiring service members. If
authorized, the association asks for your support for these
proposals, which have also been endorsed by the entire Military
Coalition. Thank you again, Senator, and I stand ready to
answer any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph L. Barnes
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:
The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is grateful for the opportunity to
address the panel on military personnel programs. First, however, the
Association extends sincere gratitude to the Subcommittee for its
outstanding efforts these past four years in enhancing life in the
military for the Nation's service members and their families. The
result has been nearly miraculous. Recruiting and retention is at its
highest since the advent of the all-volunteer force. The ``magic'' spun
by this subcommittee has enriched quality of life for the men and women
who serve or will serve or have retired from the Armed Forces of the
United States.
With 135,000 members strong, FRA presents a well-deserved salute to
the Subcommittee for, among others, providing ``targeted'' pay
increases for NCOs and Petty Officers in the grades of E5 thru E9 and
funding the Tricare for Life health care program for military retirees
65 years of age or older. The Subcommittee's commitment to service
members, their families, and retired military veterans is unmatched.
Thanks for doing a superb job.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 DEFENSE BUDGET
FRA is acutely aware of the estimated deficits facing the United
States in 2004 and succeeding years. Defense build-up is critical to
this country that now plays a major role in keeping the United States,
as well as other world nations, free from intrusion by an enemy or
enemies. The cost of doing business defense-wise leaves little for
societal and environmental programs.
FRA supports a strong defense, first and ever more. However, it is
a people-oriented organization whose mission is to provide loyalty,
protection, and service to its members. To serve its members
effectively, the Association has a duty to apprise Congress of the
resolutions adopted by them in convention.
For fiscal year 2004, FRA is seeking support from the Subcommittee
for the issues and programs addressed in this statement. For the past
12 months the Association, as in almost 76 of its 79 years, renewed its
commitment to serve as the premier ``watchdog'' organization for its
members as well as the enlisted men and women serving in the Navy,
Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. From that group, as well as other
sources dedicated to enhancing quality of life for the Nation's Sea
Services personnel, FRA offers the below recommendations for
consideration and, hopefully, the Subcommittee's endorsement.
QUALITY OF LIFE PROGRAMS
The following recommendations are divided into six (6) major
categories. They are: Pay and Allowances, health care, education,
retirement, military construction, and other issues.
Overworked U.S. troops will accept the strain of current
deployments--for a while--as long as they believe their families are
cared for back home.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Attributed to the military's top enlisted members before a
House panel Mar 5. 2003 as reported by Navy Times, Mar 17, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay and allowances
Compensation
Recommendation.--That Congress holds fast to its commitment of
closing the military pay gap by 2006 through the utilization of higher-
than-civilian-pay increases to military basic pay and not permit
military pay to again fall behind that of the civilian community. To
accomplish the task Congress needs to react before 2006 in repealing
the law authorizing the capping of annual military pay increases below
that of civilian wages. Additionally, to continue its promise to erase
the disparity in housing allowances that cause service members to pay
higher out-of-pocket costs to reside in the civilian community.
Pay and allowances continue as the top retention choice of military
personnel since the beginning of the all-volunteer force. This is
substantiated once again in a recent survey conducted by FRA on its web
site. More service members are married than ever before in the history
of the Nation's military. Societal and economical customs demand higher
incomes for military personnel, the same as for their civilian brothers
and sisters. Congress in its wisdom has adopted higher pays for all
uniformed members and ``targeted pays'' for both mid-grade officers and
noncommissioned officers to meet that demand in the military. Further,
Congress has committed itself to closing the pay gap between military
and civilian pay levels.
For fiscal year 2004, the basic pay increase is currently locked in
law at 3.7 percent, 0.05 percent higher than the latest ECI figure [37
USC, 1009(c)]. BHA (Basic Housing Allowance), also locked in law, is in
for an increase in fiscal year 2004 of four (4) percent. However, the
Administration's budget calls for a mix of basic pay increases
beginning at 2 percent for personnel in the grade of E1 to a high of
6\1/4\ percent for those in grade E9. With the exception of pay grades
E1 and O1, all other grades are set to receive at least a 3.7 percent
increase. FRA is delighted with the Department of Defense for
piggybacking on the Association's 1999 Pay Study and again recommending
``targeted'' increases for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned and
petty officers (NCOs/POs).
FRA supports the Administration's recommendations on pay and
housing allowance increases and urges the Subcommittee to appropriate
the necessary funds to affect the authorized increases. However, if
Congress believes a higher increase should go to E1s and O1s, the
Association suggests no reduction in the design to target pay increases
for NCOs and POs who, until recently, have been slighted since the
advent of the AVF.
FRA also urges Congress not to buy the Administration's suggestion
to change the current Employers Cost Index (ECI) to the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) as a measure to determine future military pay increases.
One may recall that it was only a few years ago when the then incumbent
Administration urged Congress to adopt the ECI. DOD noted at the time
that the ECI was a much superior indicator in matching civilian wages
to military pay. In the event the Administration's suggestion prevails,
the Association requests that no funds be appropriated to support the
administration of such a change.
Pay Raise for USPHS and NOAA Personnel
Recommendation.--FRA urges the funding of comparable basic pay
raises in 2004 for Public Health Service (PHS) and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Commissioned Officers.
Both agencies are an integral part of the seven uniformed services
and should receive the same consideration as for other commissioned
officers in the Armed Forces. FRA is particularly concerned for
officers in the PHS who provide health care to members of the U.S.
Coast Guard, identical to the care provided by officers of the Armed
Services Medical Corps to members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and
Air Force.
Reserve Compensation
Recommendation.--Support the restoration of tax deductions for
expenses expended by reservists in performing military training.
With the United States resolve to maintain worldwide peace, the
role of the reservist is more important than ever. Due to extensive
mobilization of the reserves, some individuals/units more than once and
for undesignated periods of time, it behooves Congress to improve
benefits for reserves so that their numbers will meet that which the
military services need to support the active forces. One of the
benefits would be to allow reservists to deduct non-reimbursable
expenses associated with performing monthly drills. It is the
Association's fervent hope the Senate will act on the bill as soon as
possible.
Dislocation Allowance
Recommendation.--Amend 37 USC, Sec. 407, to authorize the payment
of dislocation allowances to members of the armed forces retiring or
transferring to an inactive duty status such as the Fleet Reserve or
Fleet Marine Reserve who perform a ``final change of station'' move.
Moving households on government orders can be costly. Throughout a
military career, service members endure a number of permanent changes
of station (PCS). Often each move requires additional expenses for
relocating to a new area far removed from the service members' current
location.
Dislocation allowances are authorized for military-ordered moves.
To aid service members in defraying these additional costs, Congress in
1955 adopted the payment of a special allowance-termed ``dislocation
allowance''--to recognize that duty station changes and resultant
household relocations reflect personnel management decisions of the
armed forces and are not subject to the control of individual members.
Odd as it may appear, service members preparing to retire from the
Armed Services are not eligible for dislocation allowances, yet many
are subject to the same additional expenses they experienced when
effecting a permanent change of station during the 20 or more years of
active duty spent earning the honor to retire. In either case, moving
on orders to another duty station or to retire are both reflective of a
management decision.
FRA recommends appropriating the necessary funds to affect payments
of this allowance.
Health Care
Tricare
Recommendation.--FRA strongly recommends continuation of full
funding for the Defense Health Program, to include military medical
readiness, TRICARE, and the DOD peacetime health care mission.
Additionally, FRA urges the distinguished Subcommittee to provide
appropriations to revitalize the Tricare Standard Program and make the
Tricare program available for reservists and families on a cost-sharing
basis.
Funds need to be appropriated for the Defense Health Budget to meet
readiness needs and deliver services through both the direct care and
purchased-care systems for all uniformed services beneficiaries,
regardless of age, status and location. Congressional oversight of the
Defense Health Budget is essential to avoid a return to the chronic
under-funding of past years that led to shortfalls, shortchanging of
the direct care system, and reliance on annual emergency supplemental
funding requests. Even though supplemental appropriations for health
care were not needed last year, FRA is concerned that the current
funding level only meets the needs to maintain the status quo.
Addressing Tricare shortfalls will require additional funding.
Access to care is of major concern to the FRA membership.
Beneficiaries report that some health providers in their areas are not
willing to accept new Tricare Standard patients. The Association
believes further distinction must be made between Tricare Standard and
Prime in evaluating the Tricare program. Our members report increased
problems and dissatisfaction with the Standard benefit.
There are a number of persistent problems with Tricare Standard, a
new name for an old program once known as CHAMPUS. First, many
beneficiaries have difficulty in locating Health Providers who'll
accept Tricare Standard. The paperwork is extensive and the payments
are insufficient. In a FRA survey administered in early February 2003,
15 of 55 service members (27 percent) attending a military course of
instruction complained of the difficulty in obtaining health care
providers for their family members. (The remaining 40 were enrolled in
Tricare Prime.)
Reservists are rightfully concerned with continuity of health care
for their families when called to active duty. Until recently, there
was no single coverage for reservists and no coverage for some. Now,
reservists called to active duty in excess of 30 days may enroll their
families in Tricare Prime and have access to either Military Treatment
Facilities (MTF) or civilian providers. To maintain permanence of
health care, many reservists and families would just as soon keep their
current health care coverage. To improve readiness in the reserves,
increase morale, and ease concern for families when reservists are
mobilized, Congress should direct and fund DOD to implement a program
whereby the reservists' current health insurance premiums are paid by
Tricare.
Education
MGIB
Recommendation.--FRA continues to support increased benefits for
participation in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and to authorize certain
service members the opportunity to enroll or reenroll in the MGIB.
FRA advocates the creation of a benchmark for the MGIB so that its
benefits will keep pace with the cost of an average four year college
education. Even with the forthcoming October 1 increases in basic
rates, a MGIB student looking forward to completing the 2003-2004
academic year will have to pay out-of-pocket about one-third the cost
of a four year course of education in a public college or university.
If married, the shortfall in benefits will place a heavier financial
burden on the student.
The Reserve MGIB has failed to maintain a creditable rate of
benefits with those authorized in Title 38, Chapter 30. Other than
cost-of-living increases, only two improvements in benefits have been
legislated since 1985. In that year MGIB rates were established at 47
percent of active duty benefits. This October 1, the rate will fall to
27 percent of the Chapter 30 benefits. In support of Guard and Reserve
personnel, being mobilized in increasing numbers, FRA seeks the support
of Congress is enhancing the MGIB rates for those who choose to
participate in the program.
Approximately 40 percent of the Navy's enlisted force has no
educational benefits. It seems ironic that an individual enlisting in
the military services is eligible to enroll in the MGIB while another
seeking to reenlist does not have the opportunity. Allowing service-
members to enroll in the MGIB upon reenlisting in the Armed Forces
should be the norm.
Retirement
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)
Recommendation.--To adopt and fund Senate Bill, S. 451, to amend
the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) [10 USC, 1451(a)] to authorize the
repeal of the post-62 annuity over a period of 5 years [35 percent to
40 percent in October 2004, to 45 percent in October 2005, to 50
percent in October 2006] and to 55 percent in October 2007. Further to
change the date 2008 to 2004 [10 USC, 1452(l)] at which time the
retiree, attaining the age of 70 years who has paid 30 years of SBP
premiums, will be fully insured for the covered amount without further
payments to the Plan.
The Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provides an annuity to surviving
spouses equal to 55 percent of the deceased member's covered military
retirement pay with a reduction to 35 percent when the surviving spouse
attains the age of 62. SBP also offers annuities to spouses and
children, children only, former spouses, former spouses and children,
and insurable interests.
Two-thirds of the total military retired community is in the
enlisted grades, most are earning retirement pay in the E6 and E7 pay
grades. At the time of their retirement, few are financially able to
afford SBP coverage at the full amount of their retirement pay. On
retirement, the typical service member may lose nearly 70 percent of
the income received while on active duty. As a result, they opt for the
basic amount that provides a miniscule annuity for a surviving spouse.
The Plan is perplexing adding to the confusion of what constitutes
a ``social security offset'' when the Social Security Administration
(SSA) has nothing to do with computing the SBP annuity? And the
question: Why is there a sharp annuity loss suffered at age 62 for some
and not for others? Why isn't Congress adhering to its original intent
to cover 40 percent of the costs of the program? Why, if the SBP is
patterned after the Federal Employees' plans, is FERS subsidized at 33
percent and 48 percent for CSRS? Additionally, FERS annuitants receive
50 percent of the employees' retired pay and CSRS annuitants 55 percent
with no reduction in the annuity at age 62.
Mr. Chairman. Let's fix the program before our retired service
members are paying 100 percent for participating in a program that was
adopted to replace a previous plan where the participants were required
to carry 100 percent of the costs.
Authorize Surviving Spouses a Full Month's Payment of Retired Pay for
Month in Which Retirees Die
Recommendation.--In consideration of service to the Nation and the
trauma surrounding the death of a retired service member, the surviving
spouse would be entitled to receive and retain the final retired pay
check/deposit covering any month in which the member was alive for any
24-hour period.
Current regulations require survivors of deceased military retirees
to return any retirement payments received for the month in which the
retiree dies. Upon the demise of a retired service member entitled to
retired pay, the surviving spouse or beneficiary is to notify the
Defense Department of the death. The Department's financial arm then
stops payment on the retirement check or electronic deposit and
subsequently recalculates the payment to cover the actual days in the
month the retiree was alive. In other cases where the death is not
reported in a timely manner, any payments made for the days the retiree
was not alive will be recouped.
Retirement and its related activities are most agonizing if not an
arduous experience for many military retirees and families
transitioning to an unfamiliar civilian-lifestyle. For the average
retiree, and most likely the one who is enlisted, will suddenly
discover finances will be a principal concern. On leaving active duty,
the retiree's income will drop 60-to-70 percent of what was earned
while in uniform. The enlisted retiree, unlike his or her active duty
counterpart, will receive no death gratuity and, in the case of many of
the older enlisted retirees, would not have had the financial resources
to purchase adequate insurance to provide a financial cushion for their
surviving spouses.
Death is a most traumatic experience for survivors. It is a most
painful time when the surviving spouse must accept the task of
arranging for the deceased members' funeral services. The additional
cost involved constitutes a major output of scarce family dollars only
amplified by the loss of retirement income when needed the most. A
final month's retirement payment will go far in helping to soothe the
strain on the survivor's financial obligations.
To aid in reducing the cost of the proposal, survivor benefit
payments may be forfeited for the month in which the retiree dies and
the survivor receives the retiree's final month's check. In the event
the retiree's final month's retirement check is less than the SBP
annuity, the survivor would receive the one most favorable.
Military Construction
Housing
Recommendation.--To make every effort to eliminate substandard
family and bachelor housing, now referred to as inadequate by DOD, and
expedite the construction of new housing to accommodate the Nation's
service members and families. Also, to provide enhanced child care
programs to relieve the tension of spouses or working spouses with
children whose service member husbands or wives are deployed.
In a recent appearance before the House Appropriations Subcommittee
on Military Construction, the Armed Services four top enlisted chiefs
voiced concern for the quality and availability of housing and child
care. Both are ever-most in the minds of service members deployed or
serving outside the United States without their families.
Although there is a threat of base closures in the immediate
future, apparently the larger military installations, such as Norfolk
Naval Bases, Camp Pendleton, etc., are not at risk. There is no reason
not to authorize and appropriate additional funding for both housing
and child care.
Both the Navy and Marine Corps have unfunded housing priorities.
For example, the Navy has reduced its fiscal year 2004 Family Housing
request by 17 percent and the Corps needs $165 million of which $63
million is for family housing. This raises the question of whether the
Navy and Marine Corps will meet their 2007 target of ridding both
services of ``inadequate'' housing. Congress is encouraged to purge the
Navy and Marine Corps of ``substandard housing'' (the name it was
before DOD changed it to ``inadequate'') by authorizing and
appropriating additional funding to accomplish the task.
At the same time FRA seeks increased funds for family housing it
cannot ignore the need for bachelor quarters. The Association endorses
the requests of the Navy's and Marine Corps' top enlisted chiefs in
their statements of February 26, 2003 before the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Construction. (Available upon request to FRA
at 703-683-1400 or fra@fra.org.)
Facilities
Recommendation.--To provide for additional funding to accommodate
the construction and modernization of installation facilities at Naval
and Marine Corps bases, to include physical fitness and MWR centers.
The value of having adequate facilities cannot be over-stated. The
backlog of maintenance to many of the work-stations and other buildings
continues to grow along side the need to replace those structures that
are beyond repair. It's shameful as well as wasteful to require our
service members to labor in dilapidated buildings on weapons systems
and other equipment costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. Again,
the Navy and Marine Corps have priorities that should be funded so more
secure, cleaner, and healthier work places are available for Sailors
and Marines enabling them to perform at their best.
Additionally, community support facilities require congressional
attention. Physical fitness centers are much in demand. Not only are
they places to relieve tension but to build body strength and improve
health, both important to maintaining physical readiness.
Other Issues
End Strengths
Recommendation.--FRA believes this honorable Subcommittee is aware
of the need for greater strength authorizations and funding to ease
both operational and personnel tempos imposed upon a force not
sufficient in numbers to sustain the current demands for manning
operational commitments. Although Congress, under the provisions of the
fiscal year 2003 NDAA, did allow and fund a small increase in the
active component strength of the Marine Corps, it only authorized
increases for the Navy, if needed, but without funding. FRA recommends
Congress give greater credence to its instincts and authorize
appropriations for additional manpower.
Since 1995, when it was obvious the downsizing of strengths in the
Armed Forces was causing increased operational and personnel tempos,
FRA has annually requested increases in military manpower. It will do
so again this session of Congress.
In an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee last
year, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, avowed the Armed Forces will
defeat terrorism ``no matter how long it takes or where it takes us.''
On January 31, 2003, The Washington Times reported Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld as alerting his commanders ``that troops will deploy for
longer periods because of the war on terrorism and potential conflict
with Iraq.'' Missing from both statements was the promise to succeed
only if the Forces had adequate manpower to accomplish the mission.
Previously, a Navy Times editorial of December 12, 2001, warned not
to overextend the military: ``Time and again, America's armed forces
have shown they'll do what it takes to serve their country. But history
offers a warning: Work them too hard, keep them away from home too
long, overlook their welfare and eventually they will walk.''
Additionally, The Washington Times of January 31, 2003, noted that a
retired Navy Admiral commenting on high military deployment rates
stated, . . . ``the chances of keeping a marriage together for 20 years
at the current op tempo is approaching zero.''
These warnings are not to be ignored. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to resolve the question of how the Department of Defense
(DOD) can justify no need of increased manpower when the strength of
the Forces has been reduced by one-third while the optemp has
accelerated dramatically. Operational levels involving uniformed
members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard
have escalated significantly over the past decade to a point where the
United States does not have adequate numbers of military personnel to
fully accommodate the many commitments ordered by the Department of
Defense and area commanders.
Early in 2002, it was reported the Army had told the Pentagon it
needs 20,000 to 40,000 additional troops in fiscal year 2003, the Air
Force 8,000 to 10,000, and the Navy and Marine Corps an additional
3,000 each. However, the Secretary of Defense was not favorable to an
increase in manpower. Congress, in its decision, authorized an increase
but because of a shortage of funds provided no money to pay the
additional manpower.
There are numerous defense officials, both civilian and military,
complaining uniformed personnel are doing more with less, over
deployed, overworked, and stretched too thin. However, our service
members are serving magnificently, but the question is: For how long
and if they have to face a determined foe? Operation Iraqi Freedom is
no guideline to justify further reductions in military manpower.
Spousal Employment
Recommendation.----The Association urges Congress to continue its
support of the military's effort to affect a viable spousal employment
program and to authorize sufficient funds to assure the program's
success.
Today's all-volunteer environment requires the services to consider
the whole family. It is no longer adequate to focus only on the morale
and financial well-being of the member. Now, his or her family must be
considered, too. One of the major considerations is spousal employment
which could be a stepping-stone to retention of the service member--a
key participant in the defense of this Nation.
In recent years, the Armed Forces have become concerned with the
plight of military spouses who lose employment when accompanying their
service member husbands or wives to new duty locations. Studies have
concluded that many military families suffer significant financial
setbacks. Some losses are substantial. Worse, yet, is the lack of equal
or even minimal employment opportunities at the new duty locations.
The services are continuing to test new programs to assist spouses
in finding full or temporary employment to include counseling and
training. Other initiatives will help spouses find ``portable''
employment in companies with customer-service jobs that can be done at
remote locations. FRA salutes these efforts and encourages the military
departments to continue the march.
Impact Aid to School Districts with Concentrations of
Military Sponsored Students
Recommendation.--To continue to provide funds to school districts
heavily impacted with military personnel-sponsored children.
The President's Budget request contains a provision to reduce funds
earmarked for distribution to school districts heavily impacted with
children of military personnel (and civilian employees hired by the
service department concerned). The reduction is to be the amount that
would be appropriated for children, known as B students, whose parents
reside in the civilian community and not on the military installation.
FRA cannot urge this Subcommittee in any stronger terms to support
full funding of impact aid. Previous attempts by former Administrations
to terminate these payments have met with failure and rightfully so.
Impacted schools could not operate efficiently nor provide adequate
tutoring to service members' children with less money. Many of these
schools either closed their doors to these children or threatened to do
so if funds were cut.
At this time in history FRA believes it to be utterly foolish if
the Nation forgets the damage the President's request, if adopted, will
do to our service members' morale. There are 240,000 school children,
whose uniformed service parents live off of military installations,
depending on receiving a quality education from local educational
facilities. It will not happen unless the funds are provided.
Commissaries
Recommendation.--To oppose privatization of commissaries and
strongly support full appropriations to fund the current level of
service for all commissary patrons. Additionally, to authorize
unrestricted access to commissaries to Reservists.
The fiscal year 2003 budget reduced Defense Commissary Agency
funding by $137 million and envisioned eliminating over 2,600 positions
from stores and headquarters staff by September 30, 2003. While surveys
indicate there has been no significant loss in service to the customer,
FRA cautions that further initiatives be evaluated with regard to
potential negative impacts on quality and service to customers,
including additional store closings, reduced hours, longer cashier
lines and reduced stock on store shelves. The benefit is widely
recognized as a valuable part of the service member's compensation
package and a cornerstone of quality of life benefits. As in the past,
FRA opposes any effort to privatize commissaries and strongly supports
full funding of the benefit in fiscal year 2004 and beyond.
As in previous years, FRA once again seeks full access to
commissaries for selected reservists. The process involved in issuing
(annually), checking, and accounting for the current cards required of
the reservist to shop in the commissary is costly and unnecessary.
Reservists are part of the Total Force. They should receive the same
consideration as their active duty comrades-in-arms.
CONCLUSION
FRA is grateful for the opportunity to present its goals for fiscal
year 2004. If there are questions or the need for further information,
I will be pleased to respond.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Barnes. We
appreciate your testimony.
We are looking into some of these health care issues that
you are looking into and of course right now, you know, we have
got budget problems and we are trying to cover too many bases
with too few dollars. It is just like I asked--I met a lady on
the street in Billings the other day and I asked her about her
husband and she said, well, he retired. And I said, well, that
is pretty great. And she says, it is not worth a darn; it is
half as much money and twice as much husband. She said, that is
a bad equation. So thank you very much for your testimony. We
appreciate that very much.
Mr. Barnes. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Burns. We now call Dr. James A. Fabunmi. I am sorry
about that. I just killed that name, I know. I just slaughtered
it. The president of the Science and Technology Workforce for
America's Security. We appreciate you, and how do you pronounce
your last name, sir?
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. FABUNMI, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, THE
AMERICAN HERITAGE DEFENSE CORPORATION
Dr. Fabunmi. ``FAH-bune-mee.'' And I might say that you did
the best that I hear every day, so do not feel apologetic. That
is fine.
Senator Burns. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate your
patience and your goodwill.
Dr. Fabunmi. Good afternoon, sir. Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to present this
testimony before you today. I appreciate the opportunity to
present you some new ideas on how to broaden the base of
production of science and technology workforce for America's
security.
I represent the American Heritage Defense Corporation, a
nonprofit corporation registered in the District of Columbia
for the specific purpose of developing and implementing
programs that enhance the quality and quantity of American
citizens trained in the fields of science and technology. As
the committee knows, these are challenging times in the history
of our great Nation. There are serious threats from abroad to
our national defense, economic, and homeland security. Yet
American technological prowess, which has helped ensure our
military and economic security during the past 50 years, is in
serious jeopardy because of the increasing shortages of
American-educated scientists and engineers, who are the bedrock
of our technological enterprise.
The committee may be aware of recent reports by the Council
on Competitiveness, the National Science Board, and others that
pinpoint some critical factors that correlate highly and
positively with economic and military strength. They include:
the size of the labor force dedicated to research and
development and other technically oriented work; the amount of
investment directed at research and development; the resources
devoted to higher education; and the degree to which national
policy encourages investment, innovation and commercialization.
The committee may also be aware that there are innovative
economies of other countries that have made great strides in
developing high-value products and services. These innovative
economies are ramping their capacities to educate, train, and
deploy scientific and engineering talent. Their pool of
scientists and engineers is increasing briskly. The quality of
patents by foreign investors--inventors is strong. Global
access to capital is growing.
On the other hand, the source of the innovative capacity of
our Nation is thinning. A quarter of the current science and
engineering workforce, whose research and innovation produced
the American technological superiority of the past decades, is
more than 50 years old and will retire by the end of this
decade.
The Department of Defense has historically been the largest
source of Federal funding for engineering, research, and
development in this country. Universities are significant
collaborators with industry and are the source for young
science and technology talent for the defense sector, both
public and private. In particular, Federal funding for defense
basic and applied research and development has provided the
majority of financial support for graduate education in the
physical sciences and engineering.
The American Heritage Defense Corporation believes that it
is in our national defense and homeland security interest to
significantly increase our national investment in science and
engineering workforce education. Indeed, on April 10, 2002, the
Director of Defense Research and Engineering, the Honorable
Ronald M. Sega, said, and I quote: ``The quality of our science
and technological workforce and the management of the
laboratory infrastructure in which they work are very important
factors in the overall research and engineering equation.''
They are critical elements in our transformation. Our science
and technological workforce has been downsized considerably in
the past 12 years. This has left us with a very knowledgeable
workforce, but one that is also reaching retirement age. We are
at a critical point that requires a focused effort to bring
stability to the workforce that will attract and retain talent.
There are four key components to the development of a top-
grade science and technology workforce. These are: knowledge of
the basic disciplines of math and science; discovery of new
knowledge in mathematics and science; applications of
mathematics and science to new and future engineering systems;
and the practice and design and production of useful and
marketable products and services.
The first component, as well as some degree of the second
component, is available at most accredited institutions across
the country and could be strengthened through various
educational and basic research programs sponsored by the
National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense. The
third and fourth components by and large are found only at
institutions that have developed and maintained longstanding
relationships with government and industrial laboratories, but
clearly laboratories evolved in the development of systems for
the Department of Defense.
The American Heritage Defense Corporation believes that the
broadening of access to these four components by students at
institutions across the country is a significant and necessary
step to address the current shortage of American science and
technological workforce. The American Heritage Defense
Corporation has proposed the Science and Technology Workforce
for America's Security program to offer specific approaches to
broadening the base of production of a high-quality scientific
and technological workforce. These approaches leverage on the
internship opportunities available to students at government
and industrial laboratories to create a structured integration
of the two missing components into the education of American
citizens enrolled in science and engineering programs
throughout the country.
It is recommended that the committee appropriate funds
which would enable the Department of Defense to provide a grant
of $3.5 million in fiscal year 2004 to the American Heritage
Defense Corporation and an amount of $5 million each in fiscal
year 2005 and fiscal year 2005 also to the American Heritage
Defense Corporation, for a 3-year demonstration program to
assist the Director of Defense Research and Engineering in
implementing the proposed Science and Technology Workforce for
America's Security program.
The requested amounts are estimated to provide seed funds
for organizing and promoting the program and to support 30
students in the first year and 50 students in each of the
subsequent 2 years of the 3-year effort.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
you and I will be very happy to respond to any of your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. James A. Fabunmi
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Committee, good afternoon and
thank you for allowing me the privilege of appearing before you today.
I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony before you in support
of efforts to broaden the base of production of top grade Science and
Technology Workforce for American Security (STWAS). I appear before you
as the President of the American Heritage Defense Corporation (AHDC), a
non profit Corporation registered in the District of Columbia for the
specific purpose of developing and implementing programs that enhance
the quality and quantity of American citizens, trained in the fields of
Science and Technology.
SUMMARY
As the Committee knows, these are challenging times in the history
of our great nation. There are serious threats from abroad to our
national defense, economic and homeland security. Yet, American
technological prowess, which has helped ensure our military and
economic security during the past 50 years, is in serious jeopardy
because of the increasing shortages of American educated scientists and
engineers who are the bedrock of our technological enterprise. The
committee may be aware of recent reports by the Council on
Competitiveness, the National Science Board, and others that pinpoint
some critical factors that correlate highly and positively with
economic and military strengths. They include the size of the labor
force dedicated to research and development and other technically
oriented work; the amount of investment directed at research and
development; the resources devoted to higher education; and the degree
to which national policy encourages investment in innovation and
commercialization.
The committee may also be aware that there are innovative economies
of other countries that have made great strides in developing high-
value products and services. These innovative economies are ramping
their capacities to educate, train, and deploy scientific and
engineering talent. Their pool of scientists and engineers is
increasingly briskly; the quality of patents by foreign inventors is
strong, and global access to capital is growing. On the other hand, the
source of the innovative capacity of our nation is thinning. A quarter
of the current science and engineering workforce, whose research and
innovation produced the American technological superiority of the past
decades, is more than 50 years old and will retire by the end of this
decade. The Department of Defense has historically been the largest
source of federal funding for engineering research and development in
this country. Universities are significant collaborators with industry
and are the source for young science and technology talent for the
defense sector, both public and private. In particular, federal funding
for defense basic and applied research and development has provided the
majority of the financial support for graduate education in the
physical sciences and engineering.
The AHDC believes that it is in our national defense and homeland
security interests to significantly increase our national investment in
science and engineering workforce education. Indeed, on April 10, 2002,
the Director of the Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE), the
Honorable Ronald M. Sega, said and I quote: ``the quality of our
Science and Technology (S&T) workforce and the management of the
laboratory infrastructure in which they work are very important factors
in the overall research and engineering equation. They are critical
elements in our transformation. Our S&T workforce has been downsized
considerably in the last twelve years. This has left us with a very
knowledgeable workforce, but one that is also reaching retirement age.
We are at a critical point that requires a focused effort to bring
stability to the workforce that will attract and retain talent.''
There are four key components to the development of top grade S&T
Workforce. These are: (1) Knowledge of the basic disciplines of
Mathematics and Science; (2) Discovery of new knowledge in Mathematics
and Science; (3) Applications of Mathematics and Science to new and
future engineering systems; and (4) Practice of design and production
of useful and marketable products and services. The first component as
well as some degree of the second component is available at most
accredited Institutions across the country and could be strengthened
through various educational and basic research programs funded by the
National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense. The third
and fourth components by and large are found only at Institutions that
have developed and maintained long-standing relationships with
government and industrial laboratories, particularly laboratories
involved in development of systems for the Department of Defense. The
AHDC believes that the broadening of access to these four components by
students at Institutions all across the country is a significant and
necessary step to address the current shortage of American S&T
workforce.
The AHDC has proposed the STWAS program to offer specific
approaches to broadening the base of production of high quality
scientific and technological workforce. These approaches leverage on
the internship opportunities available to students at government and
industrial laboratories, to create a structured integration of the two
missing components into the education of American citizens enrolled in
science and engineering programs throughout the country. It is
recommended that the Committee appropriate funds, which will enable the
Department of Defense to provide a grant of $3.5 million in fiscal year
2004 to the American Heritage Defense Corporation (AHDC), and amounts
of $5 million each in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006, also to
the American Heritage Defense Corporation (AHDC) for a 3-year
demonstration program to assist the Director, Defense Research and
Engineering (DDR&E) in implementing the proposed STWAS program. The
requested amounts are estimated to provide seed funds for organizing
and promoting the program and to support 30 students in the first year,
and 50 students in each of the subsequent two years of the three-year a
pilot effort.
SHORTAGE OF AMERICAN S&T WORKFORCE
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Aerospace Engineering
degrees granted to United States citizens dropped by half from 1991 to
2000. 54 percent of United States Aerospace workers over the age 45
will leave the field during the next six years while 6 million
Aerospace jobs vital to the United States Economy and National Security
will open up with no Americans being trained to fill them. The
Electronics Engineering Times reports that in 2000, the United States
imported 90,000 engineers and computer scientists, while graduating
65,000 engineers and 15,000 computer scientists. Indeed, on April 10,
2002, the Director of the Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE), the
Honorable Ronald M. Sega, said and I quote: ``the quality of our
Science and Technology (S&T) workforce and the management of the
laboratory infrastructure in which they work are very important factors
in the overall research and engineering equation. They are critical
elements in our transformation. Our S&T workforce has been downsized
considerably in the last twelve years. This has left us with a very
knowledgeable workforce, but one that is also reaching retirement age.
We are at a critical point that requires a focused effort to bring
stability to the workforce that will attract and retain talent.''
In a discussion of whether or not there is a shortage of S&T
Workforce, it is important to clarify what the real issues are. While
an unemployed scientist or engineer may wonder what is meant by
``shortage'', it is apparent that such a scientist or engineer is
unlikely to be a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
There are different grades of S&T Workforce, and it is safe to assume
that when Industry or Government Agencies go out to recruit S&T
Workforce, they are most likely seeking top grade S&T Workforce, and
not just anyone with a college degree in science or engineering. Every
time the debate comes up regarding the need for the Federal government
to increase investments in the development of S&T workforce, there will
always be opposing viewpoints that point to unemployed S&T
professionals as if to indicate that there is instead a surplus in this
particular labor category. The reality though is that a college degree
in science or engineering does not automatically imply that one has
acquired the competence to contribute productively to industry or
government workforce. I want to clarify at this point that the issue of
concern is the base of production of top grade S&T workforce.
COMPONENTS OF TOP GRADE S&T EDUCATION
There are four key components to the development of top grade S&T
Workforce. These are: (1) Knowledge of the basic disciplines of
Mathematics and Science; (2) Discovery of new knowledge in Mathematics
and Science; (3) Applications of Mathematics and Science to new and
future engineering systems; and (4) Practice of design, production and
maintenance of useful and marketable products and services.
The first component as well as some degree of the second component
is available at most accredited Institutions across the country and
could be strengthened through various educational and basic research
programs funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department
of Defense. The third and fourth components by and large are found only
at Institutions that have developed and maintained long-standing
relationships with government and industrial laboratories, particularly
laboratories involved in development of systems for the Department of
Defense. In his book ``Rescuing Prometheus'', the technology historian
Thomas P. Hughes stated that institutions that currently produce top
tier aerospace professionals evolved from the 1960's era risk reduction
projects in support of Air Defense, Ballistic Missile Offense and Space
Exploration programs. These institutions have developed and maintained
long-standing relationships with government and industrial research and
development laboratories. In 1998 for example, according to a
Department of Defense report, out of $1.9 Billion invested by DOD in
Engineering Development funding, $763.9 Million or 40 percent went to
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and its affiliated
laboratories. It is therefore no surprise that the probability of
producing a top grade S&T workforce from MIT is significantly higher
than that of most other institutions. Unfortunately, there is a limit
to the number of students that can attend MIT at any given point in
time.
PROPOSED STWAS PROGRAM
Having identified the four key components needed to enhance the
quality of S&T Workforce preparation, and recognizing that it is not
practical to replicate MIT on every campus in the country, the American
Heritage Defense Corporation (AHDC) has come up with an alternative
approach to achieving the same ends in a manner that is measurable, and
cost effective. These approaches leverage on the internship
opportunities available to students at government and industrial
laboratories, and will create a structured integration of the third and
fourth components (see preceding section) into the education of
American citizens enrolled in science and engineering programs
throughout the country.
At the present time, internship opportunities that are offered to
S&T graduate (and in some instances undergraduate) students are treated
as little more than extracurricular programs for the students during
their summer and/or winter breaks. These programs are not particularly
coordinated with the degree requirements of the students, and nobody is
particularly accountable for the impact of these programs on the
quality of preparation of the participating students. Most
significantly, these programs do not necessarily evolve into on-going
relationships between the faculty at the Institutions and the S&T
personnel at the government and/or industry laboratories.
The STWAS program aims to: (1) leverage national defense and
homeland security research and development efforts for the training of
future generations of American S&T workforce; (2) immerse American
students in environments where the most exciting systems are being
developed, prototyped and demonstrated; (3) focus the best and
brightest American students on America's security needs; and (4) create
a mechanism for the initiation, development and maintenance of
relationships between Academia, Industry and Government Laboratories,
centered around the educational needs of American S&T students.
The basic concept of STWAS is that internship opportunities for
American S&T students at government and/or industry laboratories and
centers should be coordinated with their degree programs, and
facilities should be established at or near their campuses to enable
them to continue the work that they have started during their on-site
visits to the laboratories and centers. It requires a dedicated
organization such as the AHDC to catalyze this process and take over
the responsibility of putting in place the necessary human and material
infrastructure for implementing such a program. The AHDC will: (1)
recruit and obtain necessary clearances for participating students; (2)
provide full support (tuition, fees, salary) to the students; (3)
collaborate with Universities to establish on or near campus facilities
for telecommuting with government and industry laboratories and
centers; and (4) organize an alliance between Academia, Industry and
Government to promote and expand the STWAS program into a nationwide
activity.
THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DEFENSE ALLIANCE
The strategy for corporate development of AHDC hinges on the
formation of the American Heritage Defense Alliance (AHDA) with
participation from governmental, industrial, academic and philanthropic
organizations. These organizations will be stakeholders and will assist
in accomplishing the mission of AHDA to create, fund and operate
Engineering Centers for expediting national defense and homeland
security and to accelerate the production of higher quality American
engineers in sufficient quantities for the defense and advancement of
the United States of America. AHDC shall have the following classes of
members: (1) Alliance Members: One representative from each of the
organizations participating in AHDA provided such organization is in
good standing as determined by the Alliance Committee of AHDC; (2) Ex-
Officio Members: The Chair of AHDC; the President; the Treasurer; the
Secretary and other officers of AHDC that are from time to time
recommended for membership by the Executive Committee, provided such
other officers shall be approved for ex-officio membership by the
simple majority of the members of AHDC; (3) Professional Members: No
more than three members in office at any one time, who are experts in
matters of National Defense and Homeland Security of the United States
of America and workings of Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers. Nominations for membership in this class shall be from the
Alliance Committee and subject to approval by a simple majority of the
members of AHDC; (4) Life Members: The Principal Founder of AHDC and
others elected by the members of AHDC, provided that the number of such
life members shall never be greater than twenty-five at any one time.
RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee appropriate funds, which will
enable the Department of Defense to provide a grant of $3.5 million in
fiscal year 2004 to the American Heritage Defense Corporation (AHDC),
and amounts of $5 million each in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year
2006, also to the American Heritage Defense Corporation (AHDC) for a 3-
year demonstration program to assist the Director, Defense Research and
Engineering (DDR&E) in implementing the proposed STWAS program. The
requested amounts are estimated to provide seed funds for organizing
and promoting the program and to support 30 students in the first year,
and 50 students in each of the subsequent two years of the three-year a
pilot effort.
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
privilege of addressing you and representing the AHDC. If you have
further questions, I would be happy to entertain them. If I cannot
address them at this hearing, I will have your questions researched
further and respond directly to you at a later date.
Senator Burns. Well, thank you very much and your entire
statement will be made part of the record and it will be read
and perused, I know, many times. I appreciate your coming today
and your recommendations will be well taken, I think, because
that is an area where we continue to have a lot of support here
in the Congress.
So thank you very much for coming today.
Dr. Fabunmi. Thank you, sir.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENT
[Clerk's Note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the subcommittee
has received a statement from the Ovarian Cancer National
Alliance which will be inserted in the record at this point.]
Prepared Statement of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance
On behalf of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, I would like to
take this opportunity to share some remarks on the unique value and
effectiveness of the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OCRP). As
Congress is charged with the important task of allocating defense
funding to meet the growing needs of our military to adequately protect
American lives from unknown threats here and abroad--it is worth noting
the critical role the DOD plays, through medical research, in
protecting Americans from other serious and under-recognized threats
like ovarian cancer.
As you may know, ovarian cancer is the deadliest of gynecologic
cancers, because the vast majority of cases are not detected until
advanced stage, when survival is only about 25 percent. However, when
detected early, ovarian cancer survival improves to 90 percent. This
toll is harsh on the 25,400 women and their families who each year
receive a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. A growing number are women in
the military and dependents of military families--whose service to our
country is compromised when they must battle this terrible cancer too!
In order to adequately improve women's chances of surviving this
devastating disease, the Alliance is requesting an appropriation of $15
million, specifically earmarked for the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research
Program (OCRP) in fiscal year 2004. Because the OCRP suffered several
cutbacks over the past two years, and because this program is so modest
to begin with, the designation of $15 million is critical to the
continued health and success of the life-saving research supported by
this initiative.
The DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program, like the breast and
prostate cancer programs in the DOD budget, augments the important
funds spent on cancer research by the National Cancer Institute. As in
the funds spent at NCI, the DOD cancer research proposals must be peer-
reviewed and meet standards of scientific excellence.
There are however, several unique aspects of the DOD Ovarian Cancer
Research Program. The DOD ovarian program promotes ``innovative''
approaches to research that will lead to a better understanding and
control of the disease. The program encourages projects and idea awards
that propose new ways of examining prevention, early detection and
treatment and bring new investigators into ovarian cancer research.
Proposals that address the needs of minority, elderly, low-income,
rural and other underserved women are highly encouraged. And finally,
since their inception nearly ten years ago, the DOD programs have
actively involved consumers on all Scientific Peer Review and
Integration (Program Design) panels. Consistent with DOD's support of
consumer involvement, two Alliance leaders serve on the Integration
Panel and based on our recommendations, over a dozen ovarian cancer
advocates serve on the Scientific Review Panel. At NCI, a formal
program designed to involve consumers in decision-making was recently
established, and is drawing on the successful experience of the DOD
programs.
For the past 6 years, the DOD OCRP has been dedicated to supporting
research that will improve the outcome for women with ovarian cancer.
Its successes to date are impressive. There have been 69 publications
in scientific journals, 119 abstract at professional meetings and over
20 new investigators recruited into the field.
A distinguishing feature of the DOD OCRP has been program project
grants. Several multi-year ovarian cancer project grants were awarded
to cancer centers in Pittsburgh, Minnesota and Indiana. As result of
these program project grants, these cancer centers have greatly
enhanced their ovarian cancer research capabilities--and have already
begun to develop some breakthrough findings in the areas of prevention
and early detection. Two cancer centers, Fred Hutchinson in Seattle and
Fox Chase in Philadelphia, funded by the DOD OCRP, went on to win major
grants from NCI through the SPORE program (Specialized Program of
Research Excellence). Particularly with the Hutchinson, the DOD grant
enhanced their capacity to compete successfully for important NCI
funding. Through this program, researchers have identified several new
biomarkers that are promising as markers for early detection. They have
also identified an agent in oral contraceptives that help protects
against ovarian cancer--and that could result in an urgently needed way
of preventing ovarian cancer. The only caveat is--if the program
continues to receive reduced funding from the DOD, these researchers
will not be able to continue their important work.
With a strong track record and a growing core of investigators who
are contributing vital knowledge that could improve prevention, early
detection, and ultimately survival from ovarian cancer, the DOD OCRP is
making a difference in women's lives.
On behalf of the entire ovarian cancer advocacy community--
patients, family members, caregivers, clinicians and researchers--we
thank you for your leadership and support of the Ovarian Cancer
Research Program. We very much hope we can continue to count on you to
provide $15 million for this program, so that the life saving research
it supports will continue.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OVARIAN CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM
Over the last six years, Congress has appropriated funds for the
Department of Defense (DOD) Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OCRP).
Modeled after the very successful breast cancer research program first
included in the DOD budget in 1992, the OCRP is a component of the DOD
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP). Currently
funded at $10 million, the annual appropriation reached as high as $12
million in 2000 and 2001. Each year, the DOD OCRP funding is considered
for renewal by Congress or the program terminates
Overall, the OCRP has received a total of $71.7 million, which has
supported 62 awards--out of 575 proposals submitted. Because the
program has received $37 million worth of proposals ranked excellent or
outstanding that have NOT been funded, ovarian cancer advocates and
Congressional leaders are requesting a funding increase--to $15 million
for fiscal year 2004.
With ovarian cancer research neglected and underfunded for too
long, restoring recent cuts in Department of Defense's Ovarian Cancer
Research Program is critically important. This program strengthens the
federal government's commitment to ovarian cancer research and supports
innovative and novel approaches that offer promise of better
understanding the cause and prevention of ovarian cancer.
THE DOD OCRP HAS AN OUTSTANDING RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENTS
69 publications in scientific journals.
119 abstracts/presentations at professional meetings.
Over 20 new investigators recruited into ovarian cancer research.
2 patent applications filed.
The commitment to a serious, sustained ovarian cancer research
effort by several new institutions that prior to their DOD grant, did
little in ovarian cancer. With the award of multi-year project grants,
the University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, Indiana
University, University of South Florida, the Medical University of
South Carolina and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle have
dramatically increased the ovarian cancer research infrastructure and
the capacity for breakthrough findings that will improve women's
survival from this deadliest of women's cancers.
Two cancer centers--Fred Hutchinson in Seattle and Fox Chase in
Philadelphia--funded by the OCRP went on to win major grants from NCI
through the SPORE program (Specialized Program of Research Excellence).
Particularly with the Hutchinson, the DOD grant enhanced their capacity
to compete successfully for important NCI funding.
A top ovarian cancer researcher from Duke University identified the
hormone progestin as a key agent in oral contraceptives' activity in
reducing the risk of ovarian cancer. This finding has significant
implications for preventing ovarian cancer.
Several new bio-markers have been identified that have the
potential to improve early detection.
Three new agents that inhibit tumor growth, spreading and new blood
vessel formation (angiogenesis) have been discovered--a development
that could result in new and more effective treatments.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRAM
The DOD ovarian cancer research program augments the important
funds spent on cancer research by the NCI. As with the funds spent at
NCI, the DOD cancer research proposals must be peer-reviewed and meet
standards of scientific excellence.
There are however, important differences between the NCI and DOD
cancer research programs. In considering the DOD research programs,
Congress each year ``earmarks'' or designates a specific dollar figure
for each cancer. By contrast, at NCI funding levels for particular
cancers are not specified, and Congress does not play a role in
determining allocations by cancer. In another important area of
difference, the DOD program promotes ``innovative'' approaches to
cancer research. And finally, since their inception ten years ago, the
DOD programs have actively involved consumers on all scientific peer
review and Integration (Program Design) panels--a process that has only
recently been implemented at NCI.
A unique feature of the DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program is that
it promotes innovative research that will lead to a better
understanding and control of ovarian cancer. The program also
encourages projects and idea awards that propose new ways of examining
prevention, early detection and treatment, and also bring new
investigators into ovarian cancer research. Proposals that address the
needs of minority, elderly, low-income, rural and other under-
represented populations are strongly encouraged. Overall, the DOD OCRP
is fostering the development of a sustained commitment to ovarian
cancer.
All proposals are evaluated in a two-tiered review system. At the
first level, a multi-disciplinary panel rates each proposal on the
basis of scientific merit. Final decisions are made by an Integration
Panel, based not only on scientific merit, but also on the programmatic
goal of innovative ideas. Consistent with DOD's support of consumer
involvement, four Ovarian Cancer National Alliance leaders have served
on the Integration Panel, and over a dozen Alliance-nominated advocates
on Scientific Review Panels.
The Ovarian Cancer National Alliance is a consumer-led umbrella
organization uniting ovarian cancer survivors, women's health activists
and health care professionals in a coordinated effort to focus national
attention on ovarian cancer. The Alliance is working at the national
level to increase public and professional understanding of ovarian
cancer and to advocate for increased research for more effective
diagnostics, treatments and a cure.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Burns. This concludes the hearing of the
subcommittee, the scheduled hearings on the fiscal year 2004
budget request. The subcommittee will stand in recess subject
to the call of the Chair. By the way, the record will remain
open and I will let the chairman close that because no
subordinate will ever close the chairman's record.
This meeting stands recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., Thursday, May 15, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Achgill, Dennis, Director of Public Affairs, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers........................................... 667
Prepared Statement of........................................ 668
Barnes, Joseph L., National Executive Secretary, Fleet Reserve
Association.................................................... 694
Prepared Statement of........................................ 695
Bester, Brigadier General William T., Chief, Army Nurse Corps,
Medical Programs, Department of Defense........................ 282
Prepared Statement of........................................ 285
Questions Submitted to....................................... 359
Blum, Lieutenant General H. Steven, Army National Guard, Chief,
National Guard Bureau, National Guard, Department of Defense... 369
Prepared Statement of........................................ 373
Questions Submitted to....................................... 418
Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri,
Questions Submitted by.......................................418, 473
Brannon, Brigadier General Barbara, Assistant Surgeon General,
Air Force Nursing Services and Commander of Malcolm Grow
Medical Center, Medical Programs, Department of Defense........ 298
Prepared Statement of........................................ 301
Questions Submitted by....................................... 364
Brown, Master Sergeant Morgan D., (Ret.), Legislative Assistant,
Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA)......................... 608
Prepared Statement of........................................ 609
Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator From Montana:
Opening Statement of......................................... 551
Prepared Statements of.....................................371, 488
Statement of................................................. 70
Butler, Benjamin H., Deputy Director of Legislation, National
Association for Uniformed Services............................. 564
Prepared Statement of........................................ 565
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 538
Statement of................................................. 489
Christie, Thomas P., Director, Operational Test and Evaluation,
Missile Defense Agency......................................... 195
Prepared Statement of........................................ 219
Questions Submitted to....................................... 238
Clark, Admiral Vernon E., USN, Chief of Naval Operations,
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.................. 123
Prepared Statement of........................................ 140
Questions Submitted to....................................... 193
Statement of................................................. 137
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
Questions Submitted by...................56, 61, 118, 193, 469, 534
Statement of................................................. 124
Cowan, Vice Admiral Michael L., Surgeon General of the Navy,
Medical Programs, Department of Defense........................ 247
Prepared Statement of........................................ 249
Questions Submitted to....................................... 309
Dahlman, George, Vice President, Public Policy, The Leukemia &
Lymphoma Society............................................... 627
Prepared Statement of........................................ 629
Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico,
Questions Submitted by..........................57, 64, 315, 334, 351
Dorgan, Senator Byron L., Statements of.......................... 5, 70
Duggan, Dennis M., Deputy Director, National Security, Foreign
Relations Commission, The American Legion...................... 569
Prepared Statement of........................................ 571
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 544
Fabunmi, James A., Ph.D., President, The American Heritage
Defense Corporation............................................ 702
Prepared Statement of........................................ 704
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California:
Questions Submitted by...........................236, 238, 343, 545
Statement of................................................. 490
Foil, Martin B., Jr., Member of the Board of Directors, National
Brain Injury Research, Treatment and Training Foundation....... 680
Prepared Statement of........................................ 681
Garrett, Steven L., Deputy Legislative Director, The Retired
Enlisted Association........................................... 690
Prepared Statement of........................................ 691
Goldberg, Joan, Executive Director, American Society for Bone and
Mineral Research; on behalf of the National Coalition for
Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases......................... 631
Prepared Statement of........................................ 633
Hagee, General Michael W., USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps,
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.................. 123
Prepared Statement of........................................ 158
Question Submitted to........................................ 194
Statement of................................................. 157
Hanson, Captain Marshall, USNR (Retired), Acting Chair,
Associations for America's Defense............................. 685
Prepared Statement of........................................ 686
Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa, Questions Submitted
by............................................................64, 421
Hawley, William, M.D., Board of Directors, Public Policy
Committee, Lymphoma Research Foundation........................ 604
Prepared Statement of........................................ 606
Helmly, Lieutenant General James R., Chief, Army Reserve,
Reserves, Department of Defense................................ 425
Prepared Statement of........................................ 427
Questions Submitted to....................................... 469
Hoffman, Stephen, M.D., Chief Executive Officer, Sanaria, Inc.;
on behalf of the American Society for Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene........................................................ 587
Prepared Statement of........................................ 589
Holleman, Deirdre Parke, Esq., Co-Director, National Military and
Veterans Association, and National Legislative Director, The
Retired Enlisted Association................................... 559
Prepared Statement of........................................ 560
Hollings, Senator Ernest F., U.S. Senator From South Carolina:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 472
Statement of................................................. 489
Hudgins, Chris, Public Policy Associate, National Prostate Cancer
Coalition...................................................... 670
Prepared Statement of........................................ 672
Hurd, Captain Robert C., USN (Retired), Headquarters Liasion to
Congress, United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps.................. 660
Prepared Statement of........................................ 662
Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas:
Questions Submitted115, 190, 194, 238, 420, 470, 474, 478, 481, 537
Statement of................................................. 47
Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii:
Opening Statements of......................................123, 241
Prepared Statements of.............................4, 225, 370, 488
Questions Submitted by....................................... 58,
116, 119, 319, 336, 354, 360, 363, 366, 423, 538
Statement of................................................. 4
James, Lieutenant General Daniel, III, Director, Air National
Guard, National Guard, Department of Defense................... 369
Prepared Statement of........................................ 373
Johnson, Hansford T., Acting Secretary of the Navy, Department of
the Navy, Department of Defense................................ 123
Prepared Statement of........................................ 126
Questions Submitted to....................................... 190
Statement of................................................. 124
Jumper, General John P., Air Force, Chief of Staff, Department of
the Air Force, Department of Defense........................... 69
Prepared Statement of........................................ 79
Questions Submitted to....................................... 118
Kadish, Lieutenant General Ronald T., USAF, Director, Missile
Defense Agency................................................. 195
Prepared Statement of........................................ 198
Questions Submitted to....................................... 236
Koonin, Steven Elliot, Ph.D., Provost and Professor of
Theoretical Physics, California Institute of Technology; on
behalf of the Association of American Universities and the
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges....................................................... 622
Prepared Statement of........................................ 623
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 3
Questions Submitted by....................................... 539
Statements of................................................3, 490
Lescavage, Rear Admiral Nancy J., Nurse Corps, United States
Navy, Director, Navy Nurse Corps, Medical Programs, Department
of Defense..................................................... 290
Prepared Statement of........................................ 294
Questions Submitted to....................................... 362
Lester, Rodney C., CRNA, Ph.D., President, American Association
of Nurse Anesthetists.......................................... 650
Prepared Statement of........................................ 651
McCarthy, Lieutenant General Dennis M., Chief, Marine Forces
Reserve, Reserves, Department of Defense....................... 425
Prepared Statement of........................................ 441
Questions Submitted to....................................... 478
McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 317
McIntosh, Major General Robert, USAFR (Retired), Executive
Director, Reserve Officers Association of the United States.... 639
Prepared Statement of........................................ 640
Morris, Robert V., Chief Executive Officer, Fort Des Moines
Memorial Park, Inc............................................. 595
Prepared Statement of........................................ 596
Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, Prepared Statement of.......... 707
Pace, General Peter, U.S. Army, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense.......... 487
Peake, Lieutenant General James B., Surgeon General, United
States Army, Medical Programs, Department of Defense........... 241
Prepared Statement of........................................ 243
Questions Submitted to....................................... 328
Peluso, Karen, Executive Director, Neurofibromatosis, Inc., New
England........................................................ 592
Prepared Statement of........................................ 593
Puzon, Captain Ike, U.S. Navy Reserve (Retired), Director of
Legislation, The Naval Reserve Association..................... 551
Prepared Statement of........................................ 553
Raezer, Joyce Wessel, Director, Government Relations, National
Military Family Association.................................... 614
Prepared Statement of........................................ 616
Roche, Hon. James G., Secretary of the Air Force, Department of
the Air Force, Department of Defense........................... 69
Prepared Statement of........................................ 79
Questions Submitted to....................................... 115
Rumsfeld, Hon. Donald, Secretary of Defense, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Defense............................... 487
Opening Statement............................................ 490
Prepared Statement of........................................ 495
Schultz, Lieutenant General Roger C., Director, Army National
Guard, National Guard, Department of Defense................... 369
Prepared Statement of........................................ 373
Questions Submitted to....................................... 422
Sellman, Wayne S., Ph.D., Vice President and Director for Public
Policy Issues, The Human Resources Research Organization; on
behalf of the American Psychological Association............... 579
Prepared Statement of........................................ 580
Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama:
Questions Submitted by................................318, 335, 353
Statements of................................................4, 489
Sherrard, Lieutenant General James E., III, Chief, Air Force
Reserve, Reserves, Department of Defense....................... 425
Prepared Statement of........................................ 449
Questions Submitted to....................................... 481
Shinseki, General Eric K., Chief of Staff, United States Army,
Department of the Army, Department of Defense.................. 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 8
Questions Submitted to....................................... 55
Statement of................................................. 30
Sommerer, John, Ph.D., Chief Technology Officer, Applied Physics
Lab, Johns Hopkins University; on behalf of the Coalition for
National Security Research..................................... 656
Prepared Statement of........................................ 658
Specter, Senator Arlen, U.S. Senator From Pennsylvania:
Opening Statement of......................................... 1
Questions Submitted by......................................62, 422
Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
Opening Statements of.............................69, 195, 369, 487
Prepared Statements of.......................................2, 171
Questions Submitted by.........55, 60, 309, 328, 344, 359, 362, 364
Taylor, Lieutenant General Dr. George Peach, Jr., Air Force
Surgeon General, Medical Programs, Department of Defense....... 262
Prepared Statement of........................................ 264
Questions Submitted to....................................... 344
Totushek, Vice Admiral John B., Chief, Naval Reserve, Reserves,
Department of Defense.......................................... 425
Prepared Statement of........................................ 435
Questions Submitted to....................................... 473
Statement of................................................. 434
Visco, Fran, J.D., President, National Breast Cancer Coalition... 675
Prepared Statement of........................................ 676
Washington, Robert, Sr., Fleet Reserve Association; Co-Chairman,
The Military Coalition Health Care Committee................... 597
Washington, Robert, Sr., Prepared Statement of................... 597
Weaver, Cathy Lee................................................ 634
Weaver, Julia.................................................... 634
Weaver, Major General Paul A., Jr., USAF (Retired), on behalf of
the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International................. 634
Prepared Statement of........................................ 636
West, Rear Admiral Richard D., U.S. Navy (Retired), President,
Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education............ 583
Prepared Statement of........................................ 585
White, Hon. Thomas E., Secretary of the Army, Department of the
Army, Department of Defense.................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 8
Questions Submitted to....................................... 60
Statement of................................................. 5
Zakheim, Dov, Ph.D., Comptroller, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Defense.......................................... 487
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Agencies
MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 236
Aggressive Testing Schedule...................................... 236
Airborne Laser (ABL)......................................225, 227, 228
Availability of a Mature Effective BMDS.......................... 236
Boost Vehicle Testing............................................ 228
Booster Enhancements for Aegis................................... 237
Evolutionary Capability-Base Acquisition Approach................ 196
Field Capability................................................. 198
Ground Based Mid-Course Defense.................................. 224
Kodiak Targets Schedule.......................................... 233
Laser Funding.................................................... 227
MDA:
National Team................................................ 224
Test Schedule................................................ 236
Testbed:
Fort Greely.............................................. 227
Kodiak................................................... 233
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)....................... 232
Miniature Kill Vehicle (MKV)..................................... 223
Missile Defense:
Countermeasures.............................................. 235
Program...................................................... 196
Testbed...................................................... 222
Navy Integrating, AEGIS.......................................... 227
No Aegis Boost Phase Capability in Block 04...................... 237
Operational:
Testbed...................................................... 197
Testing...................................................... 216
Patriot:
Friendly Fire Incidents...................................... 229
System Performance........................................... 221
Testing/Performance.......................................... 229
Sea Based X-Band Radar.........................................230, 231
Space Tracking Surveillance System (STSS)........................ 235
Strategic Missile Defense Command................................ 223
Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD)........................ 234
U.S. Navy Integration in Missile Defense......................... 222
Department of the Air Force
A-10 and F-15 Aircraft........................................... 73
Additional Committee Questions................................... 115
Afghanistan...................................................... 73
Aging Aircraft................................................... 74
Air:
Expeditionary Force.......................................... 118
National Guard............................................... 113
Power........................................................ 71
University................................................... 108
Air Force:
Academy.....................................................78, 101
Investigation............................................ 98
Institute of Technology...................................... 105
Investment Budget............................................ 117
B-1.............................................................. 73
B-52 Bombers..................................................... 112
Basic Military Training and Technical Training School............ 115
C-5.............................................................. 73
Aircraft..................................................... 109
C-17........................................................77, 97, 108
Combat Pay....................................................... 115
CV-22............................................................ 107
Electronic Warfare............................................... 114
Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF).............................. 120
F/A-22...........................................................75, 77
Raptor....................................................... 117
Force Protection................................................. 116
Global Hawk...................................................... 109
Guard and Reserve Financial Problems............................. 100
Homeland Defense................................................. 72
Iraq............................................................. 73
War News Coverage............................................ 112
Iraqi Aircraft................................................... 100
KC-135........................................................... 77
Lackland Air Force Base.......................................... 78
Manpower......................................................... 74
Medical Evacuation Mission....................................... 103
Melrose Bombing Range............................................ 106
Mission Capable Rates............................................ 76
Next Horizon..................................................... 96
Operation Iraqi Freedom.......................................... 71
Operation Noble Eagle............................................ 77
Personnel Transformation......................................... 99
Predator......................................................... 106
B............................................................ 111
Hellfire System.............................................. 107
Promotions....................................................... 104
Range and Readiness Preservation Initiative...................... 116
Readiness........................................................ 75
Reserves......................................................... 99
Russian SU-37.................................................... 74
767:
Lease........................................................ 114
Tanker Lease................................................. 96
Southwest Asia................................................... 78
Space Programs................................................... 119
Supplemental Appropriations...................................... 76
Tanker Fleet...................................................117, 119
Transformation................................................... 72
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Pilots................................... 110
What We Do....................................................... 81
Where We're Going................................................ 87
Who We Are....................................................... 85
Department of the Army
A Commitment to the Future....................................... 30
Active Component (AC)/Reserve Component (RC) Mix................. 45
Additional Committee Questions................................... 55
Advanced Army Rapid Emplaced Bridge.............................. 57
Aging Helicopter Inventory....................................... 38
Army:
Heritage and Education Center................................ 63
Well-Being................................................... 13
Aviation:
Modernization................................................ 53
Training..................................................... 50
Civilian Component............................................... 12
Domestic and Foreign Bases....................................... 48
End Strength..................................................... 34
FCS:
Fielding Schedule............................................ 55
Objective Force Role......................................... 55
Vehicles..................................................... 62
Fifth and Sixth Stryker Brigades................................. 32
Force Protection................................................. 53
Fresh Troops . . . Old Choppers.................................. 38
Future Requirements Costs........................................ 43
Global War on Terrorism.......................................... 33
Ground Services Industrial Enterprise (GSIE) Plan................ 66
High Mobility Trailers and Waste................................. 66
Industrial Base.................................................. 60
Institutional Army............................................... 27
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant....................................... 64
Land Mines....................................................... 42
Leader Development--Training Soldiers and Civilians, and Growing
Lead-
ers............................................................ 14
Legacy Force Modernization....................................... 55
Logistics Transformation......................................... 51
Oil Cleaning/Filtering Systems................................... 61
Operational Army................................................. 21
Operations in Iraq............................................... 54
People--Our Most Valuable Resource............................... 11
Readiness--Winning Our Nation's Wars............................. 15
Realizing The Army Vision--People, Readiness, and Transformation. 11
Reconstituting Deployed Forces................................... 56
Recruiting....................................................... 35
Reserve Component:
Full-time Support (FTS)...................................... 12
Pay Consolidation............................................ 57
Recruiting................................................... 49
Rock Island Arsenal.............................................. 65
Soldier:
Deployment................................................... 35
Equipment.................................................... 41
Space and Missile Defense Command................................ 36
Special Operations Command (SOCOM)............................... 46
Status of Forces................................................. 53
Strategic Environment--The Requirement to Transform.............. 10
Supplemental Appropriation....................................... 33
The Army:
At War and Transforming...................................... 8
Serving Today, Balancing Risk, Managing Transformation....... 10
Training:
Centers...................................................... 48
Ranges....................................................... 58
U.S. Military Labors to Keep Aging Helicopters Airworthy; Hazards
of Desert Landings............................................. 38
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles......................................... 61
White Sands:
HELSTF....................................................... 58
MTHEL........................................................ 57
Third Wave Outsourcing Plan.................................. 64
Department of the Navy
Additional Committee Questions................................... 190
Building on Success.............................................. 159
Context for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request: Succeeding in a
Time of Great Consequence...................................... 126
Deployment Days.................................................. 176
Family Separation Allowance and Imminent Danger Pay.............. 184
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget: Building From a Solid Foundation........ 127
Fleet Size....................................................... 179
Harrier.......................................................... 179
Homeporting...................................................... 181
HSV Plans........................................................ 193
Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance.............. 175
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)....................................... 189
(F-35) Program Progress...................................... 191
Lightweight 155 Howitzer Program................................. 184
Littoral Combat Ship--Hull Form.................................. 194
Long-term HSV Plans.............................................. 193
Marine Corps Retention........................................... 178
Mine Warfare Funding and Capability.............................. 191
Missile Defense.................................................. 182
Naval Forces--Southern Command................................... 190
Naval Power 21: A Transformational Vision for the 21st Century... 134
Navy:
Programs in New Mexico....................................... 187
Reserve...................................................... 178
Retention.................................................... 177
Navy-Marine Corps Team: National Seapower--Around the World,
Around the Clock............................................... 126
Operations and Maintenance....................................... 171
Our Main Effort--Excellence in Warfighting....................... 165
Patrol Coastal Craft............................................. 182
Prior Year Shipbuilding Costs.................................... 173
Retiring Ships and Aircraft...................................... 177
Sea Basing....................................................... 172
Shipbuilding..................................................... 179
T-45 Cockpit 21.................................................. 193
Taking Care of Our Own........................................... 162
The Way Ahead: Positioning Today's Navy and Marine Corps for
Tomorrow's Challenges.......................................... 137
UAV Program...................................................... 183
V-22 Program...................................................172, 191
Medical Programs
Additional Committee Questions................................... 308
Air Medical Evacuation........................................... 300
Best Health Care Business Practices.............................. 297
Combat Treatment in Iraq and Afghanistan..................312, 331, 347
Critical Care Air Transport Teams................................ 298
Deployment of Medical Personnel......................309, 328, 331, 344
Doctorate Program in Nursing..............................361, 363, 367
DOD/VA Healthcare Resource Sharing............................... 351
E-Health Technology.............................................. 259
Establishment of the Naval Medical Education and Training Command 256
Expeditionary Medical Support Units.............................. 262
Family Centered Care............................................. 256
Force Health Protection (FHP)........................250, 326, 341, 358
Health Benefit................................................... 296
Hospital Services Reduction...................................... 307
Improvement of Equipment for Combat Casualty Care................ 332
Increased Medical Costs.......................................... 274
Jesse Spiri Military Medical Coverage Act.................315, 334, 352
Medical:
Budget Shortfall............................................. 274
Combat Technologies.......................................... 279
Research..................................................... 260
Treatment Facilities...................319, 336, 354, 361, 363, 367
Mental Health.................................................... 281
Military Family Access to Dental Care Act.................316, 335, 353
Mobilized Reservists in Medical Specialties...................... 309
Monitoring the Health of Guard and Reserve Personnel......311, 329, 345
Navy Medicine/DVA Resource Sharing............................... 258
Number of Reservists:
Not in Dental Class 1 or 2................................... 311
With Medical Problems........................................ 311
Nurse Corps Grade Structure...................................... 299
Nurse Shortage................................................... 306
Nursing Research..........................................361, 364, 367
Operation Enduring Freedom....................................... 263
Optimization..............................................327, 343, 358
Our People....................................................... 253
Patient Privacy (TRICARE)............................318, 335, 343, 353
People........................................................... 295
Percentage of Male Nurses........................................ 308
Personnel Readiness.............................................. 252
Population Health Programs....................................... 299
Readiness........................................................ 294
Contingency Operations....................................... 250
Recruiting....................................................... 300
And Retention................264, 277, 314, 333, 350, 360, 363, 366
Recruitment and Retention.................................359, 362, 364
Remaining Medical and Dental Requirements........................ 311
Repercussions for Unfit Unit Members............................. 312
Research on Composite Tissue Transplantation..................... 317
Retention and Recruitment.................................320, 339, 356
Specialized Training............................................. 307
Student Loan Repayment........................................... 278
T-Nex--Next Generation of TRICARE Contracts...............312, 332, 348
TRICARE.......................................................... 264
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences............. 255
War's Effect on the Nurse Corps Plan......................360, 362, 365
National Guard
Additional Committee Questions................................... 417
Aging Aircraft................................................... 407
Army National Guard 56th Stryker Brigade Combat Team............. 422
Border Patrol.................................................... 411
C-17 Fleet at Jackson Air National Guard Facility................ 411
C-23 Sherpa Cargo Aircraft....................................... 423
C-27J Spartan Tactical Aircraft.................................. 424
Call-ups of Guard Forces......................................... 415
Chain of Command................................................. 420
Communications................................................... 406
Counterdrug Schools............................................421, 422
Demobilization................................................... 406
Employer Support................................................. 410
Of the Guard and Reserve..................................... 421
Force Protection................................................. 399
Future Fixed Wing Aviation Requirements.......................... 423
Improved Efficiencies at NGB..................................... 419
Improved WMD Response Capability................................. 418
Limits on Deployment............................................. 402
Merging Guard and Reserve Accounts............................... 401
National Guard and Reserve Equipment............................. 415
Operation Enduring Freedom....................................... 401
Operation Iraqi Freedom.......................................... 401
Operation Noble Eagle............................................ 401
Overuse of Guard and Reserve..................................... 416
Reducing Size of Guard and Reserve............................... 413
Retention........................................................ 408
Seamless Environment............................................. 418
Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act.................................. 421
Transformation Programs.......................................... 420
TRICARE Health Care Coverage..................................... 420
Office of the Secretary
Additional Committee Questions................................... 534
Applying Lessons Learned......................................... 491
Assignment to Ambassador Bremer.................................. 530
Baghdad Anarchy Spurs Call For Help; Iraqis, U.S. Officials Want
More Troops.................................................... 512
Balancing Risk.................................................493, 498
Callup on Reserve Component Personnel............................ 528
Careful Targeting in Iraq........................................ 524
Commitments of Peacekeeping Forces............................... 516
Defense Transformation Act....................................... 501
Deployment of National Guard..................................... 538
DOD-NASA Partnership............................................. 510
F-22............................................................. 547
Force Levels in Iraq Theater..................................... 529
Forces Levels in Baghdad Area.................................... 515
High Alert Status Nuclear Weapons................................ 545
Improving Intelligence........................................... 510
Improving Management............................................. 494
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP)................................ 542
Iraq............................................................. 539
Looting in Iraq and Protecting Sites............................. 533
LPD-17........................................................... 506
Management Plans................................................. 539
Missile Defense................................................518, 541
Mr. Jay Garner................................................... 516
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.................. 535
932nd Airlift Wing............................................... 544
Nuclear Capabilities in Iraq..................................... 532
Passage of Defense Transformation Act............................ 504
Perchlorate...................................................... 548
Performance of Army Patriot PAC-3 System......................... 518
Rebuilding Iraq.................................................. 509
Results.......................................................... 500
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator................................525, 546
Ship Leasing and Defining Requirements........................... 519
Situation in Iraq................................................ 514
Soliciting Information on Weapons of Mass Destruction............ 528
Stryker Brigades................................................. 505
Sufficient Funding for Fiscal Year 2003.......................... 504
Testing.......................................................... 547
The Hurricane Hunters............................................ 534
Total Force Policy and TRICARE for Reservists.................... 520
Training Ranges and Facilities................................... 507
Transforming to Meet Changing Threats............................ 492
U.S. Commitment and Command Arrangements......................... 523
U.S. Hints at Boost in Forces Amid Iraqi Troubles................ 531
UAVs............................................................. 535
Unmanned Vehicles................................................ 511
Utility of Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Class Weapons......... 546
Visiting Troops in the Field and Tanker Leasing.................. 502
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq............................521, 539
Reserves
Additional Committee Questions................................... 469
AEF CY02--In Review.............................................. 452
Army Reserve Transformation...................................... 469
Army Reserve's Role in Rebuilding of Iraq........................ 470
Attrition........................................................ 458
Current Readiness................................................ 444
Demobilization................................................... 448
Developing our Airmen............................................ 449
Equipment:
Readiness.................................................... 483
Shortfalls................................................... 472
F/A-18 Aircraft Upgrades......................................... 467
Future Vector.................................................... 456
Highlights of 2002............................................... 449
Hurricane Hunters................................................ 466
Impact of Mobilization on Budget Request......................... 475
Infrastructure................................................... 445
Integrating Operations........................................... 452
Lessons Learned.................................................. 478
From Most Recent Mobilization................................ 471
Littoral Surveillance System (LSS).............................465, 474
Marines and Their Families....................................... 442
Mobilization..................................................... 447
Of Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request........................... 470
Modernization.................................................... 448
And Sustainment Critical Shortfalls.......................... 472
And Transformation........................................... 445
Naval Coastal Warfare Units Role in Homeland Security............ 466
Naval Reserve:
Equipment List............................................... 474
Retirement Data.............................................. 463
Operation Iraqi Freedom.......................................... 481
Mobilization................................................. 478
Quality of Life Initiatives...................................... 451
Readiness........................................................ 448
Recapitalization of the Naval Reserve............................ 473
Reconstitution of Army Reserve Forces............................ 470
Recruiting....................................................... 450
And Retention................................................ 428
Redesign of the Naval Reserve.................................... 473
Reserve:
Employer Support............................................. 476
Equipment Shortfalls......................................... 480
Health Care................................................474, 476
Mobilization Lessons Learned................................. 475
Reservists....................................................... 483
Retention......................................................450, 464
Retirement....................................................... 460
Policy....................................................... 457
Support for Employers of Reservists.............................. 480
Supporting Employers of Reservists............................... 471
Technology to the Warfighter..................................... 453
The Big Picture.................................................. 451
Transformation................................................... 478
Programs..................................................... 481
In Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request....................... 470
TRICARE:
Benefits Extension........................................... 480
Health Care Coverage.......................................471, 482
Your Marine Corps Reserve Today.................................. 441