<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:92137.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-676
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 4613/S. 2559
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2005, 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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-137 WASHINGTON : 2004
_______________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
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
Tom Hawkins
Robert J. Henke
Lesley Kalan
Mazie R. Mattson
Brian Potts
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
----------
Monday, March 1, 2004
Page
Department of Defense............................................ 1
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
Department of Defense: Department of the Army.................... 39
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Department of Defense: Department of the Navy.................... 89
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force............... 167
Wednesday, April 7, 2004
Department of Defense:
National Guard............................................... 215
Reserves..................................................... 275
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Department of Defense: Missile Defense Agency.................... 315
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Department of Defense: Medical Programs.......................... 347
Wednesday, May 5, 2004
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 429
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary................... 577
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:31 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Burns, Inouye, and Byrd.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
STATEMENT OF HON. DOV S. ZAKHEIM, Ph.D., UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
ACCOMPANIED BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT, U.S. MARINE
CORPS, J-8, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. I take it we
can assume from your presence that it was a friendlier dog than
originally thought. Happy to have you back with us.
Dr. Zakheim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. As we meet today, our servicemen and women
remain engaged in critical missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
around the globe. They are the ones that are fighting and
winning this global war, the war on terrorism. Since this time
last year, we have removed a dangerous, brutal tyrant in Iraq.
Sadly, more than 500 members of our armed services have lost
their lives in this struggle. The families of those lost should
know that their loved ones have changed history for the good,
have liberated a nation of 25 million people, and made our
Nation more secure.
This is the first of 10 hearings this subcommittee will
hold to review the Defense Department's budget request. We
thank you for agreeing to change the date. We had a conflict
before. The President's request includes $401.7 billion for the
Department of Defense (DOD), a 7 percent increase over fiscal
year 2004. That request reflects the President's commitment to
prosecute the global war on terrorism. It balances the
military's long-term needs for transformation and modernization
with the need to conduct the current operations around the
globe. The budget emphasizes readiness and training and
provides for quality of life for our troops.
The request continues several years of solid increases in
the Defense Department budget. The cumulative growth in the
Defense Department's budget over the last 3 years has been 33
percent.
Some say that this budget should include the fiscal year
2005 contingency costs for terrorism because those costs are
not known today. Another word for ``contingency'' is
``unpredictable.'' The situation is too dynamic, too
unpredictable to build a reliable budget 18 months in advance.
I will have some questions about that as we go forward, Dr.
Zakheim.
Before you make your full statement, which is a part of the
committee's record automatically now, I would turn to my
colleague and co-chairman from Hawaii for his opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
This morning I want to join my chairman in welcoming you,
Dr. Zakheim, as the first witness before the committee. It is a
pleasure to join my colleague and friend Chairman Stevens as we
begin this review.
Incidentally, this is the 24th year that our chairman has
presided over this subcommittee, and he and I have been
together throughout this time and I for one think it has been a
great partnership.
As we turn our attention to the request of fiscal year
2005, we see a regular defense appropriation request that will
exceed $400 billion. Mr. Chairman, I probably do not need to
remind you of this, but in your first year as chairman
President Ronald Reagan offered a request for $200 billion to
this subcommittee. So here we are almost 25 years later and the
defense budget has just about doubled.
Of course, this request that we are considering today does
not include funding for our overseas commitments in Afghanistan
and in Iraq, so unavoidably the total defense will exceed much
more than $400 billion before the end of the fiscal year.
Dr. Zakheim, since this administration established itself
the defense appropriations request has increased by more than
$100 billion or 35 percent, and that does not include the cost
of terrorism. As a result, many of our colleagues wonder
whether this year's increase of $25.5 billion on top of the
estimated $50 billion supplemental that will likely be required
to support our forces in Iraq is really necessary. I hope in
your testimony today you can explain why the increase you are
requesting is essential.
In addition, my colleagues want to know how the
administration intends to proceed with the many new benefit
programs that have been established over the past few years,
particularly health care for our Reserve families.
Finally, I have been asked by my colleagues if we will be
able to afford all the conventional weapon systems that are in
development. They question this because your budget reserves
most of the increases in investment programs for space and
missile defense. So, Dr. Zakheim, I hope you will be able to
address these issues today before the committee.
Mr. Chairman, it is good to be back here with you again,
sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Byrd, do you have a statement, sir.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not have a
statement at this time except to welcome Dr. Zakheim and I look
forward to his testimony. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. General Cartwright, we are happy to have
you also with us.
Mr. Secretary, do you have a statement for us?
Dr. Zakheim. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Would you pull that mike up a little bit,
please.
Dr. Zakheim. Is that better, sir?
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Dr. Zakheim. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, Senator Byrd:
First I want to apologize for sounding like sandpaper. I do
have some kind of flu and maybe it is better that we are
sitting as far apart as we are. Poor General Cartwright here is
a little closer to me, but I hope he will not catch anything.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss
President Bush's fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense budget
with you. Because the committee and its staff have received
considerable information in support of the budget request, I am
going to limit my statement to key issues that are related to
my direct responsibilities as Under Secretary of Defense,
Comptroller.
Last week, actually the week before, I visited Afghanistan
and Iraq and I would like to report that our troops there
continue to perform magnificently. They appreciate the
steadfast support that is given to them by the Congress, and we
continue to witness progress in both of those countries. We
also enjoy the full cooperation of our allies and partners as
we work with Iraqis and Afghans to provide for their security,
stability, and prosperity.
I especially want to note the success of our Provincial
Reconstruction Teams, the so-called PRT's, in Afghanistan and
the contribution of our allies to PRT's. I visited the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) German PRT in Kunduz. The
German forces are doing a marvelous job and are well liked by
the local townspeople. In Iraq, I visited the lead elements of
the Japanese contingent in As-Samawah, the Spanish brigade in
Ad-Diwaniyah, and the Polish multinational division
headquarters in Al-Hillah.
These units are having a major, positive impact on the
local populace and are demonstrating that the international
community shares America's desire to help Iraq emerge from 30
years of dictatorial darkness.
For the current fiscal year, our fiscal year 2004
supplemental appropriations provided sufficient resources to
enable the Department to finance its incremental costs for
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terror
through the end of September. We will continue to provide
service support and transportation for our allies who are
contributing forces to coalition operations in Iraq, but who
nevertheless need some financial assistance.
We cannot yet determine the scope of the United States
(U.S.) operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in fiscal year 2005.
The President's request therefore does not reflect possible
incremental costs of those operations. It is extremely
difficult to estimate what demands we might have to meet later
this year and next year, particularly after the election in
Afghanistan and after sovereignty is transferred to the Iraqi
people, roughly in the June-July timeframe. Depending on the
circumstances, we could face the need for either more or fewer
troops and more or less intensive operations.
I should also note that there is a 3-month lag in the
availability of our data for actual costs in Afghanistan and
Iraq. As of today, we only have figures for the costs of
operations in November. Thus we will not know until the fall
what our actual costs were for the summer, when sovereignty
will have reverted to the Iraqi people.
The Department does not anticipate a further request for
DOD supplemental appropriations during the rest of calendar
year 2004. Therefore, for several months into fiscal year 2005
the Department will need to cover its incremental costs by
drawing down appropriated funds that were budgeted for
expenditure later in that fiscal year. We have done that in the
previous two fiscal years and we can do so again in fiscal year
2005 as long as the Congress moves quickly to approve a
supplemental early in the next calendar year.
One of the most important ways in which the Congress can
support the global war on terrorism is to support three special
authorities we have requested. The first one is for $500
million to train and equip military and security forces in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and friendly nearby regional nations, to
enhance their capability to combat terrorism and support U.S.
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is critical that this
authority include security forces because the terrorism threat
in Iraq is inside its borders. Security forces, not the New
Iraqi Army, play the primary role in confronting this threat.
The second authority is the Commander's Emergency Response
Program (CERP) for $300 million to enable military leaders in
Iraq and Afghanistan to respond to urgent humanitarian relief
and reconstruction needs. This has been a remarkably successful
program. With quick turnaround projects averaging about $7,000
each, commanders not only help people in their operations area,
but also gain their support in defeating terrorists and
building themselves a better future. As we have already done in
fiscal year 2004, we propose to expand the CERP to Afghanistan,
as well as to continue the program in Iraq.
Finally, we are requesting authorities for increased
drawdown, $200 million, under the Afghan Freedom Support Act,
which would provide additional help for the Afghan National
Army (ANA). In the current pivotal year, this authority is
critical for advancing democracy and stability in Afghanistan.
During my visit there, everyone I met gave very high marks to
the professionalism and competence of the ANA.
The President's fiscal year 2005 budget does not request
specific appropriations for these three authorities and
therefore the Department would need to reprogram funding to use
them. This underscores the importance of Congress increasing
the Department's general transfer authority to $4 billion,
which would still represent just 1 percent of total DOD
funding.
Higher general transfer authority would also give us a
greater ability to shift funds from less pressing needs to fund
must-pay bills and emerging requirements. As we have seen in
the past 3 years, such requirements have become a constant
feature of our military programs. And as was mentioned just
before, it is not all that long ago that our budget was in the
vicinity of $200 billion, and the general transfer authority
that we now have essentially relates to that timeframe. So that
if we are asked to be more responsible, and rightly asked to be
more responsible, about managing our cash, we need to have the
ability to do so in a reasonable way.
One other authority would be especially helpful, given the
uncertainty we face in the global war on terrorism. We need to
convert operations and maintenance to a 2-year appropriation
account. This would preclude wasteful end-of-fiscal-year
scrambling, help us cover emerging requirements, and enhance
our ability to derive the very best value from every
appropriated dollar.
The President's fiscal year 2005 budget reflects the
administration's continuing commitment to our military men and
women and their families. It requests a 3.5 percent base pay
raise and completes the elimination of average out of pocket
housing costs for military personnel living in private housing.
Prior to fiscal year 2001, the average service member had to
absorb over 18 percent of these housing costs.
The budget also sustains the excellent health care benefits
available to military members, retirees, and their families and
keeps us on track to eliminate nearly all inadequate military
family housing units by fiscal year 2007, with complete
elimination in fiscal year 2009. Privatization is enabling the
Department to multiply the benefits of its housing budgets and
get more military families into top-quality accommodations much
sooner than would otherwise be possible. As of February 2004,
27 privatization projects have been awarded for a total of
55,000 units. We hope to get up to 136,000 by the end of fiscal
year 2005.
Taking good care of the Department's people, both military
and civilian, includes providing them quality facilities in
which to work. To that end, the fiscal year 2005 request funds
95 percent of the services' facilities sustainment requirements
and continues to improve our facilities recapitalization rate.
For the first time, the percentage that is being allotted
toward sustainment applies equally to all services across the
board.
Providing our people quality facilities requires that we
not expend money on redundant facilities and that our basing
structure be geared closely to our global strategy and
commitments. We need the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure
Commission to decide how best to streamline and restructure DOD
facilities so that we can make the most out of funding and
optimally support our global strategy.
The fiscal year 2005 request strongly supports force
protection. Although we are on track to meet most Central
Command requirements during the current fiscal year, I want to
give you some highlights of our ongoing force protection
program.
Interceptor body armor. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
plans to have 175,000 of these body armor sets in theater by
the end of March, the end of this month, which will fully
support its requirements. But in addition, the 2005 budget
requests $40 million to sustain production of body armor sets
at 25,000 sets per month until the full Army requirement is
met.
We are also ramping up our up-armored high mobility
multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV's). Production is going up
to 220 per month by May. Production plus redistribution of
these up-armored HMMWV's that are on hand will meet CENTCOM
requirements by December, and we are asking for an additional
$156 million in fiscal year 2005 to procure another 818 of
these.
There are various detection and jamming devices in theater
already. Others will begin arriving in theater in March 2004,
and these are to deal with improvised explosive devices (IED).
Our fiscal year 2005 budget supports increased production and
accelerated research and development of other means and the
same means to deal with the IED's.
Then there are the vehicle ballistic protection kits. The
Army's plan for add-on armor kits is on track to meet CENTCOM
requirements for HMMWV's by October of this year and for other
critical vehicles by December 2004. We expect some 6,300 HMMWV
add-on armor kits to be delivered by July of this year.
I also want to highlight how the Department is transforming
the way in which it conducts its business. Our primary
initiative in this regard is the Business Management
Modernization Program. This is a massive undertaking involving
virtually all management functions and it will take several
more years to complete. We are in the process of transitioning
from more than 2,000 mostly incompatible management information
systems to a much smaller number of fully compatible systems
that will provide leaders everything needed for informed
decisionmaking. We will streamline processes and integrate
systems to enable DOD decisionmakers to get timely and accurate
information to optimize the allocation of defense resources and
people. The fiscal year 2005 budget requests about $100 million
to continue the evolution and extension of our business
enterprise architecture, which is guiding the overhaul. We
still anticipate that the architecture will lead to a
functional accounting system by fiscal year 2007. We have been
making progress for a couple of years, and we still believe we
are on track.
Another initiative I want to highlight is military to
civilian conversion. The Department has identified over 50,000
positions currently filled by military personnel for conversion
to positions supported by DOD civilians or contractors. The
services have begun to convert 10,000 positions in this fiscal
year. The fiscal year 2005 budget includes $572 million to
achieve the conversion of another 10,070 positions.
I would like to note that the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS), which is part of my organization,
has already converted several hundred positions previously
filled by Air Force personnel. The airmen are now available to
the Air Force, which can retrain them to fulfil its
requirements.
In a similar vein, the Army has been retraining the
soldiers formerly assigned to DFAS. Again, we are talking about
several hundred personnel. In particular, many of these people
are being retrained at Fort Leavenworth to serve as military
police, a specialty which currently is in especially great
demand. At the same time, DFAS, the Financing and Accounting
Service, Finance and Accounting Service, does not need to hire
as many civilians to replace their uniformed predecessors. So
DFAS will be more efficient as well.
PREPARED STATEMENT
These are a few of the highlights of the fiscal year 2005
budget and related DOD activities. Together with General
Cartwright, who is the head of the J-8, which is the Joint
Staff's Programming and Analysis Division--and it is a much
longer formal title, but I think that sums it up--we would be
happy to address your questions on these or any other defense
budget matters. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Dov S. Zakheim
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss President Bush's fiscal year 2005 Department of
Defense (DOD) budget. Because the Committee has received considerable
information in support of the budget request, I will limit my statement
to key issues that are related to my responsibilities as Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
FUNDING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM
Two weeks ago I visited Afghanistan and Iraq, and so I will begin
by reporting that our troops there continue to perform magnificently.
They appreciate the steadfast support given them by this Congress. We
continue to witness progress in both countries, and enjoy the full
cooperation of our allies and partners as we work with Iraqis and
Afghans to provide security, stability and prosperity to their
respective countries. I especially want to note the success of our
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Afghanistan, and the
contribution of our allies to PRTs. I visited the NATO/German PRT in
Kunduz. They are doing a marvelous job and are well-liked by the local
townspeople.
In Iraq, I visited the lead elements of the Japanese contingent in
As-Samawah, the Spanish brigade in Ad-Diwaniyah, and the Polish multi-
national division headquarters in Al-Hillah. These units are having a
major, positive impact on the local populace, and are demonstrating
that the international community shares America's desire to help Iraq
emerge from thirty years of dictatorial darkness.
For the current fiscal year, our fiscal year 2004 supplemental
appropriations provide sufficient resources to enable the Department to
finance its incremental costs for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
the global war on terrorism through the end of September. We will
continue to provide service support and transportation for allies who
are contributing forces to coalition operations in Iraq, but who
nevertheless need some financial assistance.
We cannot yet determine the scope of U.S. operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq in fiscal year 2005. The President's request therefore does
not reflect possible incremental costs for those operations. It is
extremely difficult to estimate what demands we might have to meet
later this year and next year--particularly after the election in
Afghanistan and after sovereignty is transferred to the Iraqi people.
Depending on the circumstances, we could face the need for either more
or fewer troops--and more or less intensive operations.
I should note that there is a three-month lag in the availability
of our data for actual costs in Afghanistan and Iraq. As of today, we
only have figures for the costs of operations in November. Thus we will
not know until the fall what our actual costs were for the summer, when
sovereignty will have reverted to the Iraqi people.
The Department does not anticipate a further request for DOD
supplemental appropriations during the rest of calendar year 2004.
Therefore, for several months into fiscal year 2005, the Department
will need to cover its incremental costs by drawing down appropriated
funds that were budgeted for expenditure later in that fiscal year. We
have done this in the previous two fiscal years, and can do so again in
fiscal year 2005, as long as the Congress moves quickly to approve a
supplemental early in the next calendar year.
NEEDED ENHANCED AUTHORITIES
One of the most important ways in which Congress can support the
global war on terrorism is to support three special authorities we have
requested:
(1) $500 million to train and equip military and security forces in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and friendly nearby regional nations to enhance
their capability to combat terrorism and support U.S. operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. It is critical that this authority include
security forces because the terrorism threat in Iraq is inside its
borders. Security forces--not the New Iraqi Army--play the primary role
in confronting this threat.
(2) The Commanders Emergency Response Program ($300 million) to
enable military leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan to respond to urgent
humanitarian relief and reconstruction needs. This has been a
remarkably successful program. With quick turnaround projects averaging
about $7,000 each, commanders not only help people in their operations
area, but also gain their support in defeating terrorists and building
themselves a better future. As we have already done in fiscal year
2004, we propose to expand CERP to Afghanistan, as well as to continue
the program in Iraq.
(3) Increased drawdown authority ($200 million) under the
Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, to provide additional help for the
Afghan National Army. During this pivotal year, this authority is
critical for advancing democracy and stability in Afghanistan. During
my visit to Afghanistan, everyone I met gave very high marks to the
professionalism and competence of the ANA.
The President's fiscal year 2005 budget does not request specific
appropriations for these three authorities, and therefore the
Department would need to reprogram funding to use them. This
underscores the importance of Congress increasing the Department's
General Transfer Authority (GTA) to $4 billion--which would still
represent just one percent of total DOD funding. Higher GTA also would
give us a greater ability to shift funds from less pressing needs to
fund must-pay bills and emerging requirements. As we have seen in the
past three years, such requirements have become a constant feature of
our military programs.
One other authority would be especially helpful, given the
uncertainty we face in the global war on terrorism: we need to convert
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) to a two-year appropriation account.
This would preclude wasteful end-of-fiscal-year scrambling, help us
cover emerging requirements, and enhance our ability to derive the very
best value from every appropriated dollar.
DOING RIGHT BY OUR PEOPLE
The President's fiscal year 2005 budget reflects the
Administration's continuing commitment to our military men and women
and their families. It requests a 3.5 percent base pay raise and
completes the elimination of average out-of-pocket housing costs for
military personnel living in private housing. Prior to fiscal year 2001
the average service member had to absorb over 18 percent of these
housing costs. The budget also sustains the excellent health care
benefits available to military members, retirees and their families.
And it keeps us on track to eliminate nearly all its inadequate
military family housing units by fiscal year 2007, with complete
elimination in fiscal year 2009.
Taking good care of the Department's people, both military and
civilian, includes providing them quality facilities in which to work.
To that end, the fiscal year 2005 request funds 95 percent of the
Services' facilities sustainment requirements and continues to improve
our facilities recapitalization rate. For the first time, this
percentage applies equally to all Services.
Providing our people quality facilities requires that we not waste
money on redundant facilities and that our basing structure be geared
closely to our global strategy and commitments. We need the 2005 Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission to decide how best to
streamline and restructure DOD facilities so that we can make the most
out of our funding and optimally support our global strategy.
FORCE PROTECTION
The fiscal year 2005 request strongly supports force protection,
although we are on track to meet most Central Command (CENTCOM)
requirements during the current fiscal year. Following are the
highlights of our force protection program:
--Interceptor Body Armor (IBA).--CENTCOM plans to have 175,000 IBA
sets in theater by the end of March, which will fully support
its requirements. The fiscal year 2005 budget requests $40
million to sustain production of IBA at 25,000 sets per month
until the full Army requirement is met.
--Up armored HMMWV (UAHs).--Production will ramp up to 220 per month
by May. Production, plus redistribution of UAHs on hand will
meet CENTCOM requirements by December. The fiscal year 2005
request is $156 million to procure 818 UAHs.
--Improvised explosive device (IED) jamming/change detection
technology.--Various detection/jamming devices are in theater.
Others will begin arriving in theater in March 2004. Our fiscal
year 2005 budget supports increased production and accelerated
research and development.
--Vehicle ballistic protection kits.--The Army's plan for add-on
armor kits is on track to meet CENTCOM requirements for HMMWV
by October 2004, and for other critical vehicles by December
2004. Some 6,310 HMMWV add-on armor kits are expected to be
delivered by July 2004.
TRANSFORMING HOW DOD DOES BUSINESS
I also wish to highlight how the Department is transforming the way
in which it conducts its business.
Our primary initiative in this regard is the Business Management
Modernization Program (BMMP). This is a massive undertaking involving
virtually all DOD management functions, and it will take several more
years to complete. We are in the process of transitioning from more
than 2,000 mostly incompatible management information systems to a much
smaller number of fully compatible systems that will provide leaders
everything needed for informed decision-making. We will streamline
processes and integrate systems to enable DOD decision-makers to get
timely and accurate information to optimize the allocation of defense
resources and people. The fiscal year 2005 budget requests about $122
million to continue the evolution and extension of our Business
Enterprise Architecture, which is guiding our overhaul. We anticipate
that the architecture will lead to a functional accounting system by
fiscal year 2007.
Another initiative I want to highlight is military-to-civilian
conversion. The Department has identified over 50,000 positions
currently filled by military personnel for conversion to positions
supported by DOD civilians or contractors. The Services have begun to
convert 10,000 positions in fiscal year 2004. The fiscal year 2005
budget includes $572 million to achieve the conversion of another
10,070 positions. I should note that the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS), which is part of the Comptroller organization, has
already converted several hundred positions previously filled by Air
Force personnel. The airmen now are available to the Air Force, which
can retrain them to fulfill its requirements. Similarly, the Army has
been retraining the soldiers formerly assigned to DFAS. In particular,
many of these personnel are being retrained at Fort Leavenworth to
serve as military police, a specialty which currently is in especially
great demand. At the same time, DFAS does not need to hire as many
civilians to replace their uniformed predecessors. As a result, DFAS
will be more efficient as well.
CLOSING
These, then, are a few highlights of President Bush's fiscal year
2005 defense budget and related Department of Defense activities. I
would be happy to address your questions on these or any other defense
budget matters. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, doctor.
Since there are only four of us here, would it be
acceptable if we put a limit of 10 minutes on each one of us? I
expect two more members. Is there any objection to a 10-minute
limitation?
[No response.]
Senator Stevens. Dr. Zakheim, you have indicated a great
many things concerning the current conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. As you have said, we will expect a supplemental
some time after the beginning of the next calendar year, which
means that the armed services will have to complete their work
during this fiscal year, through the end of September, and
beginning of October start using the funds that are in fiscal
year 2005.
I take it that it is your feeling that if there is a surge
in expenditures in the first quarter of the next fiscal year
you will use the food and forage concept and proceed with the
idea that we will not be able to get a supplemental through to
you probably until this time, some time around March 2005. Is
that your plan?
Dr. Zakheim. Obviously if there is a jump in expenditures
we have to revisit what we would do. Right now it could go any
of three ways. If things go wonderfully and more foreign troops
are sent in, along the lines of the Japanese and the Koreans
and so on--and with regard to those two countries in
particular, I do not think anyone would have anticipated 8 or 9
months ago that they would be in Iraq--then we could probably
reduce our presence.
If things go along the lines that we are talking about now,
our presence will reduce marginally, by about 10,000 troops. If
things go to hell in a handbasket--and there are those who
predict that, though I do not think that is the case, certainly
not what I have seen out there and certainly not in light of
the constitution coming out the way it did, which clearly shows
that the Iraqis themselves are determined to have a peaceful
transition. Nevertheless, if things went bad, then there would
be some kind of sharp increase and we would have to reevaluate.
As things stand now, we can draw upon the experience of the
last 2 years. As you know, we forward financed in excess of $30
billion before we came for a supplemental last spring. That
probably cut matters very close. The previous year we forward
financed in the region of $13 billion. So if we were to come to
you in January and request a supplemental then and the Congress
turned it around, as it can do, within 1 month or so, I do not
think we would face any difficulties.
HMMWV
Senator Stevens. I would like to shift over to the HMMWV's
if we can. This has been a very, very serious issue for us on
this committee. I have an equipment schedule here that shows
that the HMMWV's, developed in the early 70's, began
procurement in 1985. There are three models, I am told--no,
four: A0 through A3; and that most of those that were deployed
were the A0 and A1's.
Now, some of them are less capable of supporting the
armored packages. What are the ones that are being armored now?
The up-armor, what models are being up-armored?
Dr. Zakheim. I believe all of them are being up-armored. I
have not heard that there is a difference between them. General
Cartwright, do you have a different sense of that?
General Cartwright. They can use any of the models to
upgrade, but what essentially they do in the upgrade is they
increase the engine and the transmission in order to take the
additional weight. That is the key, so that when they go back
and put the up-armor kit on it takes a larger engine and it
also takes a transmission change. Which model they use does not
matter.
Senator Stevens. That was going to be my next question. Are
you selecting any particular model for up-armoring or just what
we can get a hold of? Are you bringing them back to up-armor
them? Where are they being up-armored?
General Cartwright. Some are new procurements, some are
upgrade kits that are being done in the field, some are upgrade
kits that are being done here in the United States. We are
going to the quickest place that we can to create the
capability out in the field. In some cases we have sent teams
out to do it in the field to the extent that we can. But again,
you are changing an engine and a transmission, which they can
do in the field. Some of them we are building new at the
factory.
Senator Stevens. These are basically built in Indiana and
Ohio?
Dr. Zakheim. I believe that is correct.
General Cartwright. I think that is right. Indiana is the
key place that I recall.
Senator Stevens. Are we procuring any new jeeps that are
not up-armored?
Dr. Zakheim. Not to my knowledge.
General Cartwright. Not right now.
Senator Stevens. We also heard that for the first time an
Abrams tank was destroyed by artillery shells that were wired
together and put into a road and set off, actually, by a cell
phone. How prevalent is that now, General?
General Cartwright. The enemy is certainly in using these
explosive devices becoming more and more creative, and to the
extent that they understand how to attack a particular target,
whether it be a vehicle or a convoy, and how to inflict the
damage, we have seen a steady progression in their
sophistication of being able to do that.
This often becomes an effort where our ability to armor or
protect is then offset by a different capability on the part of
the enemy, and we continually try to stay ahead of that game.
Dr. Zakheim. Without getting into too much detail in an
open forum, I think it is safe to say that basically there are
two approaches to this, active measures and passive measures.
We are pushing both and we have seen some success in both
cases.
Senator Stevens. What about this problem about
predictability in terms of the costs of Iraq and Pakistan?
Could you discuss that?
Dr. Zakheim. Sure.
Senator Stevens. My staff tells me that the situation is
incredibly fluid and because of the difficulty to really
predict what the costs will be over the next, what, 18 months,
it is hard for us to conceive right now what the supplemental
will look like. Is that correct?
Dr. Zakheim. Yes, I think your staff is right on target
there. Just to give you a concrete example, in November our
monthly cost was something under $4 billion. In October I
believe--I think it was October--the monthly cost was in the
region of $7 billion.
Senator Byrd. Monthly cost for what, please?
Dr. Zakheim. For operating in Iraq. Excuse me, Senator.
Senator Byrd. In Iraq?
Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir. Actually, I think it was September.
There was a fluctuation. Now, we are still trying to understand
the spike, but the basic point is that we do get spikes. Again,
given that, and given the political uncertainties--and I think
this is what your staff was getting at and they are absolutely
right--given the political uncertainties, it is very, very
difficult to predict, even with respect to Afghanistan, which
has been fundamentally more stable, what exactly the costs will
be. If we are talking about a supplemental, we are in March now
and we are talking about moneys that would be expended
initially about 8 months from now through about 20 months from
now.
That really is the key to our desire to wait a little
longer and have a much better feel to the extent we can before
we come in with a supplemental request.
TEMPORARY STRENGTH INCREASES
Senator Stevens. Let me ask a related question. It is my
understanding that the costs associated with the temporary
strength increases are not in the fiscal year 2005 budget
either. Now, these are people that have been taken on now and
they have the additional cost of housing and various support
costs. Why did the budget not include the amount for those that
have already been brought on in temporary strength increases?
Dr. Zakheim. Because those increases are under the
emergency authorities and emergency authorities are funded by
the supplemental. The fiscal year 2004 supplemental therefore
funds those increases for fiscal year 2004. Again, when there
is a fiscal year 2005 supplemental it will fund those
increases. These are the emergency authorities over and above
the authorized end strength.
Senator Stevens. Well, there is an inconvenient gap there
between October 1 and March 1 of next year. How are you going
to fund them?
Dr. Zakheim. Again, we will fund it the same way we would
fund operations, that is to say forward financing. The issue is
not really our ability to fund forward. The issue is how long
we can continue to do it. Clearly, if it were to stretch on
into the late part of the second quarter of the next fiscal
year, we would have problems.
Senator Stevens. What does ``temporary'' mean with regard
to these employees?
Dr. Zakheim. Essentially ``temporary'' simply means that
you are going above the end strength, the authorized end
strength, and it is part of the emergency authorities and so
you do that until such time as you no longer have the
emergency. That is my understanding of it. General, is yours
different?
General Cartwright. The same.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. I am glad you asked that question, Mr.
Chairman, because there are many of us who would like to know
what we have in mind when we say ``temporary.''
Dr. Zakheim. Senator, as you know, the Secretary of Defense
has said over and over again we do not want to stay in either
Afghanistan or Iraq one day longer than is necessary. I think
the general view is that we will be able to ramp down our
forces over time. The question is what are the political
circumstances that would permit such a ramp down. Those involve
not just the internal situation in Iraq, but the degree to
which Iraqi forces are able to pick up the burden--as you know,
they actually are the largest force under arms in Iraq right
now--and second, what the international contribution would be.
There are a number of countries, as you know, that have sat
on the fence for some time waiting to see developments, waiting
to see a transfer of authority. So it is not at all
inconceivable that once July comes around you will see far more
contributions of forces than we have seen today.
HAITI
Senator Inouye. Dr. Zakheim, can I ask a few questions on
Haiti? Yesterday the United Nations announced an international
force will be going in, but apparently American forces would be
the major unit. What is happening now?
Dr. Zakheim. I do not know if the General has more insight
than I do. But as far as I understand, we are sending some
relatively small units out there. We are not going to be
working on our own. And then there will be a handover to the
United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping force some months down the
road.
Clearly, one has to see. This is the day after President
Aristide decided to catch the next plane to Africa, and how the
situation persists at this stage, whether it quiets down,
whether there is rioting or not, is something that at least I
am not in a position to predict. But I do understand--and I
would like General Cartwright to jump in here--that we are
sending some small number of marines for at least 1 month or
so, until the United Nations feels it is ready to send in the
blue helmets.
General Cartwright. I think that is exactly right. The
unknowns in this situation are still pretty large. We are
trying to understand what the situation is on the ground. We
are trying to understand what it will take to be part of a
national--or an international coalition if that is what is put
together by the United Nations and what our role would be in
it. These initial moves are just meant to establish our
position there, first and foremost to protect our interests at
the Embassy.
TRICARE FOR GUARD AND RESERVES
Senator Inouye. Dr. Zakheim, last fiscal year we increased
several personnel benefits. Among these was TRICARE for Guard
and Reserves. But your fiscal year 2005 budget request provides
for ending this at the end of the calendar year. What is your
plan for the program?
Dr. Zakheim. The law told us to carry it through to the end
of the calendar year and we did, as you know, and we are asking
$300 million for that. And yes, we have not funded beyond that.
We are looking at how to deal with an issue that in our
view is a little more complicated than simply providing TRICARE
for Reserves. When the Reserves are on active duty they are
already covered by TRICARE and for a brief time thereafter.
Therefore the question is if someone is in the Reserves and not
on active duty and has access to other health care as well,
what do we do about that, since every dollar, quite honestly,
that is spent in that direction could well come at the expense
of other programs?
You noted, Senator, somewhat earlier that the defense
budget has increased significantly over the last few years.
Well, $27 billion of that is purely health-related: $17 billion
in the defense health program, $10 billion more in the accrual
account for medical retirees. That is a lot of money, and these
accounts grow of their own. We do not have any real control
over them. They are nominally discretionary. In fact, they are
entitlements.
This one would likewise be, in practice, an entitlement. So
we have to look very, very carefully before we extend these
kinds of benefits beyond where they already are. The law told
us this was to be in force until the end of the calendar year
and so we funded it to the end of the calendar year.
Senator Inouye. With all this, would you find that an
active duty soldier fighting together with a Reserve soldier
side by side, one getting full benefits, the other question
mark, is not quite fair?
Dr. Zakheim. It would not be fair if the Reserve were not
entitled to TRICARE while the Reserve were fighting as an
active. But in fact they are both entitled to the same benefits
while they are both functioning in the same way. The real issue
is as I see it--and maybe the General wants to expand--what do
we talk about when we have someone who is on active service on
the one hand and someone who is working at their regular job
not in the military on the other?
One could make the case that the unfairness, such as it is,
would be against the active service person, who would find that
they are still on the front lines somewhere, whereas the
Reserve, who was going about their daily life with their family
and their normal job in their normal town, is collecting the
same benefit. Then one could say, is that particularly fair?
General, do you want to add to that?
General Cartwright. I think that hits the heart of the
issue. We do not want to disadvantage the Reserve component
when they are on active duty or in their transition to and from
active duty. Clearly we want to take care of them, and I think
that the measures that have been put forward do that. The
question then becomes how long when they are not on active duty
and to what extent this benefit extends, and I think we want to
discuss that.
EXIT PLAN
Senator Inouye. The following two words are ones that we
hear quite often in the political arena: ``exit plan.'' Now, we
have planned for a temporary increase in troops. Does the
administration have any exit plan for a time when we might be
reducing these temporary forces?
Dr. Zakheim. As I mentioned, Senator, the current plan
envisions a reduction of about 10,000 this year alone. I am not
in the policy chain, at least not this time around in my
career, so it is probably a little bit out of bounds for me to
discuss this, other than to say that naturally the
circumstances will dictate our exit.
The one thing that I think we can all agree on is we do not
want a premature exit. Given the nature of the situation in
Iraq or in Afghanistan, for that matter, a premature exit would
create circumstances that probably could be so bad as to force
us to come in, to come back in, within stronger numbers. That
is what we all want to avoid.
But it will be the circumstances on the ground that dictate
just exactly when we go and at what pace.
General, do you want to add?
General Cartwright. Maybe I misunderstood the question. I
thought you were focused more on when will the temporary end
strength be drawn down versus when we will exit the conflict.
Is that correct?
In the thought process of the temporary end strength,
clearly the forces, the services, are taking advantage of the
opportunity to align themselves as quickly as they can to a
configuration that allows them to both meet the threats that we
have today and we envision having in the future and to get
themselves to a position where they can sustain presence at the
level that is necessary.
The thought process right now with the Army, who has
probably undertaken the greatest transformation of all the
services, is that it will probably take them somewhere in the
neighborhood of out through 2007 to accomplish this. They can
meter the rate out. If the temporary authorities are reduced,
they can stretch that out and stretch their transformation out.
While they have the temporary authorities, they can accelerate
that transformation, and that probably is to our benefit and
theirs, to be able to get into a configuration that is more
sustainable.
So the thought process is that right now if they stay at
the rate at which they are going that out in the 2007, 2008
timeframe they will be reconfigured in a way that allows them
to go back to that original strength level.
Dr. Zakheim. Sorry I misunderstood, Senator, but the way
the General outlined it is my understanding. We are talking
about getting down in approximately 3 to 4 years.
Senator Inouye. I have 30 seconds, sir. In my opening
remarks I mentioned that we have increases in space and
missiles, but decreases in the usual things like tanks, ships,
and planes.
SHIPBUILDING
Dr. Zakheim. Senator, I do not think that is entirely the
case. Yes, there are increases in space and yes, there are
increases in missiles and missile defense. But let me give you
one example of where the numbers might be a little misleading,
and that is in shipbuilding. What we did this year was to
finance the research and development portions of two ships, as
opposed to fully finance those ships. That at least is what we
are submitting to the Congress for approval, and we worked that
out with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The impact of that is that had we fully financed those two,
one being a DDX, the other the Littoral Combat Ship, the
shipbuilding budget would be up about $2 billion. In practice,
it has no differential impact on the work force on the ground
and what goes on in the shipyards, but the numbers look a
little bit different. As you well know, in shipbuilding in
particular we only lay out about 4.5 to 5 percent of the total
cost of a program in the first year.
I think the same would apply to some of our other programs.
It is true that we do not have a tank being funded, but we have
not funded a tank in a number of years; and I would draw your
attention to the Stryker program, which is moving along quite
well.
In terms of aircraft, we continue to fund the F-22, we are
funding the F/A-18. Those have been our programs and they are
moving on a steady pace. The research and development for the
F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, is moving ahead as well.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Byrd, you are recognized for 10
minutes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FUNDING CONFLICTS
Dr. Zakheim, why is the Department of Defense breaking with
the modern tradition of how the United States has funded large-
scale ongoing wars by absolutely refusing to include any costs
of the war in its regular appropriations request?
Dr. Zakheim. I do not know that it is a break with
tradition. As I understand it, we funded 2 or 3 years of the
Vietnam war in the baseline. I believe it was 1967 to 1970,
fiscal years 1967 to 1970. It turned out that the estimates
were way off and we went back to funding conflicts with
supplementals.
So we now have approximately 35 years of doing it this way.
When this administration took office, we made clear that we did
not want to use supplementals to fund shortfalls in operations
and maintenance, for example, and we worked on changing the
culture of the Pentagon so that we would not do that, so that
people would not deliberately underfund budget requests and
then come back to the Congress and say the sky was falling.
What we did do was say to that in the event of a conflict--
and of course, in early 2001 we did not know that 9/11 would
come around--we said in the event of a conflict that would be
different. That is what we have done. It is consistent with
what has been done, as I say, Senator, I believe since 1970.
Senator Byrd. At least until--since when?
Dr. Zakheim. 1970, sir.
Senator Byrd. Well, in 1970 the moneys for combat
operations in Vietnam were included in the regular
appropriation bill.
Dr. Zakheim. That was the last time, I believe.
Senator Byrd. No, not the last time. In 1971, the funds for
combat operations in Vietnam were included in the regular bill,
and that was not the last year. 1972, 1973. So that is not
accurate, Dr. Zakheim, what you said.
Dr. Zakheim. I may have made a mistake between 1967 and
1970, as opposed to 1970 and 1973. But I believe that it was 3
years only and then we did not fund combat operations after
that.
Senator Byrd. You funded 1967 the Vietnam war, regular
bill, 1967. 1966, combat operations, at least partially, in the
regular bill.
Dr. Zakheim. Partially, yes.
Senator Byrd. Well, now, wait a minute. You know, what
years you said earlier does not square with the facts. So I
just want you to know I have got a whole table of all of these
dates and these wars and how they were funded. So that is the
basis for my question: Why is the Department of Defense
breaking the modern tradition of how the United States has
funded large-scale ongoing wars by absolutely refusing to
include any costs of war in its regular appropriations request?
Now, we have seen that this administration does not fund
operations in its regular bills in this war. There are two wars
going on here: one in Afghanistan, under which we were
attacked; and one in Iraq, in which we were the attackers. How
can the American people ever be prepared to support running
enormous deficits while spending scores of billions for a long-
term occupation mission halfway around the world if the
administration will not be open about its estimates for how
much the war will cost, how long our troops will be sent
abroad, or even what its exit strategy is for Iraq?
How much are we spending per month in Afghanistan? How much
are we spending per month in Iraq?
Dr. Zakheim. We are spending on the average $4.2 billion a
month in Iraq and on the average approximately $800 million a
month in Afghanistan. The total cost of Enduring Freedom which
exceeds just operations in Afghanistan is in excess of about--
it is about $1 billion a month, or at least that is what we saw
last year. It was about $12 billion for 12 months.
On the dates, I apologize, but you have got the numbers in
front of you, I do not. You have a better sense of history than
I do, Senator.
Senator Byrd. Well, thank you, Dr. Zakheim. You better
answer these questions when you come before the people's
representatives in the Department that controls the purse
strings. We are going to be watching these figures closely.
You and I have had good relations and we have worked
together on things before. These questions may sound like there
is a great deal of animus between you and me. There is none.
That is not my purpose here. I thank you for the good work you
do.
But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration
has no idea of when to start to bring American soldiers home
from Iraq. It is increasingly clear that the Bush
administration intends to keep soldiers in Iraq for many, many
months. But does the administration include costs for this
mission in its budget? The answer is no, right?
Dr. Zakheim. That is correct, sir.
COSTS OF OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
Senator Byrd. Does the administration give the American
people an understanding of the costs of this prolonged
occupation of Iraq? The answer is no, right?
Dr. Zakheim. That one I am not sure I can fully agree with
you on, Senator.
Senator Byrd. Well, let us have it, then.
Dr. Zakheim. Well, as I said, certainly the American people
know that the costs have been large. If we are talking about
$4.2 billion a month, they can do their sums up to now and see
that we have been talking about significant amounts of money.
The difficulty for us, Senator, is that predicting the future,
as I indicated, is much more dicey. We can certainly come up
with the numbers that we have spent and no one is under any
illusions that these are not large expenditures. But the
prediction of the future is a completely different matter, and
that is why we have been very reluctant to make any statements.
ESTIMATED COSTS OF WAR
Secretary Rumsfeld has noted in a number of hearings that
we had originally requested in the case of Afghanistan a $10
billion estimate and the Congress decided not to go with that.
I know there is a lot of discussion about why the Congress did
not and so on. It turned out that estimate was reasonably
accurate for the first year.
Senator Byrd. Well, Dr. Zakheim, why does not the
administration send up in its budget the estimated cost of the
war in Afghanistan, the estimated cost of the war in Iraq, in
its regular budget? That is the question.
Dr. Zakheim. The answer is because we simply cannot predict
them at this stage, sir.
Senator Byrd. The White House plays hide and seek with the
costs of the war, hiding them from the American public until
after the November election. The country deserves an honest up-
front approach from the President. Instead, we get gimmicks and
games.
I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 defense
appropriations bill that stated the sense of the Senate that
the President should include in his fiscal year 2005 budget a
request for ongoing military operations, including Iraq and
Afghanistan. This amendment was passed with an overwhelming 81
votes. But the costs of the war on terrorism and the war in
Iraq are not included in this budget, the estimated costs. Of
course, you cannot be absolutely sure down to the final dollar,
but certainly this administration must have some estimates.
Surely, the administration must talk about these things
within the administration. I certainly would be totally
surprised and shocked, astonished, if the truth were that the
administration does not have any estimates of the costs of the
wars, the two wars that are going on, the one in which we were
attacked, the other in which we were the attacker. There must
be some estimates.
The American people are entitled to know what these
estimates are, and that is what we are asking.
On February 10, the military services told the Armed
Services Committee that delaying a supplemental until next year
would cause them real budgetary problems when they run out of
money in early to mid-September. So, I remind you that the
administration sent its request for $87 billion to Congress on
September 17, 2003, and it was passed by Congress and signed
into law by the President within 1\1/2\ months. If the
Department can estimate the fiscal year 2004 costs of the war
by September 2003, why can it not estimate the fiscal year 2005
costs of the war by September 2004?
Dr. Zakheim. Senator, again, yes, we have estimated the
costs of 2004, but that is an estimate, it is true, and that is
what we think we will spend through September 30 of this year.
But we are reaching two watershed situations, both in Iraq and
Afghanistan. That is to say, the transfer of authority in Iraq
and the presidential election in Afghanistan. Both of those
could be, will be, significant factors in what is the American
military presence, posture, force level in fiscal year 2005.
Senator Byrd. Dr. Zakheim, we are also approaching an
election in this country, in November. The American people are
entitled to know before the election, not after the election,
what at least the estimated costs of these continuing wars are
to the American people in dollars as well as in lives, as well
as with regard to the length of the occupation.
Mr. Chairman, I hope I have not overrun my time.
Senator Stevens. Slightly, Senator.
Senator Byrd. All right, I will wait until the next round.
Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Zakheim.
Dr. Zakheim. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Senator Burns. Ten minutes, Senator.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement
I would like to submit for the record, with the consent of the
committee.
Senator Stevens. It will be printed in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Zakheim, I would like to thank you for
being here today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2005 Budget
request for the Department of Defense (DOD). I have just a very short
statement before we get going this morning.
The President has proposed a $401.7 billion fiscal year 2005 budget
for the Department of Defense. This number represents a seven percent
increase over the fiscal year 2004 budget of $375.3 billion.
I would like to start off by saying that for the most part, I think
you have presented us with a good budget, one that funds core needs to
allow troops currently engaged, to do so safely and to the best of
their ability. This budget also prepares our military forces for future
engagements, where battlefields will look much different than they have
in years past. We must ensure our military transforms in such a way as
to have the right military capabilities for any future engagement. An
overall Research and Development (R&D) request of $68.9 billion and
investment in Science and Technology, which has been included in this
fiscal year 2005 budget at $10.5 billion, helps get us there.
As you know, the men and women of our active, Guard and Reserve
components have seen an increased operations tempo (OPTEMPO) over the
past few years in particular. In my State of Montana, we'll soon see 40
percent of the Guard's total force mobilized, including the 495th
Transportation Battalion out of Kalispell, the 143rd Military Police
Detachment out of Bozeman and the 1022nd Medical Company. While I know
these men and women love what they do and love serving their country,
this increased OPTEMPO does not, however, come without costs. I am
pleased to see that the budget addresses this issue and looks at ways
to rebalance our forces and reduce the need for involuntary reserve
mobilization. I do think it is important to look at ways to add folks
to areas where we currently have a shortage, such as military police,
transportation and civilian affairs.
Increased operations also wear and tear on much of our already
aging equipment. This year's budget proposes $140.6 billion for the
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) account, up from $127.6 billion in
fiscal year 2004. The procurement account has been proposed at $74.9
billion, down from the fiscal year 2004 level of $75.3 billion.
The United States military would not be the best fighting force in
the world without the great people who wear the uniform. It is
important that we take care of our military men and women and ensure
their quality of life is good. The Military Personnel account is funded
at $104.8 billion in fiscal year 2005, while the Military Construction
and Family Housing accounts request is a total of only $9.5 billion.
Our military has performed nobly in their latest missions--
especially in Afghanistan and continuing in Iraq. This country's
fighting force is extremely skilled and capable. The United States
military responds to various missions across this nation and across the
world at a moment's notice, as we have recently witnessed in Haiti. We
must ensure our brave military men and women have the tools and
equipment needed to do their job and return home to their loved ones
safely and as quickly as possible.
I pledge to do what I can to make sure that our military has the
support they need to get the job done.
Again, thanks for coming before our subcommittee today. I look
forward to the discussion this morning. Thank you.
Senator Burns. We are all spending a lot of time at home
now, so thank you for coming this morning. I have a couple of
things I would like to ask.
With regard to the Senator from West Virginia's questions,
you know, I realize we are finally into a political season. I
had this all confused. I did not know that. But I want to point
out the Clinton administration never did provide advance
estimate costs for Haiti, Southwest Asia, or Kosovo. I would
just like to clear that for the record.
Senator Byrd. That is an old herring, going back to the
Clinton administration. What has that got to do with today?
Senator Burns. Well, you know there is a lot of truth in
that.
Senator Byrd. Well, there may be and there may not be. But
we have got to do the funding. That is our business, and we
need estimates upon which to proceed.
Senator Burns. That is exactly right. If it was an accepted
practice then, those practices will usually be carried forward
in Government, and you know how that is.
RETENTION OF TROOPS
I want to use an old Marine term here. As I talk to the
families of Guard and Reservists in the State, scuttlebutt has
it that our retention of those troops once they come home--they
have been deployed no less than 6 months, in some cases over 1
year--retention is going to be a problem. We have not heard
that because there are no figures for it yet.
Has this been discussed at the highest levels of the
Pentagon? Because, as you know, over 50 percent of our force
structure has been moved into Guard and Reserves. Has this been
discussed and is it a concern of the Pentagon?
Dr. Zakheim. Well, the answer is yes and yes, sir. My
colleague David Chu, the Under Secretary for Personnel, is
fully on top of this issue. As I understand it, right now we
are retaining Reserves at a historically high rate, about 5 to
6 percent higher than is normally the case.
There are some indicators that that retention rate will go
down some, and it might just level off at the historical rate.
Right now, like you, all we have are anecdotal pieces of
evidence. It really depends almost on which Reserve you speak
to. I have spoken to some who have voiced the concerns you just
did. I have spoken to others who say that the families are
supportive, the townspeople are supportive, they are all very
proud that they are out there, and they have absolutely every
intention of re-upping.
So until we actually see the numbers we do not know. But
yes, this is something that we are very cognizant of. I guess
we are fortunate that going into this potential situation we
actually have higher retention rates than is historically the
norm.
General, do you want to add to that?
General Cartwright. I think the retention rates are
something that is a quick look; you can kind of get a sense of
how many people are coming in. The longer term, which does not
come right away, certainly revolves around the satisfaction
that the individual soldier, sailor, airman, marine feels for
the duty that he is performing.
Even longer term and more problematic and one that we are
keeping a very close eye on is the satisfaction of the family.
This is a hard stress on a family and over time the question is
have we focused and provided the right incentives to keep the
families engaged and do they feel like the contribution is
meaningful.
Dr. Chu has certainly undertaken a broad program that goes
out and looks at the benefits that we associate both with the
individual service member and the benefits associated with the
family, making sure that we describe service when a Reservist
comes on duty that equates to the service that we actually
demand of them. This gets at the idea of if there is a certain
amount of readiness that we associate with a particular
soldier, let us say, in the Reserve or the Guard, i.e., that we
expect him to be up and available for 1 year out of every 5 or
6 years, or whether we expect him to come on service at a short
notice, that that is understood right up front and that that is
what they sign up for.
So we are looking at a broad range of things that get at
the issue of the continuum of service, not just at the
recruiting piece, because you have got to look broader than
just the recruiting piece.
FORCE STRUCTURE
Senator Burns. Well, Senator Inouye brought up a very valid
point, and correctly so, on benefits and this type thing. A lot
of us, every Senator sitting here at this table, when the trend
started of bringing down our force structure of people on
active duty, our regular forces, and when those numbers were
dropped and then more emphasis was put on our Reserve and Guard
forces, we all went to work and started to redevelop, to take a
look at the infrastructure under which those Guard and Reserves
are trained, that they have to have facilities and a training
procedure that makes them as good as those who train every day.
I think most of us who did that under the leadership of
this committee and the Armed Services Committee, understood
that. I just wonder, because we have integrated forces. The Red
Horse Brigade out of Mount Storm Air Force Base is integrated
Reserve and active duty forces. In fact, their first commander
was a Reservist. That will work pretty well as long as we
integrate those troops along with communication and training
that is at least equal to our citizen soldiers, sailors, and
marines.
I think we have to discuss that, because it becomes a vital
part of our force structure.
CACHES OF ARMS
I was in Iraq last October and we were in the northern
part, Mosul, where they were finding tremendously large caches
of conventional arms that Saddam had stored and stashed away. I
cannot help but think, as we see these bombs, these roadside
bombs, that within those caches that we have found and those
that we have not found is a supply of explosives that is much
deadlier when used in a very creative way.
Are we continuing to search for those caches and to destroy
the ones that we have found?
Dr. Zakheim. Please, let me start and I will then turn it
over to the General.
The answer is yes. We are also using Iraqis to do a lot of
that. There are really two parts to this. One is to search for
them; the other then is to guard them. Iraqis are providing a
lot of the guard units for that. We do continue to search, and
the more intelligence we get--and we are getting more
intelligence, and the best sources are the Iraqis themselves--
the more we are able to quickly find these ammunition storage
facilities and to guard them and dispose of them.
General?
General Cartwright. Clearly, a very aggressive effort, both
in Afghanistan and Iraq, to go after these caches, find them,
dry up that source as quickly as we can. The good news is that
both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, as the forces, the local
indigenous forces, stand up, as we use the tools available to
us to create a conduit of information back and forth between
locals, that has become our richest source of finding these
caches.
So in the case of Iraq, it is the Iraqis who are actually
helping us go find those, get them, get them into a safe place,
get them destroyed or disposed of otherwise. But the key here
is programs like--and we talked about it earlier--the CERP
fund, where we establish a relationship in the community and
then the information starts to flow, are so critical to the
soldiers as they try to do this.
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, it says ``stop'' here. You
never say ``whoa'' in a horse race. Oh, we are doing okay yet?
Senator Stevens. You still are.
Senator Burns. Well, this thing makes funny noises and has
funny colors to it.
Along that same line, there are some technologies supplied
by or are being developed in some of our colleges and
universities, also in small businesses, and especially in my
State, that would help us to find both weapons and personnel
underground. Have we seen any acceleration of taking a look at
these technologies and obtaining those technologies and then
deploying them?
Dr. Zakheim. The answer is yes. DARPA, our Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, in fact has--and I cannot get into
detail in an open forum, but they in fact have been
accelerating a number of these technologies, precisely for the
reasons you gave, in order to get them on the ground quickly.
We have got some on the ground quickly, and we are certainly
prepared to brief you in private as to what we have done.
Generally speaking, I think DARPA is open to ideas and
suggestions. Anything that will particularly help the forces is
welcome.
Senator Burns. Well, we established a program called the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
many years ago when I first came to this body and that allowed
consortias of smaller colleges and universities to do research
and development (R&D) on many projects. Montana State
University, I think you probably know, have made significant
improvements to laser technology and have developed a lot of
the technology that you are working with now.
But I hear that it is hard to get into the good old boy
network every now and again, and we have got to watch that
because there are some creative people outside the norm,
because EPSCoR has allowed these people to do a lot of R&D work
in areas where it traditionally had not been found. I would
like to see a little more notice taken of some of the advances
that have been made.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Dr. Zakheim. Senator, if you contact me about this I will
forward whatever information you have to Ron Sega, who heads up
that area in our Department. I do know that there is no old boy
network functioning with regard to force protection. They are
trying to get at whatever is out there.
Senator Burns. That is good, but it is still alive up here.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Zakheim. Mr. Chairman, just to correct for the record a
couple of things. First, Senator Byrd got it absolutely right.
I had flipped my history. I told you, Senator, you have a
better sense of history than I do. We used supplementals for
Vietnam in the first several years, 1965, 1966, and then we
went over to baseline budgets in the years you mentioned. Of
course, by that time we had a better sense of where we were
headed with that, I believe. But in any event, I had gotten the
years completely reversed.
I also had a question earlier about buying HMMWV's that
were not up-armored and I am told by the Army that in fact we
are buying some number that are not in 2005. We are buying a
total of 2,431 HMMWV's; 818 of those are up-armored, the rest
are not. So I wanted to be clear for the record on that, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
I assume you are marking those so they are not going to be
sent over to a war zone accidentally?
Dr. Zakheim. The intention is that everything that goes
over there is up-armored.
Senator Stevens. That is not what I asked. The ones we are
procuring new that are not up-armored, are they clearly marked
so they cannot be sent into war zones?
Dr. Zakheim. That is my understanding, but I will look into
it for the record.
[The information follows:]
Both standard and Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) are being procured in fiscal year
2005. HMMWVs which are not Up-Armored are visually
identifiable. New, non-up-armored HMMWVs coming out of
production are programmed to fill unit shortages according to
Army priorities. Both standard and Up-Armored HMMWVs will
continue to be available in the theater of operation for use as
appropriate by the Combatant Commander. Production of Up-
Armored HMMWVs is a Department priority and production is being
increased to meet CENTCOM requirements.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
I understand the Senator from West Virginia's point. I
distinctly remember raising the question several times during
Bosnia, Kosovo, all of those, even with the first President
Bush in Somalia. We did not get budget estimates. We ran those
wars on supplementals. That is not something this committee
really believes in, but it has become a practice, whether we
like it or not. But the Senator made about the same speech I
did, as a matter of fact, in 1999 as we approached an election.
But let me shift to something else. I am worried about this
budget because I have before me your chart--I wish you had
brought it in a big chart so everyone could see it. 1969, 8.9
percent of our gross national product was dedicated to defense.
And if you look at 1969, that was 43.4 percent of the national
budget. Now we are looking at a budget that is 3.6 percent of
the gross national product. In the year 2000 the budget request
was 2.9 percent. We are looking at, instead of 43 percent of
the Federal budget, we are looking at 17.9 percent of the
Federal budget being committed to defense.
As I look at our projections, there will be an increase
over the next 5 years, not near enough to move us back up to
the point where we traveled for the 10 years of the 1980's,
somewhere in the vicinity of 20 percent of the Federal budget
and in the vicinity of 6 percent of the gross domestic product.
OUTLAYS
Now, I want to ask this. These outlays, do they include the
costs of the war?
Dr. Zakheim. The outlays in the charts for 2004 do, yes,
sir. Obviously, not for 2005. But they do include the costs of
the war. Anything that is an actual outlay is included, sir.
Senator Stevens. I am worried about the trend in terms of
being able to maintain the kind of a military we need if we are
going to not restore the concept of committing a sufficient
amount to our defense. I remember traveling the world with
Senator Jackson where we urged our allies to commit at least 3
percent, and we in those days were between 6 and 8 percent of
the gross national product.
What are our allies doing now? How much are they committing
to defense, do you know?
Dr. Zakheim. Off the top of my head, sir, I believe that
many of the allies that we tried to get to reach 3 percent in
those days are still not at 3 percent today. In our case, of
course, our gross national product is in the trillions and so
3.6 percent of such a large amount of money is still very, very
significant.
But nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that in most
cases our allies are not at the 3 percent of their gross
domestic products, and I can get you the answer for the record.
[The information follows:]
Please see the attached information on allied defense
spending from the 2003 Responsibility Sharing Report.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
BUDGET
Senator Stevens. Well, I asked that other question that you
have just implied of the staff. We have not gotten the answer
back yet. But I think that the amount of your budget now, which
is roughly, what, 400----
Dr. Zakheim. 401 and change, yes.
Senator Stevens [continuing]. As compared to the $200
billion in 1981, the first budget that Senator Inouye and I
handled in defense, I think it is less than it was in terms of
real dollars, than it was in 1981.
Dr. Zakheim. I do not believe it is less than in 1981.
Certainly it is less than the 1985 real dollar number, which
was the peak of President Reagan's years, and I was part of
that administration. But you are absolutely right, you cannot
just take the $400 billion and compare it to the $200 billion
because there is an inflation factor and there are also much
increased benefits that did not exist in 1981.
Senator Stevens. Well, I am told in constant dollars what
you have is an increase from $257 billion to $393 billion
between 1981 and 2005.
Dr. Zakheim. I thought it was a little higher, sir, yes.
Senator Stevens. That to me is not an increase that
recognizes our global responsibilities now as compared to then.
I wonder how you can maintain a global war against terrorism
without some additional modernization.
ARMY AVIATION PROCUREMENT
Let me switch over to that if I may. We have not seen some
of the details on the Comanche termination and what is going to
happen there. Is our understanding correct that the money from
the Comanche termination, the net will be shifted over to the
Army aviation procurement accounts?
Dr. Zakheim. That is correct. Basically there is really a
change in the whole approach to Army aviation. What is
happening to Comanche is only a part of it. I can give you some
detail. We are going to modernize 1,400 aircraft and, because
of the funds available from Comanche, an additional 284 Apache
Block 3's and 19 Chinooks. We are going to acquire almost 800
new aircraft, both for the active and for the Reserve, and that
is more Chinooks, more Blackhawks, and a light utility
helicopter.
Senator Stevens. When will we see those modifications in
the budget?
Dr. Zakheim. We are going to be sending up an amendment
very quickly, sir, and that will address both sides of the
equation. That is to say, moving the money out of Comanche and
moving the money into many of the programs that I have
mentioned.
Senator Stevens. Will that change in any way the requests
that are before us for the Army for 2005?
Dr. Zakheim. I would have to check on that. I think that
basically it is pretty much in balance, but I would have to get
you that for the record. I do not think it will be significant,
no, sir.
[The information follows:]
The Army 2005 budget request does not change in total but
there has been realignment of resources between accounts. Army
Research and Development is reduced by nearly $1.2 billion. A
majority of the resources, $828 million, will be reapplied to
support Aircraft Procurement, acquiring high priority
helicopter equipment and additional CH-47, UH-60 and TH-67
aircraft. Another $155 million is reapplied to Procurement of
Ammunition, principally to support acquisition of additional
Hydra rockets, and Missile Procurement has been increased by
$93 million for the purchase of additional Hellfire missiles.
Smaller adjustments have been made in several other accounts
and the precise details of all adjustments are included in the
fiscal year 2005 Amended Budget Submission that the Department
has forwarded.
Senator Stevens. It is basically a shift from R&D to
procurement?
Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. We have, I understand, a 2004 shortfall on
the global war against terrorism of $700 million, is that
right?
Dr. Zakheim. I would have to look at that, the basis for
that number. I do not recognize that figure, sir.
Senator Stevens. Well, we are talking about the defense
health program. Is there a shortfall there?
Dr. Zakheim. In the defense health program? I would have to
look at that.
Senator Stevens. Attributable to the global war on
terrorism?
Dr. Zakheim. I am told that in fact there is that shortfall
and we are going to reprogram money to cover it. So we will be
sending you a reprogramming action for that.
IFF
Senator Stevens. All right. Why are they not, those
shortfalls, not being funded from the Iraqi Freedom Fund (IFF)?
Dr. Zakheim. I have to look at where the sources will come
from. We will clearly fund the shortfall from the most
acceptable source, and of course we have to send those sources
up to you.
Senator Stevens. Well, can you answer me this. Is the Iraqi
Freedom Fund, which we created for the fiscal year 2003
budget--it was the supplemental really--has that been
exhausted?
Dr. Zakheim. Not entirely exhausted. We are still
reprogramming money out of the IFF. We are coming close to
exhausting it, yes.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, how much money does remain in
that fund?
Senator Stevens. Well, I was just going to get to that. I
do not like to see any of these funds left, have us get
supplementals when there is money in technical funds we created
in the past that is not being charged. Are you doing that, Mr.
Zakheim?
Dr. Zakheim. No, I do not think that is the case at all. We
anticipate using it all up. Actually we are almost there. I am
trying to get the numbers for you and I hope before this
hearing is over I will be able to tell you exactly where we are
with what remains of the IFF. But I do not think it is a
situation of asking for more money over and above what we have
because we have more money in the kitty. That is not the case
at all.
Senator Stevens. Well, you are the Comptroller. Do we have
existing funds over there? These are 2003 funds now we are
talking about.
Dr. Zakheim. That is correct.
Senator Stevens. I do not understand why those funds were
not used.
Dr. Zakheim. Out of the $1.9 billion IFF, the Iraqi Freedom
Fund, we have already committed over $1.5 billion. So we are
down to about $400 million in the Iraqi Freedom Fund. For
example, that in and of itself would not cover the DHP, the
defense health program. But in any event, the health program is
not directly war related, so we would have to fund it out of
something else. The IFF is for what is directly war related.
As I said, we are down to $400 million, or less than 25
percent, of the original IFF and that will be expended pretty
soon.
Senator Stevens. I would hope there would be a policy of
charging some of those funds like that, these reprogrammings,
so that we do not create additional demands.
Dr. Zakheim. It is in fact the policy to do that, but we
can only reprogram for things that are directly war related. So
in the case of the DHP we could not do that.
Senator Stevens. I am not going to comment on that. We have
seen it done before, let us put it that way.
Gentlemen, I am going to have to leave here in a minute. We
have got a 10-minute rule here, so I presume each member would
want another 10 minutes. I will leave the gavel with the co-
chairman and thank you very much, Mr. Zakheim.
Dr. Zakheim. Before you go, sir, I was passed a note
without the right numbers. IFF is completely committed for
2003, which is what you were asking me about. The $400 million
that is left is in the IFF of 2004. So here we are in the
second quarter of 2004, we have committed $1.5 billion out of
$1.9 billion, and the 2003 is completely committed.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye [presiding]. Thank you.
I am glad that the chairman brought up the matter of
shortfalls in military medicine and health care because in all
the studies that we have looked at men and women in uniform are
more concerned about health care than pay.
That being the case, I have been also monitoring some of
the assignments we have made of military personnel in medicine.
I note, for example, that from Walter Reed we have been sending
doctors to Iraq who are specialists. One just sent there is a
specialist in knee replacements, which is a highly specialized
area.
Senator Stevens. Senator, would you yield to me just 1
minute? I apologize.
Senator Inouye. Certainly.
Senator Stevens. When the subcommittee closes out today,
our next hearing will be at 10 a.m. in this room for a hearing
on the Army's fiscal year 2005 budget request.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
As I was saying this doctor is being sent to Iraq for 6
months. He wants to go there to do his part, but in 6 months he
is not going to do one knee replacement, he is not going to do
any one of those highly skilled specialties, and when he gets
back he will have to go back to school again.
Why do you not have a policy that would, say, limit these
people to 3 months?
Dr. Zakheim. I would have to refer that to Dr. Winkenwerder
and Dr. Chu.
Senator Inouye. I am not a doctor, but it just does not
make sense. You send someone out there and you are going to
lose all his skills.
Dr. Zakheim. On its face the question is an excellent one.
I am sure there is an answer and a response. I do not know if
General Cartwright is into that, but I claim no particular
expertise. I would have to get you an answer for the record
based on what Dr. Chu and Dr. Winkenwerder were to tell me.
General Cartwright. We need to go back and look at the case
for you, Senator.
Senator Inouye. I would appreciate that, sir.
[The information follows:]
Surgeons are chosen for deployment based on the skill
qualifications requested by the combatant commander.
Once a requirement for a certain specialty is validated (in
this case, orthopedics), the skill set requirement is matched
to the skill level of the surgeons available to meet the
requirement. Each Service has a system for coordinating these
requests, utilizing its specialty consultants, medical manpower
experts, and others familiar with the necessary skill
qualifications. While orthopedists may have a subspecialty (in
this case joint replacement) they are trained in (and typically
treat) the full range of cases that may present. Indeed, well-
trained orthopedists are critical to caring for the wounds
occurring in Iraq.
Moreover, this rotation will help maintain excellence in
the Military Health System's graduate medical education
programs. Even the most highly trained subspecialists need
operational/deployment military medicine expertise in order to
be fully competent and credible role models and teachers for
military physicians in training.
This six-month period for the rotation balances the needs
for the combatant commander with prudent use of highly trained
medical staff.
Senator Inouye. Senator Byrd.
ROTATION OF FORCES
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my esteemed friend.
References have been made to a rotation of forces. The
administration is in the midst of a massive rotation of forces
in Iraq. Is the cost of rotating these forces reflected in the
average monthly cost of $4.2 billion for operations in Iraq?
Dr. Zakheim. To the extent--remember, Senator, that the
monthly costs we have up to now only reflect what we have up to
November. But the answer is yes, sir, those rotation costs will
be reflected in the monthly costs. So that here we are in
March; I do not expect to see any actuals until probably the
June timeframe.
Senator Byrd. Recent news reports indicate that the
Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are stepping
up the intensity of the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Is that
increased effort requiring any corresponding increase in the
average monthly cost of operations in Afghanistan or in the
number of military personnel in Afghanistan?
Dr. Zakheim. At this stage I simply do not know. Should
there be an increase, it will be reflected. But again, that is
not something I will be able to address in any detail for the
next couple of months.
Senator Byrd. Do you have any idea, any indications as to
whether or not the effort is requiring any corresponding
increase in the average monthly cost of operations in
Afghanistan?
Dr. Zakheim. General, do you want to?
General Cartwright. The only thing I would say, Senator--
and it would be reflected--is that as the weather gets better
the opportunity to do more will be there and we will try to
take advantage of that. To the extent that that is a delta
between what we are doing in the winter versus what we are
doing in the spring and the summer would be the difference.
Senator Byrd. General, does the Department anticipate any
substantial drawdown of U.S. forces from Afghanistan at any
point in the near future, keeping in mind the increase, the
stepping up of the intensity of the hunt for bin Laden?
General Cartwright. The program for 2004 is laid out and is
relatively stable and includes the efforts that we have to
chase after various targets. The longer range look, as I said
earlier, our intent is to move out of there as quickly as the
country is ready to take over. So that remains a little bit
cloudy and ambiguous right now.
Senator Byrd. Is there anything you can tell us about this
hunt for Osama bin Laden? We have been reading a good bit about
it. There are some reports that he has already been caught--I
heard that report 2 or 3 days ago--and that the administration
is waiting, waiting until a more opportune time to make the
announcement. I did not give a great deal of credence to that,
but I am not surprised at anything these days.
Dr. Zakheim. Senator, you are right not to give much
credence to that, particularly, as you know, the Middle East is
a place where rumors start circulating and grow with the
passage of days and hours.
Senator Byrd. Just in the Middle East?
Dr. Zakheim. That is the area we were addressing just now,
sir.
Senator Byrd. But you are making a rather broad statement
when you say that in the Middle East rumors----
Dr. Zakheim. There have been a lot of studies to that
effect, about the impact of rumors on perceptions in the Middle
East. That is why I referred to that one, sir.
Senator Byrd. All right. Let me get back to my earlier
subject of contention perhaps. The Department of Defense has
adopted an all or nothing approach, sending Congress an
ultimatum: Either give the Pentagon a blank check for $10
billion, as was requested 2 years ago, or the administration
will wait until untold billions have already been spent before
asking for a supplemental appropriations bill. And we have done
both. We have advanced that slush fund, as you might call it,
of $10 billion, a blank check, and then at the same time we are
still depending upon supplemental appropriations bills.
This is an unnecessarily confrontational and shortsighted
posture. So I have to continue to express my disappointment in
this method of approach. Now, you can go back to preceding
administrations, if you can find it to be a fact in each case,
and talk about the war in Vietnam, the war on Bosnia, the war
in Korea, or whatever. We are here to appropriate moneys today
and we need to know, we are entitled to know, what the facts
are.
The American people, and we are here to represent them, are
entitled to know what the costs of this war are and what the
estimate of the future costs are going to be. There is an
election coming up and there is a pretty well-founded
suspicion, it appears, that these figures are going to be
withheld from the people's elected representatives in Congress
before the election, but that after the election, then the
costs will be sprung upon us.
I think it is a poor way to legislate. I am in my 46th year
here on this committee and my 51st year on the Hill, in
Congress. And we have not seen it done like that before, and
this administration continues, it seems, to proceed in this
manner.
IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION FUNDING
Now, let us talk about the supplemental Iraq reconstruction
funding. The OMB Director, Josh Bolten, stated that he
estimates that the administration's supplemental appropriation
request, whenever it may be submitted, could be in the
neighborhood of $50 billion. Dr. Zakheim, does that estimate
include any additional funds for reconstruction projects in
Iraq?
Dr. Zakheim. To my knowledge it does not.
Senator Byrd. Can you give a ballpark estimate of what
additional reconstruction funds the administration might
request for Iraq on top of the $18.4 billion that was
appropriated last fall?
Dr. Zakheim. I cannot, and permit me to explain why I
cannot. The $18.4 billion was not really a 1-year request. It
was a request for essentially front-loading what would be an
international effort to reconstruct Iraq. I was personally
involved in organizing the Madrid conference. There we got
commitments of up to $17 billion for reconstruction from the
international community. Just this past weekend there was a
meeting in Abu Dhabi where the United Nations and the World
Bank trust funds announced they were open for business and
countries started to commit money to those trust funds.
In addition, there are the revenues that are coming from
Iraqi oil. If you add all of those--our commitment, Iraqi oil,
other revenues that are still coming in from frozen assets and
Oil for Food contracts that were not implemented, as well as
the international contributions--you are in the vicinity of
about $50 billion.
So that it is not at all clear at this stage just how much
more we as the United States might have to contribute. I think
the general sense is that, should we feel there is a further
need for reconstruction funds, it would not be packaged as a
supplemental, but instead be part of our total foreign
assistance budget and sent up to the Congress that way.
Senator Byrd. Just before the White House sent Congress its
draft of an Iraq war resolution in September 2002, some
proponents of confrontation with Iraq said that Members of
Congress should explain to the American people their position
on Iraq before the midterm elections. Now the administration
wants to delay until after the upcoming Presidential election
sending Congress the bill for keeping our troops in Iraq for
another year.
Dr. Zakheim, since the administration was so keen on
getting the authority to go to war right before an election,
does not the administration have the responsibility to let the
American people know how much this war will cost? We are almost
on the verge of getting into another election, and I think the
American people are entitled to know this. What do you think?
Dr. Zakheim. Well, sir, I certainly agree with you that
there is another election coming. I think people can disagree
about this. As we see it, we do not really have a good
estimate. And I would not share your characterization of this
as a slush fund. I want to make that clear. That is not how I
would look at it. We do provide to the Congress monthly reports
on our obligations. We do not have immediate monthly reports.
We always run 3 months late.
I believe, just as an analyst that to estimate the costs of
fiscal year 2005 prior to the changes that are going to take
place in Iraq and Afghanistan is probably to misestimate those
costs, probably to put the wrong dollars in the wrong accounts,
and therefore create problems thereafter.
Senator Byrd. Why can you not say, though, doctor: this is
the way we see it today. Now, there may be changes. Perhaps
this will happen, perhaps that will happen, something else may
happen. But, Members of Congress, this is the way we see it
today; and on this basis, we would estimate thus and so.
Now, if the administration would be up front like that,
then we would have confidence in the administration, what it
says. The American people would have some idea, knowing that it
is not the final figure, of course, have some idea of what they
are going to be asked to pay and over what period, how long a
period. This would be, it seems to me, the fair way of
proceeding, rather than do as the administration is doing:
spend the money, present the Congress then with an ultimatum,
give us the check, and Congress in the meantime has had no
opportunity to conduct oversight as it is its responsibility,
constitutional responsibility, to do.
I see my time is up. Mr. Chairman, may the witness answer
my question first?
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Senator Byrd. Thank you.
Dr. Zakheim. Certainly, Senator. First of all, as you know,
we do have expenditures that will be going out to September 30.
So that is already spoken for and we will have to justify those
and we will report those. The real issue is what do we do about
the period between October 1 and roughly January-February
timeframe, whenever the next supplemental would be available.
Clearly, it is very difficult to estimate those costs at
this time, for the reason I have given you. I do not think this
is a deliberate effort to mislead. After all is said and done
we know what the monthly costs are right now, $4.2 billion. We
anticipate what the monthly costs will be through the end of
September. But beyond that, I do not want to sound like a
broken record, but beyond that we just do not know what the
impact of this summer's events is going to be like.
The Congress clearly will not have any kind of ultimatum,
for the simple reason that if we go to the Congress next
January with a request for the entire fiscal year, the entire
fiscal year will not have happened by then and the Congress can
choose how much and to what degree it wishes to support that
supplemental.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong this,
but this makes it impossible for the Congress to conduct its
constitutional oversight. The money is already spent, then we
get the bill. In the meantime, we have no opportunity to delve
into the facts which justify x number of dollars. That is
number one.
Number two, the President can go before the American people
and say that he is going to cut, reduce the budget deficit by
half, in 5 years, and he presents the Congress and the people
with a budget for this year, and that is what we are working
on. That is what these hearings are about. But in the meantime,
these moneys that we will be spending in Iraq and Afghanistan
do not show. Those are hidden figures.
So the administration has the advantage, the political
advantage, of saying, well, this is our budget for this year.
The administration is not counting the costs of the wars in
Iraq and in Afghanistan. These costs are on the side, you see.
This is a gimmick that this administration is using, I must
say, and the American people are being kept in the dark.
This is what I am complaining about, and I hope that we
will continue to press the administration to shed some light on
this budget. The American people are entitled to have that
light because they are footing the bill, and Congress is
entitled to have that light. I have never seen it done like
this. It is a practice here, it is a pattern, and it is
calculated. Everybody ought to be able to see that.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your patience. Thank you, Dr.
Zakheim. You have got a tough job to do. You have a hard job. I
know you have to pursue the company line, as we used to say
back in the coal mining camps in southern West Virginia, the
company line. You have to do that, I know that. Thank you.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Senator Burns.
PROVINCIAL RECONSTRUCTION TEAMS
Senator Burns. I think I have only one more question and
that will wrap it up for me. We met with some of the folks over
in Iraq, and in your statement you referred to it this morning
on the PRT's. Would you elaborate on the plan to expand those
Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan and the cost?
Have you got an estimated cost for that?
I know we have one German-led PRT there currently. Are the
Germans contributing to the cost of those PRT's? Would you sort
of give us some sort of an idea of what is going on?
Dr. Zakheim. Sure. The cost, because that is an answer I
cannot give you offhand, I will get you for the record. We had
eight. We are up to, I believe, 12 PRT's, of which one is a
NATO/German one. That is the one in Kunduz. That is the one I
was at. The British are running one in Mazar-e Sharif. The New
Zealanders are running another one.
[The information follows:]
There are currently 17 PRTs. 14 are coalition-run (13 by
United States and 1 by New Zealand) and 3 are NATO-run, 1 by
Germany and 2 by the United Kingdom.
Each PRT was estimated to cost $5 million to setup. The
cost of supporting a PRT has been roughly estimated at $39,000
to $98,000 per month. However, the size and composition of each
PRT varies. Some have more military personnel, some have more
USAID staff. In addition, frequent troop rotations from the
U.S. military units supporting the PRTs lead to cost
fluctuations. U.S. military units are supporting PRTs are
funded with O&M funds.
DOD has provided just under $30 million in Overseas
Humanitarian Disaster and Civic Aid funds for PRT and civil
affairs assistance projects combined in Afghanistan to date.
Senator Burns. I think we ran into ours at Kandahar.
Dr. Zakheim. We have a bunch of them now.
There is a push for NATO--and not just NATO; for instance,
the Swedes are going to be contributing and they are not in
NATO--to start four more. In fact, your question about footing
the bill goes to the heart of our position regarding these
four. We are telling NATO that of course we support four more.
We think it is a great idea. We think PRT's work. But NATO
needs to provide the support.
The Germans are contributing, although some of the support,
the helicopter support, is what we are providing. We have made
it clear that was a once-only exception. We are not going to do
that. If countries want to contribute to PRT's, and we
encourage them to, then they need to cover the costs.
So we hope that eventually a significant number of these
PRT's will be supported by the international community. There
is talk of a Nordic one. There is talk of a second British one,
and so on. There is a lot of interest around the world to
contributing to them, because of what they do--and you have
seen them. They are unique. There is a mix of troops, of
civilians, of representatives of the central Afghan government.
They work very well with international nongovernmental
organizations. Actually, it is fascinating to see the
evolution.
A lot of these organizations were very suspicious of the
military and therefore thought PRT's were just a stalking horse
for the military. Now it is quite different, and you see people
from institutions that you would not dream of having anything
to do with the military speaking positively about it. It really
is a terrific development, because what it does is enable the
central government to demonstrate its reach throughout the
country.
Still, if countries want to be involved, they have got to
foot the bill.
OPERATIONAL SUPPORT
Senator Burns. Also, I ask about--and I think whenever we
talk about technology, and this thing, I will just throw this
as a question out there that I would like an answer to and we
can do that in a private conversation also. We had four very
good friends during the Afghanistan operation: Pakistan,
Kazakhistan, Kyrgistan, and Jordan. I am wondering, are we
doing anything in those countries to relieve some of the
financial pressure off of those four countries?
Dr. Zakheim. The answer is yes. Congress allowed us,
actually with this committee's help, to reimburse a number of
countries for the operational support they provide, and
Pakistan is by far the biggest recipient. That continues. We
are reimbursing Jordan as well. In fact, those two countries
were specified in the legislation. But we are reimbursing
others, too.
Senator Burns. Well, we had tremendous support under the
circumstances from Kazakhistan and Kyrgistan. I am going to
Kazakhistan. I want to be met on friendly terms there when I
get there.
Dr. Zakheim. I think you will be.
Senator Burns. Also, I made a couple trips out at Walter
Reed to see some of the troops from Montana that were out
there, which is a very rewarding situation. You know, we have
got one young man out there who is afraid that they are not
going to let him stay in the Guard and he wants to stay. He
took quite a beating over there.
With regard to that, I am told by--you know, the American
people I do not think understand really fully, in the medical
communities like Walter Reed and our research people on
diseases we run into different kinds of challenges whenever we
send our troops to foreign soil. I noticed a little bit in this
last one that you cut back a little bit on R&D as far as
research on the different kind of diseases. You know, we are
going through a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) thing
now on the Pacific Rim and in China. These people are exposed
to these things.
I would question cutting back on your research because I
think it is vitally important that the research moves forward
in our medical communities, such as Walter Reed, Bethesda, the
naval hospital, and that this work continue.
Dr. Zakheim. Well, I will get for the record a breakdown of
what has been, to the extent it has been reduced. I think Dr.
Chu and Dr. Winkenwerder would be best in a position to give
you that answer. I can say, however, that the level of research
is still significantly high and it is precisely for the reasons
you gave. When we send our troops to different parts of the
world, they encounter diseases that have either been eradicated
here or never existed here at all.
I know there is a lot of research, not just within the Army
medical community; the Army Medical Command manages research in
universities, including international universities. Very often
you will find that universities in the regions in which these
diseases are found have a comparative advantage in terms of
dealing with those diseases. That funding continues.
But I will get you for the record details of that.
[The information follows:]
The military infectious disease research program continues
to address countermeasures against the same number of different
kinds of infectious diseases of military importance. Diseases
such as malaria, bacterial diseases responsible for diarrhea,
viral diseases (e.g. dengue fever and hanta virus), meningitis,
viral encephalitis, scrubtyphus, leishmaniasis, hemorrhagic
fever, and HIV are all part of the military infectious disease
research program. This research is funded with core dollars out
of the Medical Research and Materiel Command's budget. This
means that the funds are programmed and budgeted for through
the President's Budget process. From fiscal year 2002 to fiscal
year 2004, there have been shifts in programs and changes in
accounting for indirect laboratory costs. Overall there was a
4.6 percent reduction in the core program between fiscal year
2003 and fiscal year 2004 as priorities changed and other
programs emerged in importance.
Senator Burns. It is a different kind of research than we
find in our traditional National Institutes of Health (NIH) or
anything else, on infectious diseases.
Dr. Zakheim. Absolutely, that is right.
Senator Burns. And that has concerned most of us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all that I have.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Pursuant to the direction of Chairman Stevens----
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, might I ask another question?
Senator Inouye. Please do.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I thank
the acting chairman, and I thank you, Dr. Zakheim, and you,
General Cartwright.
OPERATIONAL POST-HANDOVER NUMBERS
Let me repeat my question earlier. The President sent his
$87 billion fiscal year 2004 supplemental to Congress on
September 17, 2003. Roughly 6 weeks later, that request was
enacted and signed into law. Now, if the supplemental could be
submitted in September in that instance, why can it not be
presented in September this year, rather than wait until, was
it January I believe you said?
Dr. Zakheim. It is a function of the fact that in the first
place we are, unlike September of that year where we were not
funded at all, we are funded through the end of September, so
that we have operations that will be covered.
Second, we do not feel that it would pose particular
difficulties for us to cash flow for about 3 months. Again, as
I mentioned earlier, the Congress has its discretion, as you
well know, Senator; it can choose whatever it wants to do for
the remaining part of fiscal year 2005 in a supplemental or
indeed how it wants to treat what we have requested for that
first part of fiscal year 2005 in a supplemental.
So the discretion is clearly there. We believe we can
effectively cash flow those funds for the first few months. As
I said, by September we will not have as yet a sense of the
costs after the handover. If the handover is in the beginning
of July, we will not have any numbers, any operational post-
handover numbers, with which to work in September. It is as
simple as that.
We simply cannot come with any credible number. I mean,
there will be such a massive----
Senator Byrd. The way you are operating, it is not
credible. It is not credible at all. What is the magic about
January?
Dr. Zakheim. Again, Senator, as I said, we need a couple of
months experience subsequent to the handover in Iraq. That
brings us to November-December timeframe. We need a month to
put a supplemental together and that brings us to January.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, just this final. At Secretary
Rumsfeld's confirmation hearing, I asked what he was going to
do about the Pentagon's broken accounting systems. Three years
later, the Department of Defense is still nowhere close to
passing an audit of its books. Congress has appropriated more
than $200 million to develop a blueprint for a new computerized
accounting system, but work on that plan, which was supposed to
be completed in April 2003, is still not yet done.
Meanwhile, DOD will spend $19 billion this year on those
computers, on top of the $18 billion spent in 2003 on those
faulty systems. You, Dr. Zakheim, and Secretary Rumsfeld have
recognized the seriousness of these accounting problems. But
how can you justify spending tens of billions of dollars on
these computerized accounting systems when you do not even know
how to fix what is wrong with those systems that we are pouring
money into?
How much more time and money is it going to take before the
Pentagon can pass an audit of its books?
Dr. Zakheim. Senator, as I have said for the last 2 years
and as you and I have discussed, there are a number of steps
necessary if we are going to get this right. We did in fact
complete the enterprise architecture to which you refer on time
and under budget in April 2003. We still have to test it with
various pilot programs.
The game plan was always to try to get a clean audit by
2007. Now, we are not just waiting for the next 4 years to make
that happen. Huge amounts of assets and liabilities have been
added to--and are now showing on our books. Our fund balance
with the Treasury has improved significantly. We have cut back
on problem disbursements by, I believe, approximately two-
thirds. I can get you all those numbers for the record.
[The information follows:]
In January 2001, the Department's problem disbursements stood at
$4.163 billion. As of January 2004, we have reduced those problem
disbursements by 65 percent to $1.437 billion.
Dr. Zakheim. Frankly, I thank you for your encouragement in
this regard. It has made a difference. We are trying to change
the culture and the culture is changing. We review, I
personally review, financial statements four times a year
together with OMB, the Inspector General, and the General
Accounting Office, sitting in my office reviewing these
statements.
We have cleaned those up. We have improved the footnotes,
which nobody ever used to bother to read.
Senator Byrd. I hope you are getting overtime pay.
Dr. Zakheim. Well, I have not gotten it yet, sir.
But I guess my long answer to your good question is we are
on schedule to have clean audits by 2007. We are doing a lot of
different things, and I will get you a fuller answer for the
record.
[The information follows:]
But I guess that my long answer to your good question is we
are on schedule to have clean audits by 2007. We are doing two
major things in this unprecedented effort. First, I have
directed fund holders within Defense to develop financial
improvement plans which detail how the fund holder will
overcome its deficiencies which prevent it from obtaining an
unqualified audit opinion. Plans identify deficiencies,
corrective actions by financial statement line item, and
prepare the entity for audit. Lastly, I have established an
executive steering committee (ESC) to oversee execution of the
initiative. Committee members include the Deputy Chief
Financial Officer, the Deputy Comptroller, Program/Budget, the
Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and the
Inspector General, DOD. In accordance with Section 1008, the
ESC reviews the plans and prioritizes assessments and audits of
entities when they assert audit readiness.
Senator Inouye. If there are any additional committee
questions, they will be submitted to you for your response.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Byrd. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Zakheim.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Pursuant to the direction of Chairman Stevens, the hearing
is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., Monday, March 1, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
March 3.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:11 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Shelby, Hutchison,
Burns, Inouye, Leahy, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF HON. LES BROWNLEE, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY
ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL PETER T. SCHOOMAKER, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED
STATES ARMY
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I
apologize for being late. I was presiding over the Senate. We
have all got too many things scheduled these days.
Today we are going to receive the testimony from the Acting
Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff on the Army's
fiscal year 2005 budget request. Secretary Brownlee, we welcome
you for your first time before our committee. We look forward
to hearing your plans to modernize the Army. You are no
stranger to this Senate or to the committee, even though you
were on the other committee. We are pleased to welcome you back
as a friend and a colleague.
General Schoomaker, we welcome you to our committee. We
look forward to working with you in the coming years, and I
thank you again for making the trip, the long trip to Alaska
for the military appreciation dinner there. It is very
important to our people.
The Army is now well on its way towards the future with its
transformation plans. We are at war and this transformation to
our future force is continuing. It is a huge undertaking to do
both at the same time. We are also conducting a global war on
terrorism, the war in Iraq, the war, ongoing activities in
Afghanistan, and now Haiti. We are constantly reminded of the
need for a strong, modern, prepared Army, and it is as
important today as it ever was, more important probably, to
have a military which has the resources it needs and the
support of the President and the entire country.
Today you are deployed all over the globe. We have 320,000
soldiers deployed or stationed forward, as I am informed. The
Guard and Reserve are also sharing this burden, with more than
100,000 reservists and guardsmen mobilized and on active duty.
The total force is a reality now.
There are many important issues facing the Army. One of the
most critical decisions Congress will make this year is how to
help the Army reorganize and equip itself for future threats.
I believe you have demonstrated to the Congress and the
country that the transformation concept is not simply a new
weapons platform, but a new doctrine, a new organizational
concept for the Army, and it is a whole new way for the Army to
fight and win wars. We appreciate your combined commitment to
the Army and your willingness to serve to ensure that the Army
remains on the right course.
It is the intention of this committee to give you the
support you need to achieve your goal of modernization.
My distinguished friend from Hawaii is not here this
morning because he is chairing another committee. He will be
here soon. We do have other Senators. Do any of you have an
opening statement to make before we listen to the General and
the Secretary? Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the
testimony.
Senator Stevens. Senator Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, I will make mine a part of
the record. But I agree with what you have said. We do have
boots on the ground in two very dangerous places and our own
homeland is also now a focus for attack. So the Army is the one
that is out there, obviously Guard and Reserve. I will be
interested in hearing how you are going to handle the fatigue
of the Guard and Reserve and ramp up our active duty forces,
which you have already addressed publicly, but we hope to hear
more about, and how you would finance that.
So you have a huge job and we are here to support you in
every way. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
As a member of this committee, I have been privileged to
visit with our soldiers who are fighting to free Iraqis and
Afghans who for decades lived perilously under the oppressive
regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. These same soldiers
are proudly working to create an environment where people no
longer fear the government under which they live and work. They
are helping to rebuild and secure societies in which freedom is
a right and not a quantity to be metered out by the few in
positions of power.
Unfortunately, as I sit before you today, men and women of
our Armed Forces are still deployed in harms way. And if
statistics hold true, some will be either wounded or killed.
With this in mind, I think it is appropriate and indeed
necessary for us to ask difficult questions. Knowing how the
Army is successfully confronting an adversary which does not
wage open battle against the United States, but seeks less
direct methods and means for achieving their objectives is
important. Indeed, the threats to our security have transformed
themselves into a decidedly unconventional threat. Our enemies
pursue asymmetrical approaches to warfare, including
nontraditional threats to the homeland, the use of weapons of
mass destruction, and modern forms of irregular warfare. Army
transformation therefore must not only be designed to confront
the enemy which the Stryker brigades are best suited for, but
also an unconventional enemy utilizing asymmetric means and
methods both abroad and at home.
The greatest challenge for the Army, including the Reserve
and National Guard, may be organizing, equipping and training
the force to serve in a more relevant role in Homeland Defense
and Security. Ironically, the United States is less likely to
enjoy the kind of sanctuary status from attack in the future
than in the past. The global transportation network has made
intercontinental travel more routine. Our borders are porous to
both the illegal immigrant and the international terrorist
alike. We now face an implacable enemy willing and able to
attack the homeland. The increased focus on homeland defense
and the growing requirement for the Army to divert resources
away from the more traditional roles and missions of an
expeditionary Army raise a very important question: How does
the Army and the DOD intend to fund an on-going global war on
terrorism, while reorganizing, equipping, and developing
missions for the active, reserve, and National Guard to best
defend the homeland against another attack the likes of 9/11?
While there is no shortage of challenges, I look forward to
hearing how the Army will continue to overcome them. It is with
deep gratitude and the utmost respect for the soldiers
currently serving to defend this great country that I thank you
for your service and look forward to our discussion on how best
to prepare for the future.
Senator Stevens. I apologize. Senator Dorgan, do you have
any opening statement?
Senator Dorgan. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran, do you have any opening
statement?
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I do not.
Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, we are prepared to listen to
your testimony and welcome you here. We all have an enormous
task to assure that you have the funds and the authority you
need to keep this modernization going. So, Senator Brownlee--
Secretary Brownlee.
Mr. Brownlee. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of
this committee: Thank you very much for the opportunity to
appear before you today along with my good friend and fellow
graduate of the University of Wyoming Reserve Officer Training
Corps (ROTC) program, the Chief of Staff of the United States
Army, General Pete Schoomaker.
General Schoomaker and his family made a very difficult
decision last summer to leave quite a comfortable and lucrative
retirement to come back and rejoin the Army. The Army is
benefiting in an enormous way from his marvelous leadership. I
am especially honored to appear alongside this great soldier
today and I am honored to work alongside him every day. I could
not measure what he has brought to the Army. He has brought a
new meaning to the word ``transformation'' and he has
revitalized the spirit of our soldiers with his emphasis on the
Soldier's Creed and the Warrior Ethos. So it is a great honor
for me to be here before the committee representing the
magnificent soldiers of our Army along with the Chief of Staff.
We have a prepared posture statement, Mr. Chairman, and
with your permission we would like to submit that statement for
the record.
Senator Stevens. We automatically submit all statements for
the record in this committee.
Mr. Brownlee. Let me begin by expressing my gratitude for
the tremendous support to our soldiers who are serving our
country around the world, as well as to their families at home.
This support comes from the members as well as from your
dedicated professional and personal staffs. Your interest and
involvement in the Army's activities has made a significant
difference in our soldiers' welfare and their mission
accomplishment. So to the members and staff of this very
distinguished committee, on behalf of the United States Army,
thank you all for what you have done.
I know that you are deeply interested in the great work our
soldiers are doing, their training, and their morale and how we
are equipping them. In the last 9 months I have visited our
troops in Iraq three times and those in Afghanistan twice and
traveled to our posts in Germany, South Korea, and here in the
United States. I am grateful to have the opportunity to share
what I have learned with you.
Underlying everything we are doing and planning to do is
the most important point I want to make here today, and that is
that we are an Army at war, serving a Nation at war.
To better cope with the demands of this war, we have
proposed to grow the Army temporarily by 30,000 soldiers over
the next several years, using the authority provided in Title
10 and to be paid for from supplemental appropriations. We will
plan to use these resources to stand up at least 10 new combat
brigades over the next several years and ask for your support
in this endeavor. We are also restructuring our Active and
Reserve forces to meet the challenges of today and to more
effectively use the resources the Congress and the American
people have entrusted to us. This is an ongoing process and we
will keep the Congress fully informed.
Let me comment on a matter of grave importance to the
senior leadership of the Army, sexual assaults on soldiers by
fellow soldiers. Such attacks not only weaken unit cohesion and
lessen combat power; they are wrong, they will not be
overlooked, and they will not be tolerated. The Army is
committed to identifying and holding accountable those who
commit such actions as well as committed to providing proper
care for the victims of such attacks.
We are dedicated to creating an environment and a command
climate where these young women feel free to report these
incidents through multiple venues: the chain of command,
medical channels, chaplains, and their peers. We will properly
care for those who have been assaulted and investigate and take
appropriate action against those perpetrating these crimes. It
is the right thing to do and we are going to do it.
Many of you have asked about the measures we are taking to
protect our forces in Iraq. I would like to address two in
particular. First, the number of up-armored high mobility
multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV's) in the U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility is now over 2,000,
compared to about 500 last spring. When General Schoomaker and
I testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in
November, we estimated then that we would be unable to satisfy
the CJTF-7 requirement of 3,000 up-armored HMMWV's until May
2005. This was unacceptable. We have worked with industry to
steadily increase production of these vehicles and we will now
reach a production level of over 4,000 vehicles by August 2004.
We will ramp up from 185 vehicles this month to 220 by May
and continue to increase until we reach our requirement. I have
talked to the chief executive officers (CEO's) of the companies
that build these up-armored HMMWV's and visited their
production lines. They are committed to and capable of
increasing production rates to up to 450 per month to help us
fill our requirement even faster. While this will require
additional resources, we are working within the Army budget and
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) so that we
can achieve this accelerated production level as quickly as
possible.
Second, there has been concern about every soldier having
the best available protection against bullets and explosive
fragments. To provide this protection, we increased the
production of Interceptor body armor last year and are
currently producing and shipping 25,000 sets monthly to the
theater of operations. There are now sufficient stocks of
Interceptor body armor to equip every soldier and Department of
Defense (DOD) civilian in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we will
fill our requirement for the remainder of the soldiers and DOD
civilians in theater by the end of this month.
In summary, we are producing enough body armor so all
soldiers now rotating into theater will be issued a set of body
armor either before they deploy into Iraq or immediately after
arrival in Afghanistan.
The Army provides relevant and ready campaign-quality land
power to combatant commanders as a part of a joint force. To
better do this, we are transforming the Army itself in response
to lessons learned and experiences gained by the Army's recent
2\1/2\ years of combat in the global war on terrorism, as well
as the operational environments envisioned in the foreseeable
future.
Last Monday General Schoomaker and I announced the
termination of the Comanche helicopter program as part of a
major restructuring and revitalization of Army aviation. In
lieu of completing development and procuring 121 Comanche
helicopters in the fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2011
future years defense plan (FYDP), we will propose to reallocate
these resources to procure almost 800 new aircraft for the
Active and Reserve components.
As a part of our total program over the FYDP, we will also
enhance, upgrade, and modernize over 1,400 aircraft in our
existing aviation fleet. This program to revitalize Army
aviation reflects the changed operational environment and will
provide the modularity and flexibility we must have to achieve
the joint and expeditionary capabilities that are so essential
to the Army's role now and in the future.
The fiscal year 2005 President's budget we have submitted,
when amended to reflect the termination of Comanche, represents
a balanced consideration of both our current and long-term
requirements and provides our Army with the resources we need,
excluding war-related costs. The tempo of our current
operations is high and has human and material costs. We
appreciate the assistance of the Congress in addressing these
issues as we work to restore our units and equipment to the
high levels of readiness necessary to continue to meet our
obligations to the Nation.
In all that the Army has accomplished and all that it will
be called upon to do, the American soldier remains the single
most important factor in our success. Today our soldiers are
present in over 120 countries around the world, representing
the American people and American values with courage and
compassion. I want to express my appreciation for the service
and the enormous sacrifices made by our soldiers, especially
those who have given the last full measure, and their families
as we meet the challenges and risks posed by the war on terror.
Our deepest thanks go to the members of our Active and
Reserve component units, as well as to the thousands of
Department of the Army civilians who are deployed overseas in
harm's way. Regardless of where our soldiers serve, they
perform as the professionals they are with skill, courage,
compassion, and dedication. They embody the values of our Army
and our Nation, serving selflessly and seeking only to do what
must be done before returning home.
Despite remarkable successes, our fight is far from over.
It will take time to win the war on terror. Our enemies are
resolute, but hard-line al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq recognize
they cannot dislodge our forces by fear or intimidation. Our
commitment to prevail in Iraq and elsewhere is unshakable. I
have seen the resolution in our soldiers' eyes and heard the
determination in their voices.
We must do our part to ensure they have all they need to do
the job we have set before them. When the American people and
our leaders stand behind them, they can do any task on Earth.
We are transforming the Army while retaining the values
critical to the Army's achievements of the past 228 years. The
fiscal year 2004 defense legislation and supplemental
appropriations have enabled the Army to do that which it has
been asked to do and I look forward to discussing with you how
the fiscal year 2005 budget request will permit us to continue
meeting our obligations now and in the years to come.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to thank you and the
members of this distinguished committee for your continuing
support of the men and women in our Army, an Army at war, and a
full member of the joint team, deployed and fighting terror
around the world.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today
and I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Honorable R.L. Brownlee and General Peter J.
Schoomaker
February 5, 2004.
Our Nation is at war. The security of our homeland, the Global War
on Terror, and sustained engagement around the world define today's
complex and uncertain strategic environment. The future will be no less
ambiguous.
We must prepare now to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Rather than
focusing on a single, well-defined threat or a geographic region, we
must develop a range of complementary and interdependent capabilities
that will enable future joint force commanders to dominate any
adversary or situation. A capabilities-based approach to concept and
force development, as articulated in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense
Review, is the major focus of defense transformation.
Over the past year our Army has met the demands of the Global War
on Terror, with more than 325,000 troops deployed around the world in
over 120 countries. The Army was instrumental in the defeat of Saddam
Hussein and the Taliban and the subsequent liberation of more than 46
million people from oppression and despair. The Army remains a central
and critical participant in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom. Although these and other operations have stressed the
force, our Soldiers have responded magnificently.
Our Army's commitment to the Nation remains absolute. While we
execute the Global War on Terror, our Army simultaneously continues its
organizational and intellectual transformation to meet the challenges
of the 21st Century. In support of the National Security Strategy and
the National Military Strategy we are improving our warfighting
readiness and ability to win decisively. We also remain dedicated to
the well-being of our Soldiers, their families and our civilian
workforce.
The United States Army is the most powerful land force on earth.
With this power comes a great responsibility. American Soldiers show by
their daily actions that they understand this, and are fully worthy of
the trust the American people have placed in them.
For 228 years the Army has never failed the Nation, and it never
will.
Peter J. Schoomaker,
General, U.S. Army, Chief of Staff.
R.L. Brownlee,
Acting Secretary of the Army.
PURPOSE OF THE POSTURE STATEMENT
The Army Posture Statement provides an overview of today's Army.
Focusing on the Soldier, the centerpiece of the force, it explains the
current and future strategic environments that provide our mandate for
transformation. Our core competencies and how we intend to meet our
current demands and future challenges are outlined. It describes what
we must become in order to provide more ready and relevant forces and
capabilities to the Joint Team.
2004 ARMY POSTURE STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our Nation At War
Our Nation, and our Army, are at war. It is a different kind of
war, fought against a global terrorist network and not likely to end in
the foreseeable future. In the days following the attacks on September
11, 2001, President Bush spoke candidly to the Nation. ``These
terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way
of life.'' He added: ``The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to
our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it and destroy it where it
grows.''
Our Army exists to fight and win our Nation's wars. We are an
integral member of the Joint Team committed to winning in fulfillment
of our responsibilities to national security. We are fighting to
preserve the American way of life and to safeguard the many freedoms
our citizens enjoy. Our Soldiers and their families have not forgotten
the events of September 11, which launched us to action in Afghanistan
and Iraq. They are reminded daily of the ongoing conflict through
separation, concern for forward-deployed loved ones and, most
regrettably, news of casualties. Our Army continues the mission and
remains committed to defeating our enemy.
Our Army's Core Competencies
As our Army fights the current war and remains dedicated to
transforming, we are focused on our two core competencies: (1) Training
and equipping Soldiers and growing leaders; (2) Providing relevant and
ready land power to Combatant Commanders as part of the Joint Force.
Our Army must be an agile and capable force with a Joint and
Expeditionary Mindset. This mindset is the lens through which we view
our service. We must be mobile, strategically deployable and prepared
for decisive operations whenever and wherever required. We must be
lethal and fully interoperable with other components and our allies, as
well as flexible, informed, proactive, responsive and totally
integrated into the joint, interagency and multinational context. Our
management and support processes must reflect and support these same
characteristics.
Strategic Environment--Our Mandate for Transformation
At the end of the Cold War, the United States had no peer
competitor. Our Army was much larger and was built around heavy,
mechanized and armored formations. Because America stood as the lone
superpower during this time of global realignment, we were able to
downsize our force structure. Today, the future is uncertain and
presents many challenges. The emerging challenges manifest themselves
as new adaptive threats, employing a mix of new and old technologies
that necessitate changes to the ways in which the elements of our
national power are applied.
The 21st century security environment is marked by new actors and a
noteworthy proliferation of dangerous weapons, technologies and
military capabilities. While threats from potentially hostile regional
powers remain, increasingly non-state actors, operating autonomously or
with state-sponsorship, also are able to endanger regional and global
security. These forces--insurgents, paramilitaries, terrorists, narco-
traffickers and organized crime--are a growing concern. They often are
networked and enabled by the same tools and information systems used by
state actors. Our adversaries will rely more frequently on indirect and
asymmetric methods, such as anti-access and area-denial strategies,
unrestricted warfare and terrorism, to mitigate their relative
disadvantage. The most dangerous of these threats are the development
and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--including
biological or chemical agents, or radiological ``dirty bombs''--to
attack the United States. This security environment requires that the
Army have the capability to dominate throughout the spectrum of
conflict and to plan for multiple future contingencies.
As a result of this adaptive enemy and our worldwide commitments,
current organizations, systems and facilities are and will continue to
be stressed. We now rely on our Reserve Component to support our
operations to a degree not seen since World War II. As of January 14,
2004, there were more than 164,000 Reserve Component Soldiers mobilized
with over 139,000 of them serving overseas. The institutional Army is
being asked to do more, applying lessons learned from current
operations. These lessons are critical to our organizations and
individual Soldiers as they prepare for worldwide missions. Therefore,
the current and future strategic environments require the Army to have
the capability to dominate throughout the spectrum of conflict and to
plan for multiple contingencies. These new security challenges, coupled
with the current war on terrorism, require a different approach.
Army Focus Areas
Last summer, Army leaders identified immediate focus areas
instrumental to adapting Army organizations and processes that will
help us to better meet the Nation's security requirements. All of our
focus areas should be viewed in the context of our ongoing efforts to
retain the campaign qualities of our Army while simultaneously
developing a Joint and Expeditionary Mindset. Of these focus areas, a
critical enabler is the redesign of our resource processes to be more
flexible, responsive, and timely. Our goal is to be a better Army every
day--better able to execute our core competencies as members of the
Joint Team.
Adapting Resource and Acquisition Processes
The resource process is at the core of our Army's mission success.
Our Nation faces a cunning and adaptive enemy, predictable only in his
zeal and intent. We are just as cunning and our Soldiers are constantly
changing tactics and techniques in order to disrupt the enemy's plans.
In the same way, our resource and acquisition processes must become
more flexible, responsive and timely in order to take immediate
advantage of technological improvements and to sustain the quality of
the force over time.
Resetting Our Force
Quickly resetting our forces upon their redeployment from current
operations is a strategic imperative. The reset program incorporates
lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF), retrains essential tasks, adjusts pre-
positioned stocks of equipment and ammunition, and brings unit
equipment readiness back to standard. Units must recover quickly in
order to provide the Combatant Commanders with land-power capabilities
for future requirements. We will face challenges as we rotate troops
from deployment to home station, while simultaneously maintaining
vigilance and readiness.
Continued congressional support and adequate resources are needed
to accomplish our reset tasks and to mitigate the risk we have incurred
to our Current and Future Forces. The fiscal year 2004 defense
legislation and supplemental appropriation delivered substantial
assistance toward covering the cost of current operations and
initiating the reset process. We fully appreciate the exceptional
support Members and their staffs have provided this year. But, the job
is not complete. In fact, it has only just begun.
Mitigating Strategic Risk Through Increased Land Power Capability
Today our Army is executing operations in defense of the homeland
(Operation Noble Eagle); stability and support operations in the
Balkans (Stabilization Force/Kosovo Force); peacekeeping in the Sinai
as part of the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) and combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom/
Operation Iraqi Freedom). We are also forward stationed in Korea and
elsewhere. Approximately two-thirds of our active and reserve combat
formations were deployed in fiscal year 2003 and will be deployed in
fiscal year 2004.
These deployments, coupled with planned future rotation of units
into OIF and OEF, the largest movement of Army troops since World War
II, have highlighted already existing stress to our force. To mitigate
risk, the Army is embarking on a series of initiatives. The first
initiative is resetting forces returning from OIF and OEF to a standard
higher than before their deployment. A second establishes force
stabilization measures to reduce turbulence amongst Soldiers, units and
their families. Thirdly, the Army is internally rebalancing Active and
Reserve Component forces to better posture our existing force structure
to meet global commitments. And lastly, we are beginning to increase
the number of available combat brigades through improved force
management and modular reorganization. This increase allows the Army to
improve strategic flexibility, sustain a predictable rotation cycle,
and permits the Reserve Component to reset.
To facilitate this end state, the Army will seek to maintain, or
even to increase temporarily, its current level of manning. These
measures, when resourced, will mitigate risk and ultimately provide
increased capability to Combatant Commanders.
Conclusion
Our Nation is at war and our Army is at war; we remain ever
relevant and ready to meet today's challenges. Yet there is much more
to do. We are prioritizing wartime requirements, incorporating next-
generation capabilities into current systems where appropriate, and
preserving essential investments in the Future Force. We also are
becoming more joint and expeditionary. We do not move forward alone,
but as part of the Joint Team. We need the support of the American
people and the U.S. Congress. With this backing, we will continue to
carry the fight to our enemies to provide security here at home.
CORE COMPETENCIES
Our Army has two core competencies, supported by a set of essential
and enduring capabilities. These core competencies are: (1) training
and equipping Soldiers and growing leaders; and (2) providing relevant
and ready land-power capability to the Combatant Commanders as part of
the Joint Force. Additionally, our Army's senior leadership has
established immediate focus areas and issued specific guidance for
planning, preparation and execution of actions aimed at rapidly
effecting necessary transformation in support of these core
competencies. See Addendum I (available at www.Army.mil) for more
information on the Army's focus areas.
Train and Equip Soldiers and Grow Leaders
Our Army prepares every Soldier to be a warrior. Our training
replicates the stark realities of the battlefield in order to condition
Soldiers to react instinctively in combat. Such training is essential
to building Soldiers' confidence in themselves, their equipment, their
leaders, and their fellow Soldiers. Constant training in weaponry and
field craft, and a continuous immersion in the warrior culture, give
Soldiers the skills they need to succeed on the battlefield. Mental and
physical toughness are paramount to the development of the warrior
ethos and apply to all Soldiers from private to general. Every Soldier
is called upon to be a leader.
The Soldier
The American Soldier remains the centerpiece of our combat systems
and formations and is indispensable to the Joint Team. Adaptive,
confident and competent Soldiers, infused with the Army's values and
warrior culture, fight wars and win the peace. As a warrior, every
Soldier must be prepared to engage the enemy in close combat; the
modern battlefield has no safe areas. Our Army trains our Soldiers to
that standard, without regard to their specialty or unit. The Soldier--
fierce, disciplined, well-trained, well-led and well-equipped--
ultimately represents and enables the capabilities our Army provides to
the Joint Force and the Nation.
Our Soldiers are bright, honest, dedicated and totally committed to
the mission. All share common values, a creed and a warrior ethos. Our
Army defines selfless service as putting the welfare of our Nation,
Army and subordinates before your own. Soldiers join the Army to serve.
Most Americans do not fully realize the personal sacrifices these
Soldiers and their families endure. However, our Soldiers know that
they have done their part to secure our Nation's freedoms and to
maintain the American way of life.
Our Soldiers' Creed captures the warrior ethos and outlines the
professional attitudes and beliefs that characterize our American
Soldier. The warrior ethos is about the refusal to accept failure and
the conviction that military service is much more than just another
job. It defines who Soldiers are and what Soldiers do. It is linked to
our long-standing Army Values, and determination to do what is right
and do it with pride.
Recruiting and Retaining a High-Quality Volunteer Force
All of our Soldiers are warriors whose actions have strategic
impact. Because we are at war and will be for the foreseeable future,
we must recruit Soldiers who have the warrior ethos already ingrained
in their character, who seek to serve our Nation, and who will have the
endurance and commitment to stay the course of the conflict. We must
recruit and retain Soldiers who are confident, adaptive and competent
to handle the full complexity of 21st century warfare.
We will continue to bring the highest quality Soldier into the
force. All newly enlisted Soldiers are high school graduates (diploma
or equivalent) and 24 percent have some college. These young Americans,
who believe service to our Nation is paramount, make our success
possible. They display a willingness to stand up and make a difference.
Our recruiting and retention efforts continue to be successful. The
active Army met its recruiting and retention goals in fiscal year 2003.
The Army National Guard exceeded its retention goals for fiscal year
2003 and simultaneously met its end strength objectives. The Army
Reserve met its recruiting goals and all but one retention target in
fiscal year 2003. Most importantly, all components sustained their end-
strength requirements.
We do not know yet the effect the high operational pace of recent
months will have on our recruiting and retention in fiscal year 2004
and future years. We must carefully monitor recruiting and retention
trends and adequately resource our successful recruiting and retention
initiatives. Incentives such as the Enlistment Bonus Program, The Army
College Fund and the Loan Repayment Program, have successfully enabled
the Army to execute precision recruiting in fiscal year 2003. Our
Special Forces Candidate ``Off the Street'' initiative continues to
attract highly motivated and qualified warriors. Significantly,
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses, such as the Present Duty Assignment
Bonus and the Theater Selective Reenlistment Bonus, which are intended
to enhance unit stability, have helped us realize our retention
successes. For more information on recruiting, see Addendum C.
Civilian Component Enhances Our Capabilities
Army civilians are an integral and vital part of our Army team.
They are essential to the readiness of our Army at war and our ability
to sustain operations. Our civilian employees share our Army values.
They are smart, resourceful and totally committed to supporting our
Soldiers and our Army to do whatever it takes to meet the challenges
that come our way. These dedicated civilians perform critical, mission-
essential duties in support of every functional facet of combat support
and combat service support, both at home and abroad. Army civilians
serve alongside Soldiers to provide the critical skills necessary to
sustain combat systems and weaponry. They work in 54 countries in more
than 550 different occupations. In fiscal year 2003, nearly 2,000 Army
civilians deployed to Southwest Asia in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and the Global War on Terrorism
(GWOT). They have the education, skills and experience to accomplish
the mission while ensuring continuity of operations for all commanders.
Realistic Training--Essential to Mission Success
Tough, realistic training ensures that our Soldiers and units
maintain readiness and relevance as critical members of the Joint
Force. Our Army's combined-arms training strategy, including an
appropriate mix of live, virtual, and constructive training, determines
the resource requirements to maintain the combat readiness of our
troops. We revised our training ammunition standards to allow Combat
Support and Combat Service Support units to conduct live fire exercises
under conditions similar to those they might encounter in combat.
The Army's OPTEMPO budget is among its top priorities. Our
leadership is committed to fully executing the Active and Reserve
Component ground and air OPTEMPO training strategies, which include
actual miles driven and hours flown, as well as virtual miles
associated with using simulators. The flying hour program is funded to
achieve a historic execution level of live flying hours per aircrew per
month. If units exceed the historic execution level, our Army will
increase their funding. Thus far this year, OPTEMPO execution reports
show units exceeding their programmed miles driven and hours flown.
These are the units that are aggressively preparing for deployments to
OIF and OEF, as well as the units who recently have returned and are
preparing for future operations. Our combined arms training strategy is
working and sustaining our warfighting readiness. We see the results
every day in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Joint and Expeditionary
Our Army is the dominant ground component of the Joint Team and
provides the Joint Force Commander a campaign quality force with unique
and complementary capabilities. We are vital and indispensable members
of the Joint Team first and are a Service second. We must remain aware
that our Army always conducts operations--offensive, defensive,
stability and support--in a joint and expeditionary context. Acting in
concert with air and naval power, decisive land power creates a synergy
that produces a Joint Force with abilities far exceeding the sum of the
individual service components. Our Army can: support civil authorities
at home and abroad; provide expeditionary forces at the right time and
the right place; reassure our allies and multinational partners; deter
adversaries and, should deterrence fail, decisively defeat the enemy;
and win the peace through post-conflict operations, in concert with
interagency and multinational efforts. Our Army must continually
examine the capabilities resident in and required by the Joint Force.
We will concentrate our energies and resources on those attributes
which our Army is best suited to provide to the Joint Force. Our Army
will arrive on the battlefield as a campaign-quality force fulfilling
the requirements of the Joint Force Commander--lethal, agile, mobile,
strategically responsive, and fully interoperable with other components
within the interagency and multinational context.
Train and Educate Army Members of the Joint Force
Our Army is taking action across a broad front to make jointness an
integral part of our culture by including this concept in our education
and training programs. We have always produced leaders with the right
mix of unit experience, training, and education. As we look to the
future, we know that, to meet our current and future leadership
requirements and those of the Joint Force, we must redesign aspects of
our Army's training and leader development programs to include lessons
learned from current operations. Our objectives are to increase our
ability to think and act jointly and to provide our Soldiers with the
latest and most relevant techniques, procedures and equipment that will
make them successful on the battlefield. Additionally, the changes
acknowledge the current and projected pace of operations and
deployments. As a result, we will be better prepared for the current
and future strategic environments.
Maintaining a ready Current Force today and achieving a transformed
Future Force tomorrow requires a shift in the way units train for joint
operations. Our Army's Training Transformation Initiative (TTI), which
supports the June 2003 Defense Department Training Transformation
Implementation Plan, provides dynamic, capabilities-based training and
mission rehearsal in a joint context.
Leader Development--Train For Certainty, Educate For
Uncertainty
Leader development is an essential part of our Army's core
competencies and the lifeblood of our profession. It is the deliberate,
progressive and continuous process that develops our Soldiers and
civilians into competent, confident, self-aware, adaptive and decisive
leaders. They emerge prepared for the challenges of 21st century
combined arms, joint, multinational and interagency operations.
Army leaders at all levels bear responsibility for America's
Soldiers and accomplishing the mission, whatever it may be. The range
of missions and their complexity continue to grow, presenting our
leaders with even greater challenges than previously experienced. The
evolving strategic environment, the gravity of our strategic
responsibilities, and the broad range of tasks that the Army performs
require us to review, and periodically to refocus, the way we educate,
train and grow professional warfighters.
We have a training and leader development system that is unrivaled
in the world. Our professional military education prepared our officers
and noncommissioned officers to fight and win in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We will continue to develop our leaders with the right mix of
operational assignments and training and education opportunities that
meet the current and future requirements of the Army and Joint Force.
Our leader training focuses on how to think, not what to think. We will
maintain our investment in the future by sustaining the highest quality
leader training and education for our Army.
Combat Training Centers (CTC)/Battle Command Training
Program (BCTP)
The CTC program is a primary culture driver for our Army.
Additionally, our CTCs are a primary enabler of, and full participant
in, the Joint National Training Capability. The CTCs develop self-aware
and adaptive leaders and Soldiers and ready units for full spectrum,
joint, interagency and multinational operations. CTCs continuously
integrate operational lessons learned into the training. Our Army
enhances the training experience offered by our CTCs (National Training
Center in California, Joint Readiness Training Center in Louisiana,
Combat Maneuver Training Center in Germany and Battle Command Training
Program based in Kansas) by increasing the focus on development of
capabilities essential to joint operations. Leader training and
development during CTC exercises hone the Joint and Expeditionary
Mindset and promote our Army's warrior culture.
Provide Relevant and Ready Land Power Capabilities to the Combatant
Commander and the Joint Team
To meet global commitments across the full spectrum of military
operations, our Army has mobilized more than 164,000 Reserve Component
Soldiers. More than 325,000 American Soldiers are serving overseas and
more than 23,000 Soldiers are supporting operations within the United
States. This high operating tempo is no longer an exception. Sustained
operations and deployments will be the norm for our Army forces
supporting multiple and simultaneous shaping and stability operations
around the globe. At the same time, we will continue to contribute to
Joint Force execution of major combat operations, homeland security
missions and strategic deterrence.
Army Global Commitments
Our Army is engaged in more than 120 countries throughout the
world. To highlight our Army's commitment, a review of the major
warfighting formations of the Active and Reserve Component serves as a
measurable benchmark. Over 24 of the Army's 33 Active Component Brigade
Combat Teams (BCTs), and five of our 15 Reserve Component Enhanced
Separate Brigades (ESB) were deployed in fiscal year 2003. This trend
will continue in fiscal year 2004, with 26 of 33 Active Component BCTs
and six of our 15 Reserve Component ESB brigades projected for
deployment.
The majority of these combat formations are deployed in the U.S.
Central Command area of responsibility (AOR), effectively executing
stability and support operations. More than 153,000 Soldiers are
supporting CENTCOM operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and the Horn
of Africa. We are currently in the middle of the largest movement of
troops since WWII, as we rotate more than eight-and-a-half divisions
and two ESBs to or from the theater. The approximate ratio of Active to
Reserve Component forces today is currently 63 to 37 percent,
respectively. Once our current rotation is complete, the ratio will
change to approximately 54 to 46 percent, Active to Reserve Component.
Since September 11, we have mobilized almost half of the Reserve
Component. They are trained, professional, and ready to execute any
task.
Army support to other Combatant Commanders remains high. U.S.
Northern Command's Army component, U.S. Army Forces Command, provides
more than 23,000 Active and Reserve Component Soldiers for duty in the
defense of our homeland. These troops are available for missions
including Military Assistance to Civil Authorities (MACA), emergency
preparedness, and anti-terrorist operations. The Army Reserve provides
to NORTHCOM significant voice and data connectivity necessary to
execute real-time operations. U.S. European Command provides forces,
such as V U.S. Corps, to CENTCOM; and to Stability Force (SFOR) and
Kosovo Force (KFOR) in the Balkans. U.S. Pacific Command supports
ongoing operations in the Philippines, as part of the Global War on
Terrorism, in addition to maintaining more than 31,000 Soldiers on the
Korean Peninsula. U.S. Southern Command is fully engaged as the
headquarters for 1,500 Soldiers executing detainee operations at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; has deployed 740 Soldiers to Joint Task Force--
Bravo at Soto Cano Airbase, Honduras; and is assisting the government
of Colombia in its war on narco-terrorism. U.S. Special Operations
Command's Army component provides professional, dedicated, and
specially trained Soldiers to each Combatant Commander. These Soldiers,
working closely with conventional forces, have been instrumental to our
success in the Global War on Terrorism.
In addition to federal missions, our Army National Guard (ARNG)
plays an important domestic role, routinely responding to state
emergencies. In fiscal year 2003, there were 280 requests for emergency
support, ranging from basic human needs to engineering support during
natural disasters. Our ARNG has fielded 32 Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) Civil Support Teams (CST), which assist first responders in the
event of an incident. Another 12 CSTs are due to be activated within 18
months. To date, these teams have responded to 74 different requests
for support. Also, more than 8,000 ARNG Soldiers have executed critical
force protection duties at 148 Air Force installations in CONUS.
Resetting the Force
The extraordinary demands major combat and stability operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq are placing on our equipment and personnel require
that our Army quickly reset returning units for future national
security needs. The reset program will incorporate lessons learned from
OIF and OEF, retrain essential tasks, adjust pre-positioned stocks of
equipment and ammunition, and bring unit equipment readiness back to
standard. The objective is to ensure our Army forces are ready to
respond to near-term emerging threats and contingencies. However, reset
cannot be viewed as a one-time event. Reset will continue to be key to
our future readiness as our military executes our National Security
missions.
Through reset, all returning active duty and Army Reserve units
will achieve a sufficient level of combat readiness within six to eight
months of their arrival at home station. The Army National Guard will
take longer to achieve the desired level of readiness. The goal for
these units is to reestablish pre-deployment readiness within one year.
Our Army also will take advantage of reset as an opportunity to
reorganize units into modular designs that are more responsive to
regional Combatant Commanders' needs; that better employ joint
capabilities; that reduce deployment time; and that fight as self-
contained units in non-linear, non-contiguous battlespaces. This effort
began with the 3rd Infantry Division and will soon be expanded to
include the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).
In addition to investing in new equipment to replace items that
were destroyed or worn out during combat and stability operations, the
reset program will repair major items used in OIF and OEF. Repair
requirements have been determined for all OIF1 units and the workload
for this comprehensive effort is immense: about 1,000 aviation systems;
124,400 communications and electronics systems; 5,700 combat/tracked
vehicles; 45,700 wheeled vehicles; 1,400 missile systems; nine Patriot
battalions; and approximately 232,200 items from various other systems.
This effort represents a significant expansion of normal maintenance
activities, requiring the increased use of CONUS and OCONUS based
depot, installation and commercial repair facilities.
Reconfiguring existing Army pre-positioned stocks for global
coverage of potential missions is a major component of the reset
process. The intent is for each stock to have sufficient combat power
to meet the immediate threat, as well as enough materials to render
relief in other contingencies.
Congressional support, in the form of supplemental appropriations,
has been invaluable in beginning the reset effort. Our readiness
depends directly on the successful execution of the reset program, and
it will remain an ongoing priority for the foreseeable future.
Continued resourcing will be needed to ensure that our Army can fight
the current war and posture itself for future missions.
Transformation: Moving From the Current to the Future Force
The goals of Army Transformation are to provide relevant and ready
forces that are organized, trained and equipped for full-spectrum
joint, interagency and multi-national operations and to support Future
Force development. Army Transformation occurs within the larger context
of changes to the entire U.S. military. To support our Army staff in
the execution of transformation, the Army leadership directed the
establishment of an Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Futures
Center, operational as of October 2003.
Our Current Force is organized, trained and equipped to conduct
operations as part of the Joint Force. It provides the requisite
decisive land power capabilities that the Joint Force commander needs
across the range of military operations: support to civil authorities
at home and abroad; expeditionary forces; the ability to reassure
friends, allies and multinational partners; dissuading and deterring
adversaries; decisively defeating adversaries should deterrence fail;
and winning the peace as part of an integrated, inter-agency, post-
conflict effort.
Our Future Force is the operational force the Army continuously
seeks to become. Informed by National Security and Department of
Defense guidance, it is a strategically responsive, networked,
precision capabilities-based maneuver force that is dominant across the
range of military operations envisioned for the future global security
environment.
As our Army develops the Future Force, it simultaneously is
accelerating select future doctrine, organization, training, materiel,
leadership, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) capabilities into our
Current Force. This process will be fundamental to our success in
enhancing the relevance and readiness of our Army and prosecuting the
Global War on Terrorism. Similarly, the operational experience of our
Current Force directly informs the pursuit of Future Force
capabilities.
Balancing Current and Future Readiness
Balancing risk between current and future readiness remains a
critical part of our Army's transformation process and one that
requires continual assessment to ensure that plans and programs are
aligned with overall requirements. Without question, the issue of
current operational readiness is our Army's highest priority. During
the past several years, our Army made a conscious decision to accept a
reasonable degree of risk to the readiness of our Current Force in
order to permit investment in capabilities for our Future Force. This
risk came in the form of reductions in and limitations to modernization
and recapitalization programs. As part of the past four budget
submissions, our Army made difficult choices to cancel and restructure
programs, shifting resources to the development of transformational
capabilities. Some of these investments have already produced results:
for example, the new Stryker Brigade Combat Team formations now being
fielded, the first of which is currently deployed on the battlefield in
Iraq. Others are helping to develop emerging technologies and
capabilities that will be applied to our force throughout the coming
decade.
Besides the ongoing efforts related to equipping the Current Force,
our Army also has begun other major initiatives that will improve our
readiness and relevance in the future. These include an effort to
realign Active and Reserve Component units and capabilities, in order
to make our Army more readily deployable and available to Joint Force
Commanders; home-basing and Unit Focused Stability, which will improve
readiness and reduce personnel turbulence; and the reorganization of
Army units into more modular and capability-based organizations.
While the previous decisions to accept reasonable risk in our
Current Force were considered prudent at the time, the strategic and
operational environment has significantly changed in light of the
large-scale engagement of Army forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
other expeditionary operations. Ever-changing demands on our force,
coupled with our commitment to mitigating risk to our Soldiers, have
necessitated re-examination and transformation of our Army's resource
process and business practices (see Addendum H at www.Army.mil).
Making the Resource Process More Responsive
The resource process is our Army's center of gravity. Without the
right people, the proper equipment, top-notch installations and
adequate dollars to support all appropriately, our Army would not be
able to fulfill its duty to our Nation.
In order to maintain our premier warfighting capability, Army
resource processes must be flexible, dynamic, transparent and
responsive to both our requirements and those of the Joint Force. This
is especially true in today's environment. We are at war against
conventional and unconventional enemies, and simultaneously pursuing
transformation. Our resource process must be transformed to allow us to
keep pace with changes brought on by the enemy. Though we anticipate
the battle against terrorism will last for years, possibly decades, we
cannot program and budget in advance for that war. Our Army obviously
cannot ignore our country's current security needs, yet it would be
equally imprudent to deviate from the development and fielding of our
Future Force. Balancing these requirements will be one of our toughest
tasks.
The GWOT requires a host of radical paradigm shifts in the way we
view the face and nature of our global operating environment, as well
as in the way that we conduct operations. Responsible yet creative
stewardship of our resources will remain absolutely necessary. Internal
controls must be tightened and waste eliminated; outsourcing non-core
functions is still an important option. Risk will continue to be a
factor and our resourcing decisions must take this into account.
We must transform our resource processes and adjust our priorities
to meet the challenge of the current strategic environment. Because we
cannot mass-produce a volunteer Army, the retention of the right
volunteer force is an imperative. This force is essential to the combat
effectiveness of an increasingly complex and technologically
sophisticated Army. We must refine and streamline the resource,
acquisition, and fielding processes for equipment and supplies as we
cannot make up for lost time in a crisis.
Accelerated Acquisition and Fielding
We have adapted and continue to improve our acquisition and
fielding processes. In 2002, as Soldiers reported equipment shortages
in Afghanistan and elsewhere, we implemented the Rapid Fielding
Initiative (RFI) to ensure that all of our troops deploy with the
latest available equipment. Equipment fielding schedules were revised
to support unit rotation plans, and procurement and fielding cycles
were radically compressed.
In coordination with field commanders and our Soldiers, a list of
more than 40 mission-essential items, including the Advanced Combat
Helmet, close-combat optics, Global Positioning System receivers,
Soldier intercoms and hydration systems, was identified for rapid
fielding. Laying the foundation for acquisition transformation, RFI
already has equipped nine brigade combat teams (BCTs). In fiscal year
2004, RFI will upgrade a minimum of 18 BCTs and eight enhanced Separate
Brigades, serving in OIF and OEF. Additionally, we are accelerating
fielding of select future capabilities to our Current Force. These
items include thermal weapon sights, enhanced night vision goggles,
improved body armor, the Future Combat Rifle, and a new sniper rifle.
Congressional support for regular budget and supplemental spending
requests enables our Army to put this improved equipment in the hands
of our Soldiers.
With this support, our Army also has instituted a Rapid Equipping
Force (REF) that works directly with operational commanders to find
solutions to operational requirements. These solutions may be off-the-
shelf or near-term developmental items that can be made quickly
available. For example, the REF established a coordinated effort to
supply U.S. Forces with immediate solutions to counter improvised
explosive device (IED) threats. Currently, IED teams are on location
providing expertise and material solutions, to safeguard our Soldiers.
We are acting aggressively to improve the armor protection of our
armored and light-skinned vehicles. Other recent examples of REF
products are the Well-Cam and PackBots. The Well-Cam is a camera,
attached to an Ethernet cable and a laptop, that enabled Soldiers in
Afghanistan to search wells for weapons caches. PackBots are
operational robots used to clear caves, buildings, and compounds so
Soldiers are not unnecessarily put in harm's way.
RFI and REF provide timely support to our relevant and ready forces
and to the Combatant Commanders, and facilitate Army Transformation.
Balancing Our Active and Reserve Component Force Structure
Currently, neither our Active nor Reserve Component is optimized
for today's rapid deployability requirements. We will continue ongoing
efforts to restructure our forces in order to mitigate stress; to align
better with the current and projected security environments; and to
offer campaign-quality land power capabilities to the Combatant
Commanders. By doing so, we will ensure that our Army provides the
responsiveness and depth required to achieve strategic and operational
objectives, while simultaneously defending our homeland.
Our Army is restructuring and rebalancing more than 100,000
positions in our Active and Reserve Component force structure. These
conversions increase the Active Component capabilities available to
support the first 30 days of a rapid response operation. In response to
Secretary of Defense guidance, we have already completed approximately
10,000 positions. For example, the Army National Guard provisionally
organized 18 additional military police (MP) companies. Between fiscal
year 2004 and fiscal year 2009, our Army will divest approximately
19,500 positions of less frequently used Active and Reserve Component
force structure to further resource critical high demand units such as
military police, civil affairs, and special operations forces. We
project that future rebalancing efforts will convert an additional
80,000 positions of lower-priority force structure. Despite these
changes, our Army will remain stressed to meet anticipated
requirements. To ensure that our Army can fulfill its commitment to our
Nation, we should have the force capability level required to
facilitate rebalancing, resetting, restructuring, and transforming of
the Army.
Military-to-civilian conversions are another way to improve
manpower efficiency. More military personnel will fill the operational
force if they are moved out of positions that can be prudently
performed by civilians. To improve the Army's ability to better support
worldwide commitments, it is essential to start this process now.
Our Reserve Component relies heavily on Full-Time-Support (FTS)
personnel to sustain support of current contingencies while
restructuring the force. FTS personnel perform the vital, day-to-day
organizational, administrative, training and maintenance activities
that ensure the highest level of Soldier and unit readiness. To
guarantee that our Army's Reserve Component will continue to fulfill
ever-increasing demands with trained and ready units, our Army plans to
raise FTS authorizations by 15 percent, from the current level of
71,928 to 85,840, by fiscal year 2012. In 2003, the Army Reserve began
implementation of the Federal Reserve Restructuring Initiative. The
goal is to better meet contingency requirements and to improve unit
readiness.
Achieving Greater Combat Capability With Modular,
Capabilities-based Unit Designs
Modular units are interchangeable, scalable, and tailorable
formations, which provide the Joint Force Commander with a
strategically responsive force that greatly increases his ability to
defeat any adversary. Modularity enables us to tailor our capabilities
to the requirements of the situation and delivered at the right time
and the right place. Modularity permits the Combatant Commander to
optimize his warfighting tool set.
Moving toward independent, echelon-above-brigade headquarters will
enhance modularity. In accordance with our Unit of Employment (UE)
construct, a UE will provide the command-and-control structure into
which modular, capabilities-based Units of Action (UA) are organized to
meet Combatant Commander requirements. These UAs will incorporate
essential maintenance, intelligence, and communications functions
previously provided by higher level organizations. Our UE headquarters,
while able to accept joint capabilities such as a Standing Joint Force
Headquarters element, will have an organic capability, depending on the
contingency, to function as a Joint Task Force or Joint Force Land
Component Command headquarters like we have already done in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Force Stabilization
The great demands placed on our Army have forced us to re-examine
many of our long-standing personnel and basing practices. As a result,
our Army is transitioning to an improved manning system, designed to
augment unit readiness by increasing stability and predictability for
commanders, Soldiers and families. Force Stabilization will allow
Reserve Component Soldiers to plan for their deployments while
supporting their civilian jobs and their community commitments. It
places greater emphasis on building and sustaining cohesive,
deployable, combat-ready forces for Combatant Commanders.
The home-basing initiative keeps our Soldiers in their assignments
at specific installations longer, thus reducing unit turbulence and
increasing unit cohesion. Unit Focused Stability synchronizes our
Soldiers' assignments to their units' operational cycle, providing a
more capable, deployable and prepared unit.
Installations as Our Flagships
Our installations are an essential component in maintaining the
premier Army in the world. For the warfighter, installations are the
platforms from which we project military power. Our installations
perform the following key missions: (1) provide effective training
facilities; (2) rapidly mobilize and deploy the force; (3) provide
reachback capabilities; (4) sustain and reconstitute the force; and (5)
care for our families. As power projection platforms, our installations
must be equipped with a robust information infrastructure that gives
the deployed commander quick and efficient reach-back capabilities. All
of these missions help to maintain our Army's deployability and
fighting edge.
Historically, we have accepted risk in our infrastructure and
installation services in order to maintain our current readiness. The
cumulative effect on our installations is that commanders rate more
than 50 percent of our facilities as ``adversely affecting mission and
training requirements.'' We have adjusted our management processes to
be more effective stewards of our resources. In 2002, we established
the Installation Management Agency (IMA) to create a corporate-focused
structure that provides efficient installation management worldwide.
The IMA uses creative management programs to sustain quality
installations and maintain the well-being of the entire Army family.
The Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization Program
(I\3\MP) enhances the installation's role in power projection and
provides the architecture to address the essential reach-back
requirement. Additionally, our Installation Sustainability Plan
addresses ways to fulfill environmental requirements without impacting
current or future training. Other important progress include
modernization of barracks and housing; a Residential Communities
Initiative; and divestiture of redundant facilities infrastructure and
non-core utility systems through privatization.
In the past few years, the administration and Congress have helped
us to begin addressing our infrastructure challenges. We requested 94
percent of funding required for sustainment of installations in fiscal
year 2004. We have made progress in improving our installations by
adjusting existing programs and developing new management strategies.
However, there is much still left to do in order to upgrade our
installations to better support the mission, Soldiers, and our
families.
Army Families and Well Being
People are the heart and soul of the Army--Soldiers, civilians,
family members, and retirees. Our readiness is inextricably linked to
the well being of our people. The Army Family, for both the Active and
Reserve Component, is a force multiplier and provides the foundation to
sustain our warrior culture. We have placed significant emphasis on our
Reserve Component this year in recognition of their contributions to
the Global War on Terrorism. With the help of the administration and
Congress, many improvements have been made including the retention and
increase of Imminent Danger Pay, Family Separation Allowance, and a
sizable pay raise. Other key well-being initiatives include the Spousal
Employment Partnership, new TRICARE policies for the reserve
components, and improvements in barracks and family housing. For more
information on other Army well-being initiatives, see Addendum D
(available at www.Army.mil)
Introducing New Capabilities Into Current Force
While at war, the urgency to accelerate the development and
fielding of new and enhanced capabilities to our fighting forces in the
field has never been greater. Our Army is making significant strides in
this regard with the employment of a new brigade combat team
organization, equipped with the latest available technology, to provide
the Combatant Commander with enhanced warfighting capabilities. The
rapid fielding of the Stryker vehicle demonstrates our Army's ability
to use the acquisition and resource processes to meet a Combatant
Commander's urgent needs.
Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT)
In 2003, our Army deployed our first SBCT, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd
Infantry Division, to Operation Iraqi Freedom, delivering its enhanced
capability to the Joint Force in record time: four years from broad
concept to deployment. Exceptional support from Congress and the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, along with close collaboration between the
Army and industry, made this achievement possible.
Stryker brigades are our Army's first truly network-centric force,
filling the capability gap between light- and heavy-force units with an
infantry-rich, mobile force that is strategically responsive,
tactically agile, and more lethal. Improved battlespace awareness and
battle-command technologies embedded in our SBCTs enhance combat
effectiveness and survivability by integrating data from manned and
unmanned air and ground-based sensors and providing real-time,
continuous situational understanding. Planned enhancements will
incorporate still-developing technologies. Significantly, our SBCTs
will improve our Army's understanding of Future Force processes,
helping us to formulate an advanced warfighting doctrine that will
serve as an important bridge to the development of our Unit of Action,
the structural foundation of our Future Force.
This spring, our second SBCT at Fort Lewis, Washington, will become
operational. Our third SBCT, in Alaska, will be available in 2005.
Continued OSD and congressional support will ensure that subsequent
brigades in Hawaii, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania, are fielded between
2004 and 2008.
Future Capabilities
Our Army plans to field a number of systems this decade that will
provide a foundation for informing the transformation of our Current
Force capabilities into those needed by our Future Force. Once fielded,
these systems will perform as interdependent systems of systems and
will greatly enhance joint warfighting capabilities. Our future
capabilities programs are designed to enhance the campaign-quality
land-power capabilities that we provide to the Combatant Commanders.
Our programs undergo continuous reviews to ensure they meet the
capability requirements of the Joint Force. When required, we
restructure programs, revise requirements and reprogram resources. The
following are just a few of the key transformational systems our Army
will begin to field during the next six years:
The Network.--Our Future Force situational dominance will depend
upon a comprehensive, ubiquitous, and joint-interoperable Command,
Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) architecture (the Network) that enables the
Joint Force Commander to conduct fully interdependent and network-
centric warfare. The Network will provide the backbone of our Future
Force and the future Joint Force, enabling the maneuver commander to
effectively coordinate battlefield effects. Some of the more important
systems within our Network include:
--Warfighter Information Network--Tactical (WIN-T).--WIN-T will be
the communications network of our Future Force, optimized for
offensive and joint operations, while providing the Combatant
Commander the capability to perform multiple missions
simultaneously.
--Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS).--JTRS is a family of common,
software-defined, programmable radios that will become our
Army's primary tactical radio for mobile communications.
--Distributed Common Ground System--Army (DCGS-A).--DCGS-A is a
single, integrated, ground-based, ISR processing system
composed of joint, common hardware and software components and
is part of the DOD DCGS family of systems.
--Aerial Common Sensor (ACS).--This ISR system and platform will use
robust sensor-to-shooter and reach links, (such as DCGS-A
ground stations), to provide commanders at every echelon the
tailored, multi-sensor intelligence required for joint
operations.
Future Combat Systems (FCS).--By extending the network capabilities
into the Unit of Action, the FCS provide a system of systems capability
that was not previously available to Soldiers and commanders in joint
operations. The core of our Future Force's maneuver Unit of Action is
the Future Combat Systems, comprised of 18 manned and unmanned
platforms that are centered around the Soldier and integrated within a
C\4\ISR network. FCS will provide our Soldiers greatly enhanced
situational awareness, enabling them to see first, understand first,
act first and finish decisively. Our FCS platforms will offer the Joint
Force networked, lethal direct fire; indirect fire; air defense;
complementary non-lethal fires and effects; and troop transport
capability. In May 2003, FCS moved, on schedule, into the System
Development and Demonstration phase. Our Army is aggressively managing
our FCS development effort and intends to achieve initial operational
capability by the end of the decade.
Army Science and Technology
The Army Science and Technology (S&T) Program provides our Army
superiority in both human and materiel systems arenas--preventing
technological surprise. The Army S&T program retains a dynamic
portfolio of investments that are responsive to warfighter needs today
and into the future. The priority for Army S&T is to pursue paradigm-
shifting technologies that can alter the nature of the military
competition to our advantage in the future and, where feasible, to
exploit opportunities to accelerate the transition of proven
technologies to our Current Force.
The Army S&T program exploits technology developments from the
other services, defense agencies and commercial industry as well as
international communities. The S&T program focuses on technology
relevant to our Army and joint capabilities. It synchronizes
operational concepts development and acquisition programs through
transformational business practices that speed technology fielding to
the Soldier. The Army's S&T program is balanced to satisfy the high
payoff needs of the future force while seeking rapid transitions for
critical capabilities to our Current Force.
Joint Operational Concepts (JOPSC)
The Joint Force has transitioned from independent, de-conflicted
operations to sustained interoperability. It must now shift rapidly to
joint interdependence. To that end, we are reviewing training
requirements, traditional relationships and developmental and
institutional programs. This process includes ensuring that our
operational concepts are nested inside those employed by the Joint
Force. The concepts and initiatives listed below discuss particular
Army emphasis areas; these areas are not all-inclusive. Functional
concepts and other Army initiatives that support the JOpsC are
discussed in detail in Addendum J (available at www.Army.mil).
Actionable Intelligence
Our Army also is focused on attaining actionable intelligence--
intelligence that provides situational understanding to commanders and
Soldiers with the speed, accuracy and confidence necessary to influence
favorably current and future operations. Actionable intelligence
achieves its intended purpose of empowering greater individual
initiative and self-synchronization among tactical units by fusing
information across organizations and echelons--accelerating the speed
of decision-making and the agility of operations.
Focused Logistics
Our Army's current actions around the world in support of the
Global War on Terrorism present a view of future military operations
and provide valuable insights as we transform our logistics systems
from the Current to the Future Force. The successes enjoyed during OIF
were the result of the integrated logistics team of Soldiers, civilians
and contractors, all of whom developed innovative solutions to a range
of challenges caused by four major capability gaps in the current
logistics system. To sustain combat power, our Army must have the
ability to ``see the requirements'' on-demand through a logistics data
network. We require a responsive distribution system, enabled by in-
transit and total-asset visibility and managed by a single owner who
has positive end-to-end control in the theater. Our Army needs a
robust, modular, force-reception capability--a dedicated and trained
organization able to quickly open a theater and support continuous
sustainment throughout the joint operations area. Lastly, we need an
integrated supply chain that has a single proponent, who can reach
across the breadth and depth of resources in a joint, interagency and
multinational theater. As we move from the Current Force to the Future
Force, we will build confidence in the minds of the Combatant
Commanders by delivering sustainment on time, every time.
A COMMITMENT TO OUR NATION
Our Nation and our Army are engaged in a Global War on Terrorism--a
war of survival against an insidious and cruel enemy that threatens our
civilization and our way of life. This enemy is actively targeting the
interests of America and our allies, both within our own country and
abroad.
Defeating this enemy requires the continued, strong support of our
Nation. The steadfastness of our Nation in this effort is readily
apparent. Ordinary Americans are doing their part and will continue to
do so. Congressional support for our troops has been critical to our
success. The industrial base also has responded, accelerating
production of items essential to our Soldiers' protection and
warfighting ability.
Our Army, too, remains committed to its heritage of preserving
freedom. American Soldiers display unrelenting tenacity, steadfast
purpose, quiet confidence and selfless heroism. For America to survive
and flourish throughout the 21st Century, our Army must defeat
decisively the threats that challenge us today. To accomplish this
essential task, we must recognize some important truths.
--The fight against terror will be a long one.
--Our Army must simultaneously deter aggression, defeat the forces of
international terrorism, and maintain our campaign qualities.
--We must continue to modernize to meet the challenges of our future.
--Our operational tempo is high and will remain so.
--Sustained operations and deployments will be the norm for our
Soldiers--NOT the exception.
--Old rules and operational methods may no longer apply; we will not
achieve victory with a business-as-usual approach.
Congressional backing for reset, our continued transformation to
the Future Force, our rebalancing and restructuring of the Active and
Reserve Component, and improvements to our installation infrastructure
is essential to continued mission readiness. We fully appreciate the
exceptional support Members and their staffs provided this past year.
The support of the American people and their elected representatives in
the United States Congress is essential.
Our Army's commitment to the future is certain. We will continue to
provide our Nation, the President, the Secretary of Defense and the
Combatant Commanders a unique set of core competencies and
capabilities. We remain dedicated to training and equipping our
Soldiers and growing leaders. We will continue to deliver relevant and
ready land power to the Combatant Commanders and the Joint Force. We
will protect our country and our way of life as we have for 228 years.
It is our privilege, our duty, and our honor to do so.
Senator Stevens. Our co-chairman has arrived. Senator
Inouye, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do,
and I ask that my full statement be made part of the record.
But before I do, I would like to join you in welcoming General
Schoomaker and the Secretary of the Army, because this is their
first time before us. I can assure you that it will be--I will
not say a happy time, but we are good people.
I would like to join my chairman in expressing our
admiration and our gratitude to the men and women who have
stood in harm's way in our behalf since 9/11. I commend
everyone who has played an important role in these operations.
Time and time again, the extraordinary ability of our men and
women in uniform and all the people who work to support them
has been demonstrated. I can speak for everyone here: We are
extremely proud of our fellow Americans.
Thank you very much, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Secretary Brownlee and General Peter J. Schoomaker, I would
like to welcome you both for your first appearance before this
subcommittee. It is an honor to have you here and I look
forward to your testimony.
It has been over two years since the United States
responded to the 9/11 attack with the Global War on Terrorism.
I commend everyone that has played a role in these operations.
Time and time again, the extraordinary ability of our men and
women in uniform and all the people that work to support them
has been demonstrated.
However, these ongoing operations have strained our troops.
Numerous concerns such as recruiting and retention, and force
structure requirements have been raised in Congress and by our
military forces in the field.
I suspect that these concerns will again be the subject of
debate in Congress, as they are continually brought up by
service members, their families, and the public. With ongoing
operations for the Global War on Terrorism and our struggling
effort to fund domestic priorities as well, this Committee has
a very difficult road ahead.
I am pleased that the Army is responding to the stress of
overseas deployments by temporarily increasing end strength by
30,000. Last year during the fiscal year 2004 Army budget
hearing, this subcommittee raised the subject of Army end
strength. General Shinseki testified that the requirements of
the Army demanded a change in right-sizing and right-mixing the
Army between Active and Reserve components. General Schoomaker,
I commend you for responding to this issue.
I look forward to discussing the details of this plan, its
funding and what you see as the long term future of Army force
structure.
I would also be interested to learn how you plan to ramp up
and then decrease the force within a few short years.
Part of the strain on our forces has led to our concern
over recruiting and retention, especially for the Guard and
Reserve. Ongoing deployments and the use of stop loss have
placed enormous demands on our military personnel and their
families.
I understand the Army is currently meeting goals for the
active component but is slightly short on the reserve
component. I would like to know your plan to address these
concerns this year and in fiscal year 2005.
The Army faces an unknown future, largely depending on how
things progress in Afghanistan and Iraq. Your task is to plan
for a schedule that is as yet undetermined, while working to
reset the force for another contingency.
To complicate this further, this will take place within the
constraints of a difficult fiscal year and with supplemental
funds coming later than you might hope.
Gentlemen, I must say the challenges facing you are great,
but I have every confidence in your ability to succeed.
Secretary Brownlee, General Peter J. Schoomaker, I look forward
to exploring these issues today and hearing your responses.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
General Schoomaker, do you have a comment to make?
General Schoomaker. Sir, I would like to make just a few
brief comments if I might. Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye:
thank you very much for the opportunity to join Secretary
Brownlee before you today and talk about our great Army.
I would like to reciprocate and recognize the great service
of Secretary Brownlee as Acting Secretary of the Army. He had a
very distinguished military career of his own--two tours in
Vietnam, wounded, recognized and awarded for valor on the
battlefield, and of course you are all aware that he also
served with distinction here as a staffer in this body, in the
Senate. He certainly is a great partner as we go forward with
the great challenges that we have before us, as we transform
the Army while we are engaged in the global war on terrorism
and engaged all over the world.
I would also like to recognize Lieutenant General Ron
Helmly with us today from the--he heads the U.S. Army Reserve;
and Lieutenant General Roger Schultz, to my left rear, who
heads the Army National Guard. We are one, we are a total Army,
we are together. There is no daylight between us in what we are
trying to achieve here, and I think you will see as we talk
about what we are doing that we are approaching this as a
unified body moving forward to the 21st century.
I would also like to recognize the great pride I have in
being able to serve once again in uniform with the men and
women of the United States Army, and this includes their
families, it includes the great civilians that we have, that do
so much to support our Army at war.
Finally, I would like to reinforce something that Secretary
Brownlee has said, and that is that we are moving out with a
great deal of vigor and momentum and we are trying to take
advantage of the silver lining in this cloud of worldwide
operations and being at war. We are trying to transform the
Army using the momentum of the Army as we reset for continuous
operations, that we do not reset it to the Army it was before,
but we reset it to the Army of the future.
We see this as an extraordinary window of opportunity, to
take advantage not only of the great resources that this
Congress and this committee has provided to our Army, but also
take advantage of the motion that the Army is in. It is a
narrow window of opportunity and perhaps one of my greatest
fears is that we do not take full opportunity here of this
window and allow ourselves to come to rest and not complete the
transformation that we feel is so necessary.
We have taken some extraordinary steps and one of them, of
course, is as we looked at Army aviation we found a solution in
the fact of terminating Comanche. I can assure you we did not
start out with an attitude to terminate Comanche, but it made
such sense from a business position as being a fiscally
responsible thing to do, and also that the operational traits
made so much sense.
I would ask your support for these kinds of initiatives to
ensure that the commitment that we were able to obtain from the
Secretary of Defense, from the White House, and from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) that these resources would be
committed to fixing Army aviation as we do it. I would tell you
that in this particular case it is not just the extraordinary
number of helicopters we are going to buy and the amount of
upgrades and modernization that we are going to do with our
existing fleet, but it also includes the military construction
(MILCON), it includes fixing the ammunition like rockets and
the Hellfire issue, which is a great concern to me, the
simulators, the training base, the unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV's), and the future tech base for a future joint rotorcraft
solution for 2020-2025.
So it is a far-reaching approach that we are taking, and I
would very much appreciate your support with this, because I
know that there is a great deal of interest in how we are going
to accomplish all of this.
Having said that, sir, I stand with the Secretary of the
Army here in his statement and we have submitted our posture
statement for the record, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much.
We anticipate approximately 10 members coming to join in
this hearing, so unless there is objection we will limit the
original round to 5 minutes apiece.
I want to start off by congratulating the two of you for
the Comanche decision. This committee had to make a decision
once before, a similar decision on the Sergeant York. You have
made the decision I think clearly and with a succinct
statement, so from my point of view I intend to support your
efforts and will honor the commitments that have been made that
the funds that will be redirected from the Comanche will stay
within Army aviation, where the need is very great.
But can you tell us, is there going to be a gap now in Army
helicopter procurement because of this?
General Schoomaker. Sir, the answer is no. In fact, as you
know, we were not going to achieve delivery of Comanche until
later within this future years defense program. There were 121
Comanches in the program at the time. The counterbalance is
that we are going to be significantly upgrading the current
fleet, bringing for instance Apache up to Block 3, which gives
us the same capability, with the exception of low
observability, as Comanche Block 1 was going to provide us.
What in effect we are doing, I believe we will achieve a
greater industrial base capacity that in effect is going to
give us very positive results on our readiness in the aviation
fleet. So we see this as a win-win situation all the way across
and I think it will give us immediate assistance here in
maintaining the readiness of our aviation.
Senator Stevens. Well, I am going to ask your cooperation
by having a classified session on the total subject of the
helicopter transition at a later date, because I think some of
the questions might not be appropriate in an open session.
ARMY END STRENGTH
We discussed informally the question of what is going to
happen to the increased strength you have now and your plans
for forming separate brigades from those and transitioning them
into the regular Army as you downsize other units. Could you
explain that for us here this morning?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I might let Pete start out with what we
need to do and then I could pick up and explain some of the how
for that.
Senator Stevens. Yes, please.
General Schoomaker. Sir, thank you very much. This is a
total Army switch to modularity, and what we are talking about
doing is maintaining 10 divisions on the Active Force and 8
divisions in the National Guard, for a total of 18 division
battle command headquarters. We then want to expand the number
of brigades. On the Active Army side we want to go from 33
active brigades that we currently have to a minimum of 43. That
is an increase of 30 percent, with the possibility of going to
48. We have an off-ramp at 2006 to make that decision, to see
how we are doing and what the affordability is.
But we believe that by going from 33 to 43 brigades, which
is the equivalent of almost 3 divisions of fighting strength
within the 10-division formation, that it will help us greatly.
At the same time, we are going to be transforming the Army
National Guard under its 8 division headquarters to 34 brigade-
sized units. This in effect gives us an Army of somewhere
between 77 and 82 brigade combat teams, which is in fact the
answer to relieving the stress to the force. This gives us a
broader base, that we get greater dwell time between
deployments and rotations. We believe that we can do this
within the current authorized statutory end strength numbers.
We have asked for a temporary growth, not in statutory end
strength, but a temporary growth in the Army under the
authorities that the President has in Title 10, that the law
gives him, for us not to use stop-loss, stop-move to grow the
Army, but to actually be able to recruit, train, and organize
through the pipeline on a temporary basis this additional
30,000 soldiers to create these brigades.
Simultaneously, we believe that we can find efficiencies
through some of the global force reposturing, military to
civilian conversions, and other efficiencies that we have had
that will offset that temporary growth so that we can let the
air out of the tires and come back down to our end strength,
retaining the brigades that we form.
I will let Secretary Brownlee discuss the specifics of
that.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I know there has been some discussion
over here about how we had proposed this. When we look
carefully at what we need to do and the authority to do it,
there clearly is an authority that the Congress intended for
peacetime, which was authorized end strength. There is another
authority in Title 10 that allows the President to waive the
requirements of the end strength and grow the force to whatever
is necessary to deal with the emergency.
Since the President had declared an emergency, we looked
and we were already some 20,000 people over our authorized end
strength under this Title 10 authority. We then asked
ourselves: Well, how are we paying for that additional end
strength? We were in fact paying for it with the supplemental
appropriations provided by the Congress for those purposes.
So what we have proposed is to allow us, as Pete described,
to grow by up to 30,000 over the next several years and to use
this to create these new brigades. It gives us additional head
space to do some of the efficiencies that will be very
difficult or impossible to do if we did not have this extra
growth and flexibility.
During this period of time our strategy is to find within
the Army these 30,000 spaces. So at the end of the conflict,
whenever that is, and as Pete says when the conflict comes down
and we let the air out of the tires, we can keep those
brigades, but at the authorized end strength we currently have.
That is our plan, that is our strategy.
As we looked at this, it was clearly better for us because
if we had to put this in our budget request and ask you to
increase our authorized end strength by 30,000 people, it is
about $1.2 billion per 10,000, so that is about $3.6 billion we
would have to put in our budget and knock out other programs to
pay for it. We then have to go through our future years defense
plan and knock it out every year in there also. So we would be
taking that out of programs that we are very interested in and
you have helped us greatly with to modernize the Army.
In fact, I know because I worked here and deal with some of
the same problems you do, if it were done over here, if you had
to go into the budget and find $3.5 billion of military
personnel money, that money pays out at a one for one rate over
90 percent and most of the other accounts that you would
actually be using as a source for funds pay out at a much lower
rate. So you would have to take a much larger proportion out of
those accounts to pay for these military personnel costs. You
might have to find as much as $7 to $10 billion or even more
out of these other accounts to pay for it.
So as we looked at this, we thought it was clearly better
for us and hopefully you would see it as better for the
Congress in dealing with this situation.
Senator Burns. Secretary Brownlee, can you turn your
microphone on?
Mr. Brownlee. I am sorry. I apologize, sir. I hope that
came across.
Senator Stevens. I just thought my ears were acting up
again.
Senator Burns. I thought I had gone deaf.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, as one with very bad ones I should know
better. I apologize.
Senator Stevens. Well, I appreciate that. I do hope we can
keep the responses a little more succinct so that we can have
more than one question per Senator.
But one thing I failed to do--would you identify for the
record the general officers that have come with you, General
Schoomaker? I think sometimes we fail to recognize they are
here for your support. So I would like to have in the record
who is here.
General Schoomaker. Sir, I recognized Lieutenant General
Ron Helmly from the Army Reserve and Lieutenant General Roger
Schultz on the far left from the Army National Guard. General
Helmly is sitting right here in the middle. Lieutenant General
Jerry Sinn, who is out of our budget office. He is our counsel
on money, a very good one. And I think you know General Guy
Swan behind us, who is our legislative liaison.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. If I may follow up on the chairman's
question, are the new brigades going to be a permanent part of
the force?
General Schoomaker. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. I recall Dr. Zakheim indicated that these
new brigades will be phased out after the war in Iraq. Is that
correct?
General Schoomaker. No, sir. The 30,000 temporary end
strength will be phased out after the emergency and they will
be offset by the efficiencies we find within our current
statutory end strength during the period that we are doing this
transformation.
Senator Inouye. But not the new brigades?
General Schoomaker. No, sir. They stay, they remain.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Senator Inouye. Secretary and General, with the strain of
our deployed forces there is some concern among many about
recruiting and retaining, and I suppose that should be a
concern of all of us. Are you confident that you can meet your
goals without changing any standards in recruiting or
retention?
General Schoomaker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brownlee. Right now, sir, I would describe as
cautiously optimistic where we are on all of this. We certainly
are concerned within the Army because we do have a very high
OPTEMPO. The Army is very busy. This impacts on soldiers and
their families. Right now with respect to recruiting, we are
confident that we are going to make our goals. We are running a
little below the line in some of them, but for most of them it
looks like we are going to make all our fiscal year 2004
requirements.
We have some concerns in retention in some spots, but in
other areas we are doing very well. So we are going to
concentrate on those. We have a lot of authority that has been
provided by the Congress to take certain measures to allow us
to provide incentives, which we will do when it appears time to
do that. We have already used some of them on reenlistment
bonuses and other authorities that have been provided for those
things.
General Schoomaker. Sir, I would like to add very briefly.
We were extraordinarily successful last year in meeting over
100 percent of our retention and recruiting goals across all
components. This year it looks like we are on track right now
to exceed 100 percent in recruiting across the components. We
do have a few retention challenges, but everybody is very
confident that we will make it.
BRIGADE UNITS OF ACTION
But I would like to make a very strong comment here that we
must relieve the stress on this force, and we believe our plan
is designed to do that, because we cannot rely on this
extraordinary level of commitment, sacrifice, and patriotism to
carry us at the level that we are currently operating. That is
why I feel it is so important that we use this extraordinary
window of opportunity to transform this Army to a broader
brigade base, to be able to achieve the kind of dwell time.
We anticipate we will be able to create a force that will
be able to sustain this level of effort we have today with an
Active Force rotation scheme of 1 year in three and with the
Reserve Components 1 year in five or six, which we think is
sustainable.
Senator Inouye. I realize that the matter of policy is not
within your jurisdiction, but, like all of us, you read the
papers, you receive briefings and such. And there are potential
hot spots throughout the world--the Korean Peninsula,
Indonesia, Malacca Straits, the Middle East, just to name a
few, Pakistan, India. Are you considering expanding the
military if we find ourselves having to involve ourselves in
all these activities?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, as I indicated, the plans that we have
within the Army are to increase the number of combat brigades.
That will give us an additional capability in case we have to
respond to something else. Our primary intent right now is, as
General Schoomaker said, to relieve the stress, current stress
on the force. If there is another emergency elsewhere, this
clearly would give us more capability and flexibility in
responding to that.
General Schoomaker. I think again, just as a baseline,
today we have 33 brigades in the Active Force and we have 15
enhanced separate brigades in the National Guard that we
consider available and ready to go in a rapid way. If we
complete our transformation, we could have as many as 82
brigades available to us in real combat power within our
current statutory end strength.
This is what this transformation has taken us to. It will
be between 77 and 82 brigade combat teams across the Army
active component and National Guard.
Senator Inouye. You can have 82 brigades without changing
the end strength?
General Schoomaker. That is correct, sir.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ARMY AVIATION
Secretary Brownlee, regarding the Comanche program, I
believe that is the right way to go. What about the OSD and
White House commitment here? Are they committed to Army
aviation in the future, which I think is very important, that
this savings be spent there. I think General Schoomaker
referenced that clearly. Do you want to comment on that? Go
ahead, General.
General Schoomaker. I personally received the commitment of
Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz. I met in the Oval Office
with the President and achieved his commitment, and we met with
Josh Bolton in OMB and received their concurrence and
commitment that we would apply the Comanche program $14.6
billion to Army aviation.
Senator Shelby. It is very important to the future of the
Army, is it not?
General Schoomaker. Yes, sir.
RESET
Senator Shelby. The Army reset program, General Schoomaker.
A lot of us are concerned about the health of the Army's combat
equipment. We have talked about this before, especially combat
vehicles, with what has been going on in Iraq. $1.5 billion was
included in the supplemental last year for the Army depot
maintenance. Yet we understand that the Army Tank and
Automotive Command currently has a backlog of roughly the same
amount.
How much funding has the Army received from the 2004
supplemental for reset? What is the readiness level of the
units that have returned and units still deployed in Iraq?
Mr. Brownlee. I want to do that for the record, provide for
the record the exact amount of funding we received out of the
supplemental for resetting the force. But we do have funds to
recapitalize, reset, all of the major systems that we have
brought back right now, I believe, and we are proceeding to do
that.
[The information follows:]
Reset
The fiscal year 2004 emergency supplemental funded $1.2
billion in depot maintenance requirements and $2.0 billion in
10/20 level maintenance and delayed desert damage.
Additionally, we received another $208 million for
transportation to move equipment to the depots and to
commercialize some in-theater communications capability. This
was particularly important in that it permitted us to redeploy
several of the Army's unique communications units who were
approaching their one-year mark for deployment. We also
received $712 million in investment funds to purchase
communications equipment, replacement stocks for our
prepositioned equipment sets, and lethality and survivability
equipment for both Active and Reserve Component Soldiers.
Senator Shelby. But you have got to have sufficient
resources to reset. General?
General Schoomaker. Sir, you are exactly right. I am again,
with the same people, both the Secretary and I are on the
record. We are going to require supplemental funding to reset
the Army 2 years beyond the end of this emergency, which is
consistent with what it took us to reset the Army following
Desert Shield/Desert Storm. We have over 9,000 pieces of
rolling stock, 9,000 pieces of rolling stock that were used and
consumed and require repair, just from the Operation Iraqi
Freedom 1 (OIF-1), from the war.
Senator Shelby. We have got to get that to the depots, have
we not?
General Schoomaker. Yes, sir. That is who is going to have
to do this work. Some of it is going to have to be done
forward, some of it is going to have to be done here.
CALIBRATION SETS
Senator Shelby. General Schoomaker, regarding test,
measurement and diagnostic equipment, not very much attention
gets paid to test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment, but I
would like to express concern about the Army's action in this
bill to decrease the research, development, test and evaluation
(RDT&E) funding for calibration sets equipment by 275 percent
and to zero all procurement funding.
The loss of this funding for calibration sets (CALSETS)
2000 a lot of people believe negatively impacts two
transformation imperatives that are important to you,
modularity and commonality. Do you have enough calibration sets
in the force to meet immediate requirements? In other words,
what are we going to do here?
General Schoomaker. Sir, I believe we do, but we would need
to provide that for the record, unless the Secretary knows.
[The information follows:]
Calibration Sets (CALSET) Requirements
Army is meeting immediate critical calibration
requirements; however, it is assuming some near and long term
modernization risk. We are satisfying immediate critical
requirements for CALSETS 2000. CALSETS 2000 is a modernized,
tactical, deployable mobility platform with mounted calibration
and repair capability. The current Army requirement for CALSETS
2000 is 40: 29 tactical sets, six echelon above corps sets,
three training base sets, and two sustaining base sets. To
date, 20 CALSET 2000 systems have been procured. Without
funding to procure additional sets, the military will continue
to rely on a combination of CALSET 2000, and AN/GSM-286 and AN/
GSM-287 tactical sets. The AN/GSM 286/287 sets have the same
calibration capability, but do not meet mobility and
survivability requirements.
The Army is taking risk by not providing funds to modernize
existing calibration equipment or to fill emerging calibration
requirements gaps. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G4 is conducting
a world wide mission assessment to determine how the Army will
perform test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment (TMDE)
calibration and repair support without an equipment acquisition
program. The assessment focuses on risk mitigating solutions,
including: deployable modular military support teams, contracts
for calibration and repair support services, realignment of
existing CALSETs sets into discrete missions and functions, a
review of critical calibration standards and the systems they
support, and the potential for creating a Joint Calibration and
Repair support program. It will also address the legal
liability associated with calibration, impacts of repair
support to TMDE and review lessons learned and business cases
used by commercial industry today.
FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM (FCS)
Senator Shelby. Okay. Future Combat Systems. Secretary
Brownlee, how is the FCS-lead systems integrator (LSI) team
performing? Is technology development where you want it to be?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I get different reports from the people
who are over watching that. They tell me that they are doing
well. I have to tell you that I have had some concerns about
that and so recently I wrote a letter to the Institute for
Defense Analysis and asked them to please examine the LSI
relationship between the Army and the LSI contractor and to
provide that report to the Army, just to be sure that that
relationship is working as we intended from an independent
point of view. So we will get that and that should be done in
several months.
STRYKER
Senator Shelby. Could you talk about the Stryker vehicle
performance in this setting in Iraq?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir, I can, and I am sure Pete would
like to add to whatever I might say. But we have been very
pleased with the way it is performing in Iraq. We have had
several vehicles that have been hit by rocket propelled
grenades (RPG's) that have survived in the way we intended, and
this is with an interim protective system, the slat armor that
we put on it which was an interim protective system. So far
that has worked as intended. The reports we get from the field
are very good with respect to that vehicle and we are very
pleased with it so far.
Senator Shelby. General?
General Schoomaker. Sir, I am very pleased with the way
Stryker has performed, not only as a vehicle but as a system.
The amount of infantry that is in Stryker is amazing and its
lethality, its ability to network and move. As you know, we
have just gotten our commitment and approval out of OSD to
proceed with Stryker 5 and 6, so that completes Stryker. As we
move forward----
Senator Shelby. That is a good endorsement, too, is it not?
General Schoomaker. Sir, it is. The improvements that are
being made to Stryker along the lines of protection are
significant. Currently it is the second best protected system
that we have, second to the M-1 tank, and it will continue to
improve. So we are very happy with what we see there.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, we will get another round?
Senator Stevens. Yes, we will.
Following the early bird rule, next we recognize Senator
Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STOP LOSS
You said--I think your concept is outstanding, and you said
you were going to use stop-loss orders to keep the people as
you are in your retraining process. How long do you anticipate
those stop-loss orders will be?
Mr. Brownlee. We only stop-loss units that are alerted to
be deployed, units that are deployed, and units that have
immediately returned from deployment. This is to, as General
Schoomaker said, stabilize that force so that it stays
together, trains as a team, deploys as a team and a unit, and
fights that way.
Senator Hutchison. And how long do you anticipate the stop-
losses to last?
General Schoomaker. We stop-loss from alert to up to 90 to
120 days upon return. But you might have misunderstood me here.
Our temporary end strength--our temporary growth that we have
asked for above end strength is not stop-loss. We do not want
to use stop-loss for that. We want to recruit and specifically
target where those go.
So we will continue to use stop-loss for those units that
are specifically going to war, to hold them together, and we do
that very carefully. I mean, we recognize what stop-loss is,
but if you take a look at our other initiatives, which is force
stabilization, as we move to modularity and stabilize the force
it will reduce our requirement to have to use stop-loss.
RESERVE COMPONENT DEPLOYMENTS
Senator Hutchison. I understand. Let me ask you this. Are
you going to be able to show fairly quickly a relief to Guard
and Reserve deployments?
General Schoomaker. I think you know we have just alerted
three more brigades and a division headquarters for OIF-3, and
we have done it early to provide the predictability and the
time so that people are not being rushed as has been necessary
in the past. But again, the more of these brigades we can
create on the active side--and that is why we have asked to do
the 10 brigades in 3 years. We have already got one in the 3rd
Infantry Division. They have already reset into a four-brigade
division. We are going to do two more this year. We will do
three or four next year and the residual three or four the
third year.
The faster we can achieve that, the less we are going to
have to--the more relief we can give to calling the Guard, as
long as we are at this level of effort. If this level of effort
reduces, of course, the requirement for the National Guard will
reduce commensurately.
Senator Hutchison. Do you have a long-term goal on how long
you would ask a member of the Guard and Reserve to activate
during their time that they have signed up to serve?
General Schoomaker. We are working very hard to reduce the
amount of post-mobilization training requirements in the Guard.
If we get into force stabilization and modularity, it will
allow us to predict when we have to call--when a unit would be
in the window of alert.
Senator Hutchison. I understand that you are saying
predictability is very important, and it is. But I am also
visiting our Guard and Reserves in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq,
and at home, and part of their frustration, as you know, is
overdeployment. It is not just being able to tell when they are
going; it is going so much.
General Schoomaker. The path to relieve their frustration
is the faster that we can get to this level, it will increase
the dwell time between deployments. As I said, we could get on
the Active side one deployment in a 3-year cycle, on the Guard
side we can get one deployment in a 5- or 6-year cycle in a
predictable fashion. Our desire is to limit these deployments
to 6-month deployments if we have to do it.
Senator Hutchison. That is what I was after. Thank you very
much.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan is recognized.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
RESERVE COMPONENT RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Secretary Brownlee and General Schoomaker, the National
Guard and Reserve are being used in a manner that we had not
previously anticipated. I think everyone agrees with that, and
we have Guard and Reserve troops in Iraq that have now been
mobilized for 13 months, away from homes, families, and jobs
and who may not be back home until May. That was certainly not
anticipated, and we have had long discussions about that.
Let me ask, what is this doing to recruitment and
retention? There has been some concern about recruitment and
retention rates in the Guard and Reserve. Can you give me
information about that? I see General Schultz is here and
perhaps he has information about that as well.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, in the National Guard in fact our
retention rates, I believe, are running over 100 percent right
now. Reserves are a little bit below the glide path that we
would desire. We believe we can get that up in order to meet
our fiscal year 2004 goals.
Senator Dorgan. At this point, then, you are not concerned
about, based on your experience and also looking forward, you
are not concerned that the increased deployments are going to
affect recruitment and retention?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I am always concerned, I very much am. I
think this OPTEMPO certainly has human costs that we have to
measure and what we have told the Army staff is we want to know
when the light on the dashboard flickers amber so we can take
measures and steps to try to get things under control. What we
want to avoid is having people come in and tell us when every
light on the dashboard is red and then we are in trouble.
So that is the way we are trying to operate it. But I would
not want to tell you we are not concerned. We are very
concerned and that is one reason that we have come forth with
the initiative to grow the size of the Army to reduce the
stress.
General Schoomaker. If I could, I may be the only person in
the room that thinks it is extraordinary that we are calling
the Guard and the Reserve. I think that is what we are for and
I think that the Active, Guard, and Reserve are all volunteers.
Now, what is disappointing is that we are working, of the
million people we have in uniform, we are working too few of
them too much. Part of what we have to do in our restructuring
is distribute the load across the force, and that is what we
are trying to do here.
But the Guard right now is leading in both recruiting and
retention in the Army, which is counterintuitive. But in fact--
and I will let Roger verify, validate that.
Senator Dorgan. The reason I ask the question is it is
counterintuitive, you would think. And I think it is
extraordinary, by the way. I would not necessarily agree with
you.
General Schoomaker. It is.
Senator Dorgan. It is extraordinary that we would call up a
unit and they are gone 17 months or in some cases close to 18
months from family, home, and job, and in a couple of cases
only 2 years following a deployment to Kosovo.
I understand that is what the Guard and Reserve are for,
but I think you have indicated in your testimony we need to be
judicious about how often we deploy them and how long we deploy
them, because they are citizen-soldiers.
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST
Let me ask a question. You have mentioned General Sinn and
we are very proud of General Sinn in North Dakota. You
indicated that he is keeping track of costs. I suspect that you
are taking a look at what are the anticipated future costs here
with respect to deployments and, for reasons that the chairman
and others have discussed on the floor with me and others, that
those costs are not included in the budget. But I would expect
that we will then pass a supplemental. We passed a $60 billion
supplemental for the military at the end of 2003 and we will do
that again.
But can you give us some sense of what kind of costs you
are seeing and what kind of costs you are planning for that are
not yet included in the budget, but that we will be confronted
with with respect to a supplemental?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, the cost of the operations, if you count
all the costs to include the personnel costs, which maybe
should not be counted, but it runs for both Afghanistan and
Iraq over $4 billion a month. Most of that would be covered, is
covered now, by the supplemental that was previously passed.
The Army got roughly $40 billion of I believe the $65.1 billion
that was provided by the Congress for military operations and
that is what we are using for that. We believe that certainly
is adequate to take us to the end of this fiscal year.
We may need some assistance from the administration,
depending on whether the costs continue or increase. So that
right now is where we see that.
ADD-ON ARMOR
Senator Dorgan. Let me ask--my time is about expired. I
want to ask one additional question. The marines recently
engaged in a contract to buy sets of what is called LAST
ceramic armor for HMMWV's in Iraq. As I inquired about that, I
understood the marines determined that the LAST armor is the
quickest and most efficient way of protecting its vehicles,
HMMWV's, after observing tests done by the Army.
Does the Army have plans to proceed in a similar fashion?
These are--apparently it is ceramic armor for the doors of
HMMWV's that the marines observed in testing that the Army did,
and they decided to proceed to purchase.
Senator Stevens. Your time has expired, I hope that you
realize.
Senator Dorgan. I preceded my question by suggesting my
time was about to expire. I finished my question and if they
have time to answer I would appreciate that.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, if we could take that for the record. I
would prefer not to address that in open session.
Senator Dorgan. That would be fine. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
Add-on Armor Kits for the HMMWV
The Army did not purchase the LAST Armor produced by
Foster-Miller Inc., in Waltham, Massachusetts because the
ceramic did not address the holistic approach to HMMWV add-on
armor protection that the Army desired. The LAST Armor, a
ceramic armor plate, provides only partial door protection, has
no back plate or perimeter protection. Also, the ceramic armor
is very expensive: $600 per square foot as opposed to the
Rolled Homogenous Armor (RHA), which is used in our Army
Research Laboratories (ARL) add-on armor kits, at $15 per
square foot. In October 2003, the LAST Armor was sent to the
Army Test Center where the armor demonstrated reasonable
protection against ballistic threats. But there were concerns
about the robustness of the ceramic armor when it is attached
to the vehicle. LAST Armor is mounted to the canvas door of a
HMMWV with clips and Velcro, and cannot be expected to stop an
improvised explosive device blast since the canvas door would
likely dislodge, thereby creating an additional piece of
fragmentation (door and armor plate) that can injure or
mortally wound the Soldier.
The Army has purchased 6,900 ARL add-on armor kits and
1,500 O'Gara Hess add-on armor kits for HMMWVs. The Army kit
provides door, perimeter, and back plate protection with
ballistic glass and air conditioning. ARL's durable kit is
composed of \3/8\ inch RHA and it takes approximately three
hours to install all kit components. To date, 2,675 kits have
been produced and 2,079 kits have been installed in theater.
The U.S. Marine Corps is scheduled to receive 650 of these ARL
add-on armor kits as well.
The Army believes LAST Armor is a good commercial off-the-
shelf force protection product for civilian and local law
enforcement, but does not provide robust or extensive enough
force protection for Soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran is recognized.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
ROTATION OF TROOPS
General Schoomaker, I understand the Army is in the midst
of one of the largest troop rotations in the history--well,
since World War II anyway. You have pointed out that in this
period of 4 months from December through April you will have
110,000 troops deploying to the Iraq theater of operations and
120,000 returning. That is quite a challenge. You have said we
are entering the most challenging period for the Army since
World War II.
I wonder what you have done to help ensure the protection
of those forces during the troop rotation and the logistical
challenges that you face? Have you had enough equipment,
airlift, sealift, support from the other forces or from the
total force concept?
General Schoomaker. Sir, it is a great question. We in fact
are moving over 250,000 people in those 4 months. We are moving
on average 5,000 people in and out every day. We have done very
close work with Central Command, General Abizaid and his folks,
to ensure the proper protection and operational security. All
of the things that are required there are extraordinary, and
the support we have had out of Transportation Command, General
Handy and his folks, in managing this movement is
extraordinary.
What I find to be particularly extraordinary is we are
right now at the very peak of this and it has been virtually
seamless. It has been very, very well done. We are very proud
of what the joint team has done to be able to pull this off,
and we do not anticipate we will have any problems in the
future because it is running very smoothly.
NATIONAL GUARD AVIATION MODERNIZATION
Senator Cochran. We have a good number of reservists and
guardsmen on duty around the world. I have been told that about
40 percent of the force in Iraq is made up of reservists and
National Guardsmen. I know we have 22 Guard and Reserve units
represented from my State that are deployed to the theater.
One of our groups represented over there is an Army
National Guard aviation group from Tupelo, Mississippi. They
fly helicopters, and when they were deployed they realized they
had lost their helicopters to a Tennessee Guard unit that had
gone on before them, and they were anticipating some
replacement helicopters. But these are challenges that I know
you are facing. They have been dispersed among some other
units, so they can take advantage of their training and their
capability of contributing to the mission there.
But I am sure the aircraft distribution challenge is
something that you are looking into and trying to manage as
well. Do you have the replacement aircraft that you need,
helicopters, for National Guard aviation units? Is there
anything we can do in this budget cycle to help you overcome
the deficits that you may face?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I appreciate the question and I have
looked into this. That unit of yours has performed remarkably,
because we used them in a way that we would prefer not to. We
had to use them almost as fillers for other units. That is part
of our reorganization of the Reserve components that we are
going to address.
We have too much force structure for the number of people
we have, so when we call a unit up we have to take people from
other units to fill those units up. We want to reduce the
number of units, but not reduce the number of people, so we can
keep units filled. One point.
The second point is, for the unit at Tupelo, they did lose
their OH-58's, their Kiowas, to the Tennessee unit. Under the
aviation plan that is being put together right now, it is yet
undetermined whether they will receive Kiowa Warriors back in
that unit or Apaches. But that decision should be made soon and
we will make sure that you know as soon as we make that
decision.
General Schoomaker. I would like to just jump on that. You
asked what can you do. Support the movement of the Comanche
funding to the Army aviation modernization, because we are
going to purchase 800 new aircraft and upgrade 1,400, and that
is for the Active, Guard and Reserve. It makes the Guard and
Reserve well in aviation, and that was a significant factor in
making the decision to go this direction.
ARMORING BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLES
Senator Cochran. In connection with force protection, we
heard about the upgrading of the armor for HMMWV's. Is there a
similar program underway for the Bradley fighting vehicles?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, the Bradley fighting vehicles can be
equipped with what we call reactive armor. We have some
reactive armor sets. We do not have enough for every Bradley in
theater, but the Bradley of course has the kinds of ballistic
protection already inherent in its organic armor up and beyond
that that the up-armored HMMWV would have. The reactive armor
that we are talking about would provide additional protection
from even more deadly weapons, and we do not normally put that
on every Bradley, but only on selected units.
Senator Cochran. As part of the improvement of the
helicopter and other aviation situation----
Senator Stevens. Senator, I am sorry to say your time is
up.
Senator Cochran. I would be glad to wait for another round.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby--Senator Burns. Pardon me.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement I will put
in the record.
Senator Stevens. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the
witnesses for coming before our subcommittee today, to testify
on the Army's fiscal year 2005 budget.
Our military, and the U.S. Army in particular, has many
folks engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting the war on
terrorism. We are winning this war on terror. Our soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines are performing magnificently. We
must honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our
country, to ensure that our forces have the resources to defeat
the enemies of our country. With 325,000 soldiers deployed in
120 countries, including 165,000 reservists, there is no
question that our forces are being challenged.
I see the increasing trend in the ratio of reservists
overseas from 37 percent in the early stages of Operation Iraqi
Freedom to 46 percent currently. In Montana, over 40 percent of
our National Guard units have been called to active duty. I
intend to do my part as their representative to ensure our
armed forces have what they need to win this war, protect our
homeland, and come home safely.
We have announced that the Army force structure will grow
by 30,000 soldiers, on a temporary basis. We must plan
appropriately to house, equip, and train these men and women
who serve. While the force structure increase may be temporary
and funded through the supplemental appropriation, I urge the
Army to consider all the costs associated with this increase so
that we are not forced to sacrifice the research and
development of systems that maintain the superiority of our
forces, just so that we may support our operating budget.
I read daily of our great American Soldiers and Marines
developing unconventional solutions to solve the problems they
face in the field. I think it makes a great deal of sense to
have an organization chartered to bring good ideas from our
nation's universities, laboratories, and small businesses to
the soldiers as soon as possible, and where necessary,
bypassing the bureaucracy. I encourage your continued support
of Army initiatives to expedite the fielding of urgently needed
equipment through efforts such as the Rapid Fielding Initiative
and the Rapid Fielding Force. These efforts have resulted in
the fielding of great innovations such as advanced weapon
sights, optics, compact soldier communication systems, and
compact GPS Receivers.
I see that the Army has been cooperating with other
agencies such as DARPA on a range of technologies urgently
needed for the war on terror. This cooperation has allowed us
to field technologies to defeat improvised explosive devices,
investigate underground structures, and provide a low cost air
reconnaissance capability to our forces.
I am aware of the program initiated to transform our Army
ground forces; the Future Combat Systems. It is a good sign of
its acceptance by the Army to see its transition from science
and technology into full-scale development. It is encouraging
to see the Army take ownership of this program, begun
unconventionally in partnership with DARPA, on a very
challenging schedule intended to field an evolutionary
capability in the near term. More recently in Operation Desert
Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, we witnessed the incredible
advantages of joint operations, leveraging the advantages of
air superiority and precision weapons. We have seen an increase
in the number of Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) in use by our
forces at all echelons. The feedback I have received from the
soldiers on the ground is that they wish they had more of these
systems, not less.
I look forward to seeing how the Army will amend its budget
and re-allocate the resources dedicated to the Comanche within
the Army to other aviation programs, like the continued
fielding of technology that will add a measure of protection to
our Blackhawks and Chinook helicopters.
Again, I thank all of you for being here today. I look
forward to the discussion before us this morning. Thank you.
Senator Burns. I just have one question.
By the way, I just want to state publicly now:
Congratulations. Our visits to Iraq and Afghanistan have been
very fruitful and I want to congratulate your people, both
leadership and the Government issue (GI's) that we have got on
the ground. They are doing a remarkable job under very
difficult conditions, knowing that they are the target and are
in a reactive position rather than in an active position, which
is a tough way to operate your business. The morale I found was
high. I was really impressed with the leadership of those young
men and women that you have over there, and I want to
congratulate you on that. That comes from an old marine and it
comes hard. No, not really.
RESERVE COMPONENT TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT
We have got 40 percent of our Guard in Montana deployed and
now we have gotten notification that the 163rd Mechanized
Infantry Regiment out of Bozeman, Montana has been put on
alert. There is some question about equipment. I have worked
very hard to build the infrastructure for training both in my
Reserves and my Guard in Montana, because whenever the move was
made that a lot of our force structure was going to go into our
citizen-soldiers I made sure that they had, the Guard and the
Reserves, communications that was interactive for training, the
facility was part of the recruitment and the morale of the
troops. I felt their training had to be as good as what we are
providing our soldiers on active duty.
But I am just wondering about the equipment when they
deploy. Now, some of the equipment is not up to what we find
with our active duty personnel. Will their equipment, such as
the body armor--and I have got written down here ``HMMWV, body
armor''--will that all be brought up to the same as active duty
whenever they are deployed?
General Schoomaker. Sir, we have equipped the Guard--the
30th, the 39th, and the 81st that right now are in motion for
OIF-2 received the top, the most modern body armor, equipment,
helmets, what we call RFI, the rapid fielding initiative. They
received it ahead of the Active Force, and we are now of course
catching up on the Active Force.
But our intention and our commitment is to equip the Army
at the top level across the Active, Guard and Reserve and to
train, to do what you are talking about uniformly across the
force. That is our initiative here as we go to modularity,
stability, and to do the kind of things that we are talking
about doing.
Senator Burns. That is good news. Also, when you integrate
they have still got to be part of a team and they have got to
understand what position they play on the team, so to speak. I
have been always concerned about that.
IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES (IED)
Under another, I would like some sort of a briefing
whenever we get time, and I can communicate this with Secretary
Brownlee, but deploying new technologies for detection and
worrying about these roadside bombs and detection devices. Is
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)--are you
satisfied with the progress that DARPA is making in new
technologies for detection?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, we have within the Army an IED task
force. I do not want to get into a lot of detail of what they
are doing, but let me say that not just DARPA but every agency
that can help has been asked to help and has been very
forthcoming. Let me just say that we are pleased with what this
task force is doing and what they are accomplishing and what it
looks like we can accomplish, and we would be happy to provide
that to you in a different session.
Senator Burns. Well, it looks like this is the wave of the
future and I think that is pretty important.
That is all the questions I have and I want to congratulate
the General on his boots.
General Schoomaker. Sir, those are Wyoming boots.
Senator Burns. That is what I thought. Are you as good a
roper as the boots are?
General Schoomaker. I am a half-decent roper. Are you a
heeler?
Senator Burns. I can do both ends, but I am not very good.
General Schoomaker. Good. I do not play golf; I do that.
Senator Burns. Good man.
Senator Stevens. The most important question is, do you
fish, General?
Senator Burns. He does that, too.
Senator Stevens. We will cover that later.
Tell us about the Future Combat System and what the status
of that project, program, is now, will you please?
FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, let me say a little bit about the
program. As you know, it is the Army's system of systems
approach to equipping our future forces. We intend to convert
most of our heavy units to that and maybe some others in the
future. Right now we are looking at an initial operational
capability by 2010 and a full operational capability by 2012.
It is all in R&D development right now and, as I said, we have
this approach with a lead system integrator where the
contractor works very closely with the Army in the development
of these systems.
Do you want to comment on what we intend to do with it?
General Schoomaker. I think the best statement is that we
think we are going to fulfill, we have got confidence we are
going to fulfill, the Future Combat System. We are protecting
the funding. We are moving forward on it. We are informing
ourselves with our current operations and spiraling things into
Future Combat System, and we are trying to pull technologies as
they are developed back into the current force.
So I look at the Future Combat System not as a destination,
but as an effort every day as we move out there. I am fairly
confident that we are going to do well there. The biggest
challenge we have in the Future Combat System in my view is the
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (C\4\ISR), the battle command
and the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aspects
of that, because it is a network, it is dependent upon the
network, and we must achieve the networkcentricity that is
required for us to really optimize what the Future Combat
System holds. It will significantly improve our ability to
operate as part of a joint team.
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST
Senator Stevens. Gentlemen, I think I must take
responsibility for the fact that there will be no supplemental
this year, in the balance of this fiscal year. We just spent
too much time on those supplementals in the past. I had the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) take a look at policies we
have followed now since the Persian Gulf war and those policies
have been that in the initial periods of a war, engagement
overseas, we have followed the practice that the Commander in
Chief takes money from the funds we have already made available
for the Department of Defense and uses them in the conduct of
that activity and then later comes in and asks for a
supplemental which repays the amounts that have been taken from
the regular accounts, and then provides for the balance of the
fiscal year for those activities using the experience of the
first quarter, quarter and a half of the new fiscal year to
determine how much will really be needed for that fiscal year.
My question to you is, you have not lived through those
periods, but in terms of your judgment has the Army--the Army
bears the real brunt of this type of policy. Has it in anyway
been harmed by that practice? Is it a practice we should
abandon and ask for a supplemental now? The budget will have at
least $30 billion indicated as being available for the
supplemental some time after the beginning of next calendar
year.
I want to know, are you willing to go on the record and
tell us whether this policy adversely affects the Army in its
activities in the conduct of the war?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir. We have looked at this very
carefully and we believe with the funds we have in fiscal year
2004 both in our budget and from the supplemental that we can
clearly get to the end of fiscal year 2004. If we get in
trouble, OSD has assured us they are able to help. Beyond
fiscal year 2004 when we would have the funds available in the
fiscal year 2005 budget, we would be able to cash flow funds
out of third and fourth quarter funds to help us in the first
and second quarters, and if there are additional problems that
might arise, we have checked with OSD and they believe the
administration is capable of providing any other help we might
need, which means we should be able to carry ourselves at least
through the end of March next year, maybe a little beyond. I
would not want to put a date on it, but at least until then.
That is our best estimate.
Senator Stevens. That is the policy we followed in Kosovo
and Bosnia and as a matter of fact in the initiation of the
Persian Gulf war.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. But there has been a request that we
change that policy. You are confident that you can live with
this policy in terms of this war?
Mr. Brownlee. Notwithstanding any emergencies that we do
not see now, sir, we can.
Senator Stevens. General and all your general officers, you
lived--I am going over the line a little bit here--you lived
through these other engagements. Was the Army inconvenienced in
Bosnia or in Kosovo in that manner of funding the operations
overseas?
General Schoomaker. Sir, not that I am aware of. The only
thing that I would say--and it is a little bit below the radar
screen probably--but as you know, there are anti-deficiency
rules and there are times when we could make better decisions
if there was certainty of funding in certain areas, so that we
may be able to not only anticipate better but provide better
fiscal management if we had the opportunity to do a little
longer lead time on some things.
But in terms of the macro picture and the big news, I am
not aware of there having been a problem in that.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
TRAVELING ARMY EXHIBIT ON INTEGRATION
As you can imagine, as part of my work I try my very best
to travel and meet and listen to men and women in uniform. I
find that there are two elements involved in the development of
a combat soldier. One is morale, naturally; and the other is
the sense of belonging to a unit.
So some years ago I began questioning people and, to my
surprise--I should not have been surprised--almost no one had
ever heard of the Fifth Regimental Combat Team, made up of
Puerto Ricans, which served in World War II. When I tell that
to the Puerto Rican Americans, their eyes light up and they
say: My God, we had our men in there?
Even with all the documentaries we have had about the
members of the Army Air Corps, the Tuskegee Airmen, not too
many Americans are aware of them. But when you tell them that
this unit protected bombers and never lost a single bomber they
are stunned. They were made up of men who were segregated, like
the Puerto Ricans were segregated. Then when I tell them that
there was a Filipino regiment, a combat team, sent to the
Philippines just before December 7 and they ended up the war
with less than 800 men because they were left there by General
MacArthur to serve as the basis of a guerrilla force, they are
stunned. When I tell Hispanic Americans that 17 of them have
medals of honor, they cannot believe it.
So, Secretary, you and I have worked out something of a
traveling exhibit. We are going to send them all over the
museums of the posts. I just want to know, how is it coming
along.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir. Sir, I will provide the answer for
the record, but to my knowledge we are proceeding with that. I
certainly support what you are doing. I think it will show a
real benefit to the Army in recruiting and we want to do that.
So I thank you for the idea and I will get you a detailed
account of where we are.
[The information follows:]
Traveling Army Art Exhibit
Sir, I have asked our Chief of Military History, Brigadier
General John S. Brown, to take the lead for the Army on this
very important project. A partnership between the National
Center for the Preservation of Democracy and the Army has been
established for the purpose of establishing a traveling
historical exhibit. I believe this is an excellent idea, and
that the evolution through time of an acceptance of cultural
and racial differences is a worthwhile theme. Certainly the
spirit of tolerance is one of the greatest strengths of our
present armed forces and of our democratic heritage. The funds
have been transferred to the Center of Military History.
General Brown's staff is currently working out the contracting
details and assisting in coordinating the traveling venues with
the National Center for the Preservation of Democracy. General
Brown is scheduled to have an office call with you on Monday,
March 22, 2004, and can answer any specific questions you have.
Senator Inouye. Well, we have a lot of talk about human
rights and civil rights. Integration began in the Army. That is
the first place. It was not the Interior Department or any
other Department; it was the Army.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir. Sir, thank you for that.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
RESET
I would like to go back to the reset programs, the
projections for it. It is my understanding from some of the
depots, that a plan to do reset has not--the plans have not yet
materialized, General, while projections for the reset workload
at the depots continue to go down. Is 10/20 the standard our
soldiers deserve? An adequate overhaul, a lot of people
contend, cannot be accomplished anywhere but in the depots.
What is the real reset plan for the depots? Mr. Secretary,
do you want to touch that?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, we are using the depots now. You might
be interested to know that in these depots, particularly the
one in Anniston, we are using them to assist us in preparing
armor kits for all the HMMWV's that are not up-armored as they
cross the line.
Senator Shelby. I know. I was down there. I just saw what
they are doing.
Mr. Brownlee. They are cutting steel and putting together
kits----
Senator Shelby. It is very innovative.
Mr. Brownlee [continuing]. To help us do that, and we are
very appreciative of that. In fact, we fly those over, that is
how important that work is that they are doing there.
Senator Shelby. What about the projected work on reset for
the depots? It has not come forth yet. What do you--what is
going on here?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, a lot of our equipment has not been
brought back yet, and we have provided for I believe it is 17
systems--is that the number that we would propose----
General Schoomaker. I think 15 systems in reset.
Mr. Brownlee [continuing]. That we have provided for, and
it should get to the depots soon. I am not sure why it has not.
Now, some of it we are going to have to do in theater because
it is going to stay there.
Senator Shelby. Would you get back to me on the details of
this? Will you get the details to me?
Mr. Brownlee. Okay, sir, we will do it.
General Schoomaker. Sir, I have got----
Senator Shelby. General?
General Schoomaker [continuing]. A card here, if I could,
comment on that. We requested and received $1.2 billion in
fiscal year 2004 supplemental funding for depot-level resetting
the force, above our President's budget 2005 position. So this
is going to be a massive effort. As I said, this effort will
continue 2 years beyond the emergency as we reset the massive
amount of equipment.
Senator Shelby. We are bringing our equipment up to
readiness status.
General Schoomaker. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING
Senator Shelby. The science and technology (S&T) funding,
General. In comparison to 2004 funding, every R&D account but
one goes down in the 2005 request. Basic research is cut $64
million, applied research is cut $389 million, advanced
technology development is cut $391 million, advanced component
development and prototypes is cut $186 million, RDT&E
management support is cut $34 million, and operational systems
development is cut $167 million.
I am not sure how the R&D program is balanced. I support
FCS, but it seems that the budget is harmful to the Army's
organic labs and this could be a problem, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, we actually--our R&D actually went up
from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005.
Senator Shelby. But not in these specific programs.
Mr. Brownlee. Not in those specific accounts. Sir, we will
have to take a look at them. I suspect also because we had
about $1.2 billion in development funds for Comanche, much of
which will now be directed into procurement, that that number
is going to be adjusted when the budget amendment comes over.
Senator Shelby. Would you look at these accounts, take a
second look?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir, we will.
Senator Shelby. These are organic lab accounts. I think
they are important for the future.
MINIATURE KILL VEHICLE
I want to get, while I have got a little time hopefully, to
Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC). You are very familiar
with that. The SMDC Technical Center is managing the miniature
kill vehicle (MKV) program. What do you think of the MKV
program and the technical center's role?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I would have to take it for the record.
Senator Shelby. Do you want to get back with us on this?
Mr. Brownlee. I will.
[The information follows:]
Miniature Kill Vehicle
Recent changes in policy, brought about by the demise of
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, allow a broader set of
midcourse defense alternatives to be developed, tested and
fielded. The Multiple Kill Vehicles program, formerly titled
Miniature Kill Vehicle, is addressing the need for a lower cost
solution to emerging ballistic missile threats that may carry
multiple reentry vehicles or sophisticated countermeasure
suites. The Army's Space and Missile Defense Technical Center's
long history of demonstrated success in developing advanced
ballistic missile interceptors and in advancing basic science
leading to component miniaturization under the Small Business
Innovative Research program makes it the natural choice to
serve as the Missile Defense Agency's Executing Agent for the
Multiple Kill Vehicles program.
The Multiple Kill Vehicles (MKV) program will address
midcourse discrimination issues created by countermeasures
postulated for the 2010+ timeframe by intercepting all credible
threat objects with one or more kill vehicles. This solution
offers a low system cost and an effective approach against
ballistic missile threats just beginning to emerge by using
multiple kill vehicles deployed from a single booster and
carrier vehicle to intercept all credible objects that have not
been positively identified as non-lethal. At very high closing
velocities, even a low mass kill vehicle will have enough
kinetic energy and penetration capability to kill a threat
warhead in most engagements. This work is indeed critical for
the defense of the United States and our allies against long
range ballistic missiles; however, the capability under
development through the MKV program is not currently designed
to engage battlefield rockets and other short-range threats
currently encountered in Iraq.
Senator Shelby. We have been told that the work is critical
and the technology is badly needed. I do not know if this is
the right forum to discuss all this.
PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY--PHASE 3 (PAC-3) MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR
DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS) REPROGRAMMING
Mr. Brownlee. I am not sure either, sir. I will be happy to
take it for the record.
Senator Shelby. Will you get back with me on this?
Of course, the PAC-3 MEADS transfer to the Army, there was
apprehension in the Congress that the Army might use these
funds to pay other bills. We were met a couple weeks ago with a
reprogramming action. Could you get this to me, too?
Mr. Brownlee. What funds were these, sir?
Senator Shelby. Reprogramming action, MEADS.
General Schoomaker. PAC-3.
Senator Shelby. PAC-3 MEADS.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I will look.
Senator Shelby. Will you get back with us on the record on
that?
[The information follows:]
MEADS Reprogramming
The Army submitted a reprogramming request in order to fund
critical Patriot software and hardware upgrades. These software
and hardware upgrades will address deficiencies within the
current Patriot system that contributed to the two incidents of
fratricide during Operation Iraqi Freedom. These upgrades will
improve situational awareness, command and control,
classification, correlation, and operations in areas of
increased electro-magnetic interference. Since final decisions
on the combined aggregate Patriot/MEADS program, to include
negotiations with international partners, have yet to be
finalized, the MEADS portion of the combined program was deemed
an appropriate bill-payer for these important Patriot upgrades.
Mr. Brownlee. You know, we greatly accelerated that program
just before the war and we were going to bring it back down to
a more reasonable level, because we did really accelerate it
just before the war, PAC-3.
Senator Shelby. If you will discuss those.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
General Schoomaker, as part of the announcement of the
cancellation of the Comanche program, I understand the Army has
decided to use unmanned aerial vehicles to fulfill some of the
capabilities that Comanche was to provide, and that you have
identified over $300 million from that program to procure
additional legacy and future UAV's.
Given that the Fire Scout UAV has been selected to be part
of your Future Combat System force, would the Army be served
better by accelerating procurement of Fire Scout UAV's instead
of buying more legacy systems?
General Schoomaker. Sir, I would have to--again, I would
have to take that for the record. I know that UAV's are a
significant part of our future and a growing part because the
potential there is great. I know as we move to FCS, the Future
Combat System, that they are going to be a large part of that.
As you know, we have had some significant success with
UAV's in the current conflict. We are starting to see greater
potential in some of that. But as to the specifics of that, I
would have to go for the record.
[The information follows:]
UAV Procurement
In order to meet the current requirements for Operation
Iraqi Freedom and the Global War on Terrorism, we are
accelerating the procurement of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
already in production, such as the Shadow Tactical UAV, and the
Raven Small UAV. We are also working to accelerate future
systems such as Fire Scout and the Extended Range/Multi-Purpose
(ER/MP) UAVs. However, both of these future systems are still
in development and thus not available today to meet the
warfighter's need. Army commanders engaged in current
operations hail the capabilities of the Shadow UAV, which
supports Current Force mechanized, light, and Stryker Brigade
Combat Teams, and the Hunter UAV systems, which are fielded to
III Corps, Fort Hood, Texas, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg,
North Carolina, and V Corps, U.S. Army Europe, and serve as the
interim ER/MP UAV. Both current and future UAV systems are part
of the Army's UAV strategy. However, in order to meet the
immediate needs of combatant commanders, we must equip our
units with these current systems until Future Force UAV systems
are developed, integrated and ready for fielding.
Senator Cochran. I hope you would also include in your
response for the record whether or not you think that the $300
million is an adequate investment in advanced UAV's.
AMMUNITION SHORTAGES
There is also a critical shortage of both training and war
reserve ammunition, such as the Hydra-70 rocket. The decision
to cancel the Comanche program and procure new helicopters will
increase the need for training ammunition and of course war
reserve ammunition. The question is how does the Army plan to
address these shortfalls, which we understand could be as high
as $16 billion?
General Schoomaker. Sir, we moved $30 million this year to
increase the capacity of Lake City, which is your small
caliber, 50 caliber and below small arms ammunition, which is
going to mitigate. I think by the end of this year, we will
have capacity that will turn the corner and mitigate the
shortfalls we have had in small arms, which I have been very
concerned about.
As part of the Comanche program, we moved $155 million of
that program as part of the aviation reset, part of the
aviation fix, to the Hydra rocket program. I think it buys
something like 163,000 Hydra rockets in this program; and $93
million into the Hellfire line. This was the point I tried to
make earlier. This movement of money from Comanche into fixing
Army aviation is not just about the helicopters. It is about
UAV, it is about ammunition, it is about MILCON, it is about
simulations, it is about training. It is a holistic approach to
fixing Army aviation, and the point that you have made right
there is one of the most significant.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
THEATER SUPPORT VEHICLES
I understand too that the Army has been impressed by the
performance of leased high-speed vessels and is considering
leasing these types of craft as theater support vessels. There
are several American shipyards capable of producing these
vessels both quickly and economically based on what I
understand to be successful experimentation. What are the
Army's plans for procurement of theater support vessels?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, we have been impressed by the capability
of those vehicles. We are right now considering how they can
help us in our deployments and so we are studying how we can do
that. We do not have right now any plans to lease, but we are
considering how that vehicle can be used. It is much faster
than a normal ship and for some of our deployments we believe
it would be very useful. So we are looking at that.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, good to see you, all of you. You have a pretty
impressive bench behind you.
General Schoomaker. Sir, we need a lot of help.
Senator Leahy. I do not think so, but you have good help
there and that is good.
ADD-ON ARMOR
I understand Secretary Brownlee mentioned before I came in
about the Bradley reactive armor and that you do not have
enough. When I first heard about this reactive armor years ago,
I said, you have got to be kidding, the way it was described.
Then I started seeing some of the tests and all and I must
admit I am very, very much of a fan. I think it is critical. I
have heard great things about its performance. I hope we can
get the funds to expand it. If my son or daughter were among
those in this armor, I would want it there yesterday. I know
some of our Guard forces that are going over into Iraq and
scrounging armor wherever they can, I think it is important we
get it out.
COMANCHE TERMINATION
General, on the Comanche program, General Cody had given me
a call at home before that to let me know about the decision.
Of course, I must admit we did end up chitchatting a little bit
about Montpelier, Vermont, and you are welcome to come up there
any time. As the Secretary has mentioned, General Richard Cody
and I both come from Montpelier, Vermont, and knew each other
when we were growing up. We only say good things about each
other because it is sort of a mutual deterrent pact. But I
cannot really think of anything bad to say about him.
But he told me about the Comanche program. I thought it was
a good decision. I thought it was taking resources away from
too many other very critical aviation programs, all the
infrared missile countermeasures for example.
HEALTH USAGE MONITORING SYSTEM (HUMS)
Let me just mention one, and I admit this is probably the
first time any parochial type questions have ever come out of
this committee, but it is the HUMS program, the Integrated
Mechanical Diagnostic Health and Usage Monitoring System. I am
glad my staff wrote it all out because I have just called it
``HUMS'' and I never was quite sure what it stood for.
But we are using it on the Blackhawks of the 101st Airborne
Division. It is a great diagnostic system. I have seen it
demonstrated. If I was commander and I had 10 helicopters out
there, I would want to know exactly which of the 10 can go out
or how many can go out, and so on.
Are we going to reach a point where we might be equipping
all our helicopters with HUMS? Are we going to be able to find
money for that? I see it as sort of like cheaper to fix the
roof before the rainstorm kind of thing. Mr. Secretary, what do
you think about this?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I know that we have an intense interest
in those kinds of diagnostics maintenance equipment. It has
great use. I am not familiar with right now the extent to which
we intend to buy those and equip all our helicopters with them,
but we can certainly provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
Health Usage Monitoring System (HUMS)
The Army is currently performing a two-year demonstration
on the Health Usage Monitoring System (HUMS). The 101st Air
Assault Division tested HUMS on a number of UH-60 Blackhawks
while deployed to Iraq. The initial reports from this
demonstration are positive. The Army will use the data from
this demonstration to help guide its future policies on
installation and utilization of these types of diagnostic
systems. For future systems, the AH-64D Block III, UH-60M, and
CH-47F programs are planning to install some type of organic
maintenance diagnostic system.
Senator Leahy. Yes, would you have your staff talk to mine.
Let us know where we are on that, because it is something I
have followed very closely. I have helped get some of the money
through here for the pilot programs. I have been impressed. I
have had some things I have helped get money for pilot
programs, they have not worked. I have freely admitted that.
Others do, and this one does seem to work.
General Schoomaker. Sir, if I could add to that, I think
General Cody explained to you, again as part of our Army
aviation modernization program, that as we transfer money from
Comanche it is our intent to go to a two-level maintenance
system in that, as well as going to the automated logbook on
these aircraft. So I am not sure that this system you are
talking about is integral to that, but we are certainly
committed to a far advanced system of maintenance management to
increase our operational readiness and impact the force
maintaining-wise.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, General.
POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS TREATMENT
My last subject. I was up here 3 or 4 weeks ago in Vermont
on a beautiful Sunday morning, having my coffee. My wife is a
nurse. She worked on medical-surgical floors and all, and has
also spent time with the Veterans Administration (VA) hospital
system when I was in law school. She said: Patrick, you have
got to read this. It was this New York Times, this New York
Times magazine, ``Coming Home.'' It is basically talking about
soldiers with post-traumatic disorder. In my generation we
called it shell shock.
It was a very moving article. Since then I cannot tell you
the number of e-mails I have gotten from veterans, from parents
of people who were over abroad, those who are parents of people
in the military or spouses or what-not, who sent me this
article. Of course, we have all the reports of depression and
suicide among our troops. I went out with some other Senators
and my wife to have dinner one evening out at Walter Reed, and
just some of the stories I was hearing there.
The condition requires specialized treatment. You have to
have a system in there that will encourage troops to come
forward. You are out there, you are facing terrible danger. You
may get shot, you may be seriously wounded. You have proven
your bravery, and our men and women are brave. But then there
seems to be among some that it is not brave to come forward and
ask for this treatment.
It has got to be there. You have got to make sure it is
there. I am going to looking at it both on this committee and
on the subcommittee I serve on that oversees the VA.
But can you give me just a broad overview? What kind of
programs do we have? Because I find the suicide rate alarming
among our forces. I find the people who come back terribly
injured, and I do not want them to be rejects of society. They
have earned an awful lot more than that.
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I could not agree more. I appreciate all
of the members who have gone out and visited our troops at
Walter Reed and other hospitals. Clearly, the sacrifices that
these young soldiers have made for our country are deserving of
the very best attention we can get them. I have addressed your
specific questions to those at Walter Reed. This is an integral
part of their care. They receive this kind of care and
counseling right along with the physical medical part, and it
is just clearly integrated in their care.
Senator Leahy. Is this budget going to reflect that?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, it is.
I should also tell you that, while the number of suicides
in the theater has been more than is acceptable to us, it is
not significantly above the norm, and there are still some
cases that are not properly determined and that could put us
substantially or more above the norm. But we conducted, for the
first time in a combat theater, a mental health assessment. We
sent a team out, visited units, talked to soldiers, gathered
data, and came back with some conclusions and recommendations
for how we can do better, not during the war or after the war,
but before we send troops in, what we can do to prepare them
better, as well as--so that they can cope better with the
situations that they face.
I thought it was significant that that was done while the
troops were committed there. But it is the first time we had
ever done that.
Senator Leahy. I commend you for doing that, Mr. Secretary.
I think it is extremely important. I know our men and women are
motivated, but sometimes the things they face are something
they really did not understand. I remember the conversations I
had with my son after he finished out in Parris Island with the
Marine Corps. Of course, like all former marines, the further
he is removed from that the more enjoyable I guess it was. But
at least there they always knew when the explosions were going
off or anything else that that night or the next night or the
next night they are going to be back in their barracks and the
only thing they had to worry about was their drill instructor.
Now we have people out and they are seeing their friends
having their limbs blown off and all and they are facing real
danger, which is unavoidable in these situations. I just want
to make sure that we fulfill our commitment--we tell them to go
out--we fulfill our commitment when they come back. Some of
them--on the one hand, I am very impressed when I see some of
these high-tech prosthetics we have for those who have lost
limbs, which are really amazing. But you also have to have--it
is not just their bodies with some of them.
So I commend you for sending the team out, and please have
your staff keep in touch with me if you have areas in there
that you think would be worthwhile to know.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir, we will.
If I could just add, Mr. Chairman, because I would like for
the committee to know. When we first started getting wounded
soldiers back to Walter Reed in significant numbers and with
the very kind of grievous wounds they had, where they had
clearly lost limbs and this sort of thing, where many of them
were going to be medically retired as disabled--it is amazing
the numbers that want to stay in even though they have lost
limbs, and some have stayed. But I contacted Tony Principi, a
dear friend of mine who runs the Veterans Affairs Department.
We have put together a team. We have people in his
organization. He has people from his organization working at
Walter Reed and other places, and the whole intent of this is
to ensure we have a seamless system for these soldiers, so that
if they are medically retired from the military and then become
part of the Veterans Affairs Department responsibilities nobody
gets dropped off. We take care of them through that, manage
them through that process.
His intent and mine is to make sure that for every single
wounded soldier that is medically retired and becomes a part of
the Veterans Affairs responsibility that that is a seamless
operation.
Senator Leahy. I have gone over my time. Let me just say
that I talked to one young soldier who was there. His wife was
with him and they have a little child, and he was showing me
this leg, mechanical leg, with the computer sensors in it. I
said: Well, what are you going to do now? He looks at me like:
What kind of a question is that, sir? I want to be right back
in the Army. He said: I am going to work hard with this because
I want to go back. I thought: Good for you.
Mr. Brownlee. And many of them have, sir.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It is good to see both
General Schoomaker and Secretary Brownlee. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Yes, we all thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary and General. I do think there is a lot of comment
being made around here now about how the Army is being harmed
by these decisions that have been made with regard to the
budget. I want to tell you before we finish our bill we will
confer with you to make sure that you have the flexibility you
need to use any funds that are available, not just in the
Department of Defense, but to the President, period, to assure
there be no shortfall in funds while we have soldiers in the
field, keeping in mind that from this Senator's point of view
the worst thing that can possibly happen to the Army as well as
the Senate is to have a post-election session. We get nothing
done and I assure you you would not get any more money after
the election than you would get after January 1, but it would
be a very arduous period in which to try to get it.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I would like to avoid a post-election session in the
interests of the people who are at war. We do not need that
after the election. I hope to work with you to make sure you
have the money you need and have all the flexibility you need.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Les Brownlee
Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T)
Question. I note that basic and applied research comprises only
about one-tenth of the Army's $10.4 billion request for RDT&E funding
in fiscal year 2005. While funding for development of mature
technologies is important, it has long been my belief that investments
in basic science and technology are where cutting-edge breakthroughs
occur. For DOD, this means that our warfighters are able to employ
transformational technologies sooner. Would you please comment on the
importance of basic S&T investments for Army transformation?
Answer. The Army's basic research program produces new knowledge to
fuel revolutionary advances and leap-ahead technology that enable Army
Transformation. The program invests in world-class expertise
(government, academic, and industry) and state-of-the-art equipment. It
balances its investment between in-house Army unique research and
leveraging external scientific research that has great potential for
military applications. The fiscal year 2005 budget submission reflects
the Army's sustained commitment to make leap-ahead science and
technology (S&T) investments that will provide high payoff
transformational capabilities for our Soldiers.
Army S&T investments, laboratories, and research, development, and
engineering centers are essential to provide America's Army with
sustained overmatch in land combat. The Army continues to maintain a
robust S&T portfolio and workforce to provide solutions to fill the
capability gaps being identified in current operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq and will continue to do so in the future. Through its S&T
investments, the Army fosters innovation and accelerates and matures
technologies to enable Future Force capabilities and exploit
opportunities to transition technologies to the Current Force.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg
ATIRCM
Question. In addition to updating deployed Aircraft Survivability
Equipment (ASE) systems, it is my understanding that the Army has
successfully developed and begun to produce a next generation system,
the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATIRCM) that will protect
helicopter crews from threats they currently face. What are the Army's
plans to deploy the ATIRCM to rotary wing assets?
Answer. The ATIRCM consists of an active LASER jammer and functions
as part of a suite containing a Common Missile Warning System, an
Improved Countermeasure Munitions Dispenser (ICMD), and the Advanced
Infrared Countermeasure Munitions (AIRCMM--flares). This system
protects aircraft against all known and currently projected infrared
threat missile systems. The Army will start fielding the ATIRCM to Army
Special Operations Aviation in the near future. Conventional Army
Aviation units will receive the ATIRCM shortly thereafter. Recent
decisions resulted in accelerating the fielding of the ATIRCM system by
three full years.
Question. Secretary Brownlee, the Congress provided approximately
$7 million in fiscal year 2004 for the development and integration of
the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure Multi-Band Laser. This
Multi-Band Laser is a pre-planned product improvement to the Advanced
Threat Infrared Countermeasure system. What is the status of this
effort?
Answer. The Army is in the process of negotiating a task order with
the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATIRCM) Lead Systems
Integrator (BAE) to complete the design of the Multi-Band Laser for
ATIRCM. The estimated award date is scheduled to be not later than
April 15, 2004.
Question. Secretary Brownlee, it is my understanding that the Army
plans to upgrade the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATIRCM)
system with a multi-band laser that is being developed specifically for
the ATIRCM program. Furthermore, the Army has considered inserting an
alternative Multi-Band Laser, developed for the Air Force, into ATIRCM.
What analysis has the Army or Air Force done on the effectiveness of
this alternative Multi-Band Laser
Answer. The U.S. Air Force has done extensive testing of their
multi-band laser (MBL) for use with large aircraft. This testing
includes live missile firings, lab testing, and simulations. The
results of this testing demonstrates that their MBL is effective for
large aircraft. The Air Force has made a great deal of this information
available to the Army. The Army has analyzed this data and determined
that the Air Force MBL could be effective for rotary aircraft. However,
the Army has also determined that integration of this MBL would be
schedule prohibitive and would not meet our acceleration requirements.
______
Questions Submitted to General Peter T. Schoomaker
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES
Question. Does the Army have the authorities it needs to get
existing technologies in the hands of Task Force Improvised Explosive
Device (IED) to better detect these bombs? If not, what authorities do
you need?
Answer. The Army has sufficient legislative authorities to
accelerate and transition proven technologies to the IED Task Force.
Sustained Science and Technology (S&T) investments over time have
enabled Army S&T organizations, including the U.S. Army Materiel
Command's Research Development and Engineering Command and the Army
Corps of Engineers' laboratories, to quickly develop and provide
expedient solutions to the warfighter in support of the Global War on
Terrorism. Examples of successful S&T solutions already being provided
to the warfighter to counter the IED threat include: omni-directional
under vehicle inspection systems to detect IED and contraband and an
electronic countermeasure system that provides force protection by
jamming the prevalent electronic detonators being used to set off IEDs.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Question. What is the active-duty Army doing (besides temporarily
increasing end-strength) to alleviate its reliance on Guard and
Reserves? Can the Army better manage its use of personnel to ensure
more of its active-duty component is available to participate in future
operations?
Answer. In conjunction with temporarily increasing end-strength,
the Army is rebalancing its Active Component/Reserve Component (AC/RC)
capabilities to meet combatant commander needs with an expeditionary,
campaign quality force. The Army is working to provide the proper
Active and Reserve Component balance of units to enhance high demand
and early deploying capabilities. Changes contained in the Program
Objective Memorandum for fiscal years 2004-09 reduce stress on existing
high demand units in both the AC and RC by converting approximately
30,000 of ``Cold War'' force structure. Additionally, we are reducing
structure and creating a Trainees, Transients, Holdees, and Students
account in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. This enhances RC
readiness by allowing the assignment to units of only those Soldiers
who are available for deployment. To reduce RC demand for current
operations in Iraq, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has called
upon the U.S. Marine Corps to provide a division sized force for
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) 2. The Active Component is aggressively
reconstituting forces while converting to a modular based unit design
to increase capabilities for the Global War on Terrorism and prepare
for potential OIF3 and 4 deployments.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Stevens. Thank you both very much.
General Schoomaker. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Brownlee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
March 10.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, McConnell, Burns, and
Inouye.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND, SECRETARY, UNITED
STATES NAVY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning. This morning, we're pleased
to welcome the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval
Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to discuss
the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
Secretary England, we welcome you back after your time away
with the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. England. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Admiral Clark, this is your fourth time
before the committee, and we welcome you again. And, General
Hagee, we also welcome you, sir.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Navy
and Marine Corps for the extraordinary commitment and
dedication to duty. The ever-increasing demands placed upon the
men and women of the military do not go unnoticed here in
Congress, and we really hope that you'll convey our thanks to
all of the forces under your command. Our forces are deployed
to more locations around the world than ever before, and will
be called upon to return to some familiar places, like Haiti.
We've heard a lot recently about your efforts to reduce manning
and end strength. We've also heard about the new challenges
associated with the joint strike fighter, and are anxious to
hear about your shipbuilding initiatives.
Gentlemen, we look forward to hearing more about these
topics and your budget priorities. I thank you for your
personal visits in the past, and, as always, your full
statements are already a part of the record.
And I turn to my co-chairman, Senator Inouye, for his
remarks.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And,
gentlemen, thank you for being here with us to discuss your
fiscal year 2005 budget request.
The Navy and Marine Corps forces are performing
magnificently, as the chairman has stated, in difficult
environments, from Operations in Iraq to Afghanistan and, most
recently, in Haiti. The operational tempo is high, and forces
are stretched thin. I would like to hear from you today on the
impact that these operations have on the budget, and the effect
on the forces if no supplemental funding is requested this
fiscal year.
I also look forward to discussing how the fiscal year 2005
budget request continues to support the men and women serving
the Department of the Navy while, at the same time, balancing
the modernization of today's forces with the transformation of
tomorrow's fleet.
The Navy and Marine Corps each have a number of significant
investment programs underway. For the Navy, it's the E-2C
Advanced Hawkeye, the next generation of destroyer DD(X) and
carrier CVN 21, the Littoral combat ship and the Virginia class
submarine, to name a few. The Marine Corps is investing heavily
in the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Joint Strike
Fighter, and the V-22 Osprey.
This committee knows well, as do each of you, that these
major acquisition programs tend to experience significant cost
and schedule growth as many of the programs I just mentioned
have experienced over the course of their development. Although
the capabilities that these programs will bring to the naval
forces will surpass those of our adversaries, we still have an
obligation to modernize equipment for use in today's conflicts
and to ensure that the sailors, marines, and their families are
taken care of. As you know, this is a difficult balance to
strike. And so I look forward to working with each of you this
year as we review our budget, and your budget, for the fiscal
year 2005, and to hearing your remarks today on how to maintain
the finest naval and marine forces in the world.
And I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary?
Pardon me Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just----
Senator Stevens. I apologize. I didn't see you come in,
sir.
Senator Cochran. I'm happy to be here to help you welcome
this distinguished panel before our committee, Secretary
England, Admiral Clark, and General Hagee.
We understand the enormous strain that's been placed on the
Navy and Marine Corps team, with major operations all over the
world. It has already been mentioned by the chairman and the
distinguished Senator from Hawaii that operations are underway
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Haiti. You have deployed nine
aircraft carriers and 10 big-deck amphibious ships to these
areas of major operations, and it indicates that this team is
hard at work, and we are hopeful that we can find a way, within
the constraints of the budget that we have to operate under,
that we can provide the funds that you need to continue to
protect those who are deployed and to help ensure that they
carry out their missions successfully. I'm confident that
that's the purpose that we will bring to this process, and we
thank you for being here today to help acquaint us with the
challenges you face and let us know how we can be helpful to
you and to our country.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator. Again, I
apologize. I didn't see you come in. You were sort of stealthy
here this morning.
Mr. Secretary?
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND
Mr. England. Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, members of
the committee, it is a distinct privilege and a great honor to
appear before you again as Secretary of the Navy.
It is great to be back, back with the very best Navy and
Marine Corps in our Nation's history, and particularly to be
back with Admiral Vern Clark and General Mike Hagee. Admiral
Clark and General Hagee are both magnificent military leaders,
and I am distinctly privileged and proud to serve with them.
On behalf of all those great Americans in uniform, I thank
you for ensuring that we are properly resourced. And on behalf
of all our deployed men and women, and especially their
families, I also thank you for your personal visits to our
areas, both in combat and our home bases.
This is, indeed, a critical budget year for the Department
of the Navy. This year, we have established a future course for
our naval forces to quickly respond to and to quickly defeat
future threats. We have been working for the past 3 years to
develop this integrated program, a program where line items are
now linked to provide synergy and complementary capabilities.
The fiscal year 2005 proposal before you is more than just a
budget. This is a naval roadmap for the future, and it should
provide the foundation for many successive administrations.
Another critical aspect of the fiscal year 2005 proposed
budget is our people. People continue to be our most valuable
asset. We are a strong, well-trained, high-motivated and
combat-ready force. Retention is at record levels, and
recruiting continues to be robust. We have the best people, and
their morale is high.
One last comment. A guiding principle in all we do is
improving the effectiveness of our organization to also gain
efficiency. We are good stewards of the taxpayers' money. At
the same time, being a very lean organization makes us more
vulnerable to budget adjustments and modifications.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In summary, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), the
Commandant and I are confident that our proposed budget will
dramatically improve our ability to secure America in the
future while protecting our Nation today. And I thank you for
the opportunity to be here today with you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon R. England
VALUE TO OUR NATION--THE NAVY/MARINE CORPS TEAM
INTRODUCTION
During my last appearance before this Committee in February 2002
and as reported in that statement, the Navy and Marine Corps
contributions in the ``War Against Terrorism'' have been significant
and important in the overall success of U.S. military forces. This
continues to hold true today. Our Navy and Marine Corps Team projects
decisive, persistent, joint power across the globe, in continuing to
prosecute the war on terrorism.
Projecting power and influence from the sea is the enduring and
unique contribution of the Navy and Marine Corps to national security.
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) demonstrated the strategic agility and
operational flexibility that forward deployed Naval expeditionary
forces provide. This committee's support has been vital for the Navy
and Marine Corps Team to exploit the access afforded by the seas and to
respond to the full spectrum of contingencies. Congressional support
has led to increased readiness which was proven in OIF, where dispersed
military forces, networked together, fought as a single, highly
coordinated joint team.
Naval warfare will continue its progression to operate in a joint
environment in responding to new threats and to the increased
asymmetric capabilities of our enemies. We will be bold and continue to
develop new capabilities and concepts, and fund them in quantities that
are relevant to tomorrow's emerging threats. We have embraced
transformation. We are addressing the challenge to operationalize our
vision, Naval Power 21, with technological, organizational, and
doctrinal transformation.
The following statement highlights key elements of the fiscal year
2005 President's Budget applicable to the Department of the Navy within
the Balanced Scorecard approach of managing Operational, Institutional,
Force Management and Future Challenges Risks.
fiscal year 2005 budget priorities--underway with naval power 21
The fiscal year 2005 Department of the Navy Budget fulfills our
essential warfighting requirements. We are resourced to fight and win
our Nation's wars and our number one priority, the war against
terrorism, is reflected across each allocation. Additionally, we
continue to invest in future technologies and capabilities that are
part of a broader joint warfighting perspective. The Navy and Marine
Corps are continuously working with other Services to draw on the
capabilities of each Service, to eliminate redundancy in acquisition,
and create higher levels of military effectiveness. A prime example is
our agreement with the Department of the Air Force to merge our two
Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) programs into a single program that
will produce a common family of radios for use aboard our ships,
submarines, and aircraft. The following summarizes the fiscal year 2005
Budget request priorities for the Department of the Navy:
Personnel Salary and Benefits.--Smart, motivated and capable people
are a key element to any successful transformation effort. Our Navy and
Marine Corps are increasingly a technologically advanced maritime force
and we are in competition with the private sector to attract and retain
the best men and women we can find. Accordingly, our budget includes a
3.5 percent basic pay raise for all military personnel. Additionally,
housing allowances have been increased to buy down out-of-pocket
housing expenses for our military personnel. Concurrent with this
commitment to provide an appropriate level of pay and benefits to our
Sailors, Marines, and their families is a responsibility to operate
this Department as efficiently and effectively as possible. While we
want the best people we can get to serve in the Navy and Marine Corps,
we don't want a single person more than we need to properly operate the
force. Job satisfaction comes not only just from compensation, but also
from meaningful service--we owe it to our people to ensure that they
are given duties and equipment appropriate to a volunteer force.
Operations and Maintenance.--The operations and maintenance
accounts are funded with over a $2 billion increase. The present
environment requires Naval forces to be both forward deployed and
capable of surging when called. This account will help develop the
transformational Fleet Response Plan (FRP). This is the means to
institutionalize the capability to maintain a more responsive force
that is ready to surge, more efficient to maintain, and able to
reconstitute rapidly.
Shipbuilding Account.--The Department's shipbuilding plan supports
our transformational vision and increases the number of new
construction ships from seven in fiscal year 2004 to nine in fiscal
year 2005 plus one SSBN Engineered Refueling Overhaul (ERO). Initial
LCS and DD(X) platforms are funded from the RDT&E account.
Additionally, the Navy's fiscal year 2005 spending plan completes the
purchases of the last three DDG-51 Class ships for a total of 62 ships.
Aviation Account.--The Department's fiscal year 2005 Budget request
is structured to maintain the continued aviation superiority of the
Navy and Marine Corps. The Naval aircraft procurement plan emphasizes
replacing costly stand-alone legacy platforms with more efficient and
capable integrated systems. The number of aircraft requested increases
from 99 in fiscal year 2004 to 104 in fiscal year 2005 which includes
five VXX helicopters. The budget continues to maximize the return on
procurement dollars, primarily through the use of multi-year
procurement (MYP) for the F/A-18E/F, the E-2C, the MH-60S and the KC-
130J programs. Development funding is provided for Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF), MV-22, AH-1Z/UH-1Y, CH-53X, EA-18G and the Multi-mission
Maritime Aircraft (MMA). The budget reflects an amended acquisition
strategy for the V-22 to fund interoperability issues and cost
reduction initiatives.
Munitions Account.--During OEF and OIF, the Department expended
less precision ordnance than projected. In this environment, the
precision munitions purchases for fiscal year 2005 have been decreased
for JDAMs and LGBs. This decrease in procurement provides no increased
risk to the DON but merely reflects the lower utilization rates of
expended ordnance.
RDT&E Account.--An increase of $1.4 billion reflects our commitment
to future transformational capabilities and technology insertion for
major platforms including DD(X), LCS, CVN-21, V-22, Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF), Advanced Hawkeye (AHE), and MMA. As demonstrated in
recent operations, our Naval forces have been able to project
overwhelming combat power because they are technologically superior. We
continue to sustain a robust RDT&E effort as we transform the Navy and
Marine Corps to the next generation of combat systems.
Effectiveness and Efficiency.--A guiding principle in all we do is
improving effectiveness to gain efficiency. The very best organizations
are the most efficient organizations. If you are very efficient, you
incorporate technology more quickly, you can develop new systems and
capabilities, and you can bring them on line faster. Underlying all of
the previous accounts and our execution of them is a continuing and
concerted focus to achieve the most efficient organization. The Fleet
Response Plan, TacAir Integration, and establishment of the Commander
Naval Installations are a few of our initiatives to improve
effectiveness within the Department.
Our objective for the fiscal year 2005 Budget request is to move
forward with Naval Power 21. This budget builds upon the foundation
laid in the fiscal year 2004 program and reaffirms our commitment to
remain globally engaged today while developing future technology to
ensure our future military superiority. We are also continuing to
emphasize the Department's commitment in the areas of combat
capability, people, technology insertion and improved business
practices. With our fiscal year 2005 Budget request we are committed to
executing this vision.
CY 2003 OPERATIONAL SUCCESSES (A NATION AT WAR)
The extraordinary capability of our joint forces to project power
around the world in support of vital national objectives was
demonstrated over the last year. The maritime contribution to our
success in the defeat of Saddam Hussein's Baathist forces, as well as
in support of other joint engagements in the Global War on Terrorism,
was significant. The rapid deployment and the warfighting capability of
your Naval force in the liberation of Iraq provided an example of the
importance of readiness and the responsive capabilities to support our
Nation's objectives in an era of unpredictability and uncertainty. The
demonstrated importance of our multi-dimensional Naval dominance, our
expeditionary nature, our ability to deal with complex challenges, and
adaptability of our forces are illustrative of the high level of return
on investment of your Naval force.
The accomplishments of this past year tell the Naval forces
readiness story and its return on investment. The ships, aircraft,
weapon systems, and readiness you funded provided our Sailors and
Marines the tools necessary to remain the premiere maritime and
expeditionary combat ready force. In preparing for and conducting
operations in the Iraq Theater, speed of expeditionary operations and
sustainment were important military competencies. Naval forces applied
dominant, persistent, decisive and lethal offensive power in support of
coalition warfighting objectives. The speed, agility, flexibility and
persistence of Naval combat capability helped end a regime of terror
and liberate a people during OIF.
The past year has been one of significant accomplishment. Our men
and women operating in the air, on and under the sea, and on the ground
are at the leading edge in the Global War on Terrorism. As in OEF, we
once again have demonstrated Naval forces' unique value in contributing
to the security of our Nation and our friends and allies.
--During OIF, more than 50 percent of our force was forward deployed.
The deployment of seven Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) and eight
large deck amphibious ships proved our ability to be both a
surge and a rotational force demonstrating our flexibility and
responsiveness.
--Navy and Marine Corps aircraft flew more than 8,000 sorties and
delivered nearly 9,000 precision-guided munitions.
--Over 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from 35 coalition
ships, one-third of which were launched from submarines. The
highest number of TLAM's launched in one day occurred on March
21, 2003--nearly 400 Tomahawks.
--Navy Special Forces, MCM, EOD and coalition counterparts cleared
more than 900 square miles of water, ensuring the safe passage
of critical humanitarian relief supplies to the Iraqi people.
--Marines from the I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF), supported by
Sea Basing concepts, made one of the swiftest combat advances
in history. They fought 10 major engagements, destroying nine
Iraqi divisions in the 450 mile advance into Iraq.
--Eleven Maritime Prepositioned Force (MPF) ships provided equipment
and sustainment for over 34,000 Marines and Sailors and
fourteen amphibious ships embarked and delivered another 12,000
Marines and Sailors and their equipment.
Since the end of major combat operations, Naval forces have been
instrumental in supporting the coalition's goals of security,
prosperity and democracy in Iraq. Coalition maritime forces have
diligently supported the United Nations Security Council Resolution
1483. They have queried over 6,000 vessels, boarded close to 3,500 and
diverted approximately 430. These forces have confiscated and returned
to the Iraqi people approximately 60,000 barrels of fuel. Additionally,
seaward protection of the Al Basara Oil Terminal (ABOT) is enabling the
generation of critically needed oil revenue. Since re-opening, the ABOT
has pumped 261,500,000 barrels of oil valued at over $7.5 billion.
Navy Seabees and Marine Engineers, as the I MEF Engineer Group,
undertook construction initiatives that built and repaired major
roadways and bridges, and completed major utility restoration projects.
In all, 150 projects valued at $7.1 million were completed.
Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) forces are working with
Army counterparts in support of the coalition forces and Iraqi Police
and are collecting over 2,000 pounds of unexploded ordnance per week.
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS TODAY (CURRENT READINESS)
Today's Naval forces exist to control the seas, assure access, and
project power beyond the sea to influence events and advance American
interests. Navy and Marine Corps forces continue to lead the way to
secure the peace by responding with speed, agility, and flexibility.
The value of Naval forces continues to be demonstrated through the
projection of decisive, persistent, joint power across the globe. The
investment in training, maintenance, parts, ordnance, flying hours,
steaming days, and combat ready days coupled with our forward presence
and our ability to surge has positioned Naval forces as the most
effective and efficient military force.
Congress' investment in readiness over the past several years has
paid large dividends for Naval forces during OIF. With combat forces
operating in two fronts in the GWOT our readiness investments have
resulted in enhanced Naval forces ready to strike on a moment's notice,
anywhere, anytime. Our success in deploying 9 out of 12 aircraft
carriers and 10 out of 12 big deck amphibious ships to major combat
areas of operation in demanding environments is attributable to the
continued improvements in current readiness.
The Department is in the process of re-deploying Navy and Marine
forces in preparation for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM II. Navy and Marine
Forces will deploy in two seven-month rotations with the first
beginning this month. This initial ground rotation will include about
25,000 Marines, 3,500 Marine Reservists, over 5,000 active duty Navy
and 800 Naval Reservists.
Since the return of our forces from OIF we have invested heavily in
constituting the Navy and Marine Corps Team for the next fight.
Continued successful programmed investment will ensure we have the most
capable forces to face the unique challenges ahead. The fiscal year
2005 Budget continues a broad range of modernization and readiness
initiatives for Naval forces.
Acquisition Programs
The Fleet and Marine forces continue to take delivery of the most
sophisticated weapon systems in the world. In 2003, the Navy launched
the first of two new classes of ships, USS VIRGINIA (SSN 774) and USS
SAN ANTONIO (LPD 17), commissioned the aircraft carrier USS RONALD
REAGAN (CVN 76), and continued timely delivery of the ARLEIGH BURKE
Class guided missile destroyers and F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets.
We are continuing to build on previous budgets to ensure we equip
and train our forces to help us continue to meet the challenges of the
future. What the DON budget will buy to advance our vision in Naval
Power 21:
Shipbuilding.--The fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2009
shipbuilding rate of 9.6 battle force ships per year is up from 8.4
battle force ships per year for the same period in fiscal year 2004.
The fiscal year 2005 Budget request closes the procurement gap and with
the exception of a slight reduction in fiscal year 2006, provides an
upward trend through the FYDP, procuring 17 battle force ships by
fiscal year 2009. The fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2009 investment
is an average of $13 billion per year in new construction. The fiscal
year 2005 to fiscal year 2009 plan also procures three Maritime Pre-
positioned Force (Future) (MPF(F)) ships and a MPF(F) aviation variant.
While our build rate drops to six in fiscal year 2006, this is a
reflection of a shift to the next generation surface combatants and sea
basing capabilities.
The Navy has nine new ships and one SSBN refueling requested in the
fiscal year 2005 budget, as well as substantial shipyard/conversion
work. This investment includes:
--3 DDG's ($3.4 billion)
--1 VIRGINIA Class submarine SSN-774 ($2.5 billion)
--1 LPD-17 ($967 million)
--2 T-AKE ($768 million)
--1 DD(X) ($221 million) (RDT&E funded)
--1 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) ($108 million) (RDT&E funded)
--1 SSBN conversion/refueling ($334 million).
Fiscal year 2005 marks the final year of DDG 51 procurement,
bringing to closure a 10-ship fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005 MYP
contract awarded in fiscal year 2002. The Navy will move to the DD(X)
and LCS hulls as quickly as possible. In addition to vitally needed new
capability, these ships will increase future shipbuilding rates.
Investment in these platforms will also help maintain critical
industrial bases.
The Department is modernizing its existing submarine with the
latest technology while, at the same time, continuing to replace aging
fast attack submarines with the new VIRGINIA Class submarine. The
VIRGINIA Class design is complete and the lead ship (SSN 774), will
commission on schedule. Fiscal year 2004 funded the first of five
VIRGINIA Class submarines under a MYP contract. The second submarine of
the MYP contract is funded in fiscal year 2005. Consistent with
Congressional approval of five year-five ship MYP authority (fiscal
year 2004 to fiscal year 2008) for SSN 774, the Navy is maintaining one
submarine per year through fiscal year 2008.
The DON accelerated one LPD from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year
2005 leveraging fiscal year 2004 advanced procurement resources
provided by Congress. The lead ship detail design has been completed
and lead ship construction is over 80 percent complete with a
successful launch in July 2003. Production effort is focused on a
November delivery. The LPD 17 Class ship represents our commitment to a
modernized expeditionary fleet.
The fiscal year 2005 Budget request also provides for procurement
of two auxiliary cargo and ammunition ships (T-AKEs) in the National
Defense Sealift Fund. These will be the seventh and eighth ships of the
class. Lastly, the fiscal year 2005 Budget request accelerates the lead
MPF(F) from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2007 to reflect an emphasis
on sea basing capabilities.
DD(X) is a centerpiece to the transformational 21st Century Navy
and will play a key role in the Naval Power 21 strategic concept. This
advanced warship will provide credible forward Naval presence while
operating independently or as an integral part of Naval expeditionary
forces. The DD(X) lead ship design and initial construction contract
will be awarded in fiscal year 2005.
Conversion and Modernization.--The fiscal year 2005 Budget request
proposes advanced procurement funds for the USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70)
Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH), now scheduled to begin in fiscal
year 2006. CVN 70 has sufficient reactor fuel for one additional surge
deployment.
Funding for the TICONDEROGA Class cruiser modernization effort
began in fiscal year 2004 and continues in fiscal year 2005. The
cruiser modernization effort will substantially increase the service
life and capability of CG 47 Class ships. The conversion will reduce
combat system and computer maintenance costs, replace obsolete combat
systems, and extend mission relevance service life. Fiscal year 2005
will fund advanced procurement items for the first cruiser
modernization availability in fiscal year 2006.
Funding is included in fiscal year 2005 to complete the conversion
of the third and the overhaul of the fourth hull of four OHIO Class
SSBNs to SSGNs. The SSGN conversion provides a covert conventional
strike platform capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk missiles. The
fiscal year 2006 Budget request will complete the conversion of the
last SSGN. All four of these transformed platforms will be operational
by CY 2007.
Aircraft Production.--Consistent with the fiscal year 2004 program,
the fiscal year 2005 Budget request reflects continued emphasis on re-
capitalizing our aging aircraft. Our focused efforts to aggressively
``shore up'' operational readiness by providing requisite funding for
our Flying Hour Program, Ship Depot Maintenance, Ship Operations, and
Sustainment, Re-capitalization and Modernization accounts continue.
While we continue to make substantial investments in readiness accounts
and working capital accounts, we identified the resources to procure
104 aircraft in fiscal year 2005. The Department's aircraft procurement
plan emphasizes replacing costly legacy platforms with more efficient
and capable integrated systems. This has resulted in significant
investments in transformational aircraft and program investments across
the spectrum of aviation capabilities. Such valuable investments in
more capable aircraft have allowed a reduction of 40 aircraft from
fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2009.
During the past year, we continued to enjoy the fruits of our
aviation investments with the successful first deployment and
operational employment of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet in support of
OIF. Highly praised for tactical capability and platform reliability,
the F/A-18 E/F program has been funded to provide a transformational
radar, helmet mounted sight, advanced targeting pod and integrated
weapons system improvements. Additionally, we recently awarded a second
MYP contract that includes the EA-18G airframe to replace the Navy's
aging EA-6B beginning in fiscal year 2009.
All helicopter missions continue to be consolidated into the MH-60R
and MH-60S airframes. These helicopter platforms are the cornerstone of
Navy helicopter concept of operations designed to support the CSG and
ESG in various mission areas.
The Department significantly increases the funding requested for
MMA. MMA will provide the Navy with strategic blue water and littoral
capability by re-capitalizing the P-3 Maritime Patrol Aircraft broad
area anti-submarine, anti-surface, maritime and littoral Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capability.
Progress continues towards delivering a high-quality aircraft to
the Marines and Special Forces including increasing capability and
interoperability of the aircraft, investing to reduce production costs,
and maximizing production efficiency. Since the resumption of V-22
flight-testing, in May 2002, the V-22 is satisfying the threshold
levels for all its key performance parameters and reliability and
maintainability measures. V-22 test pilots have recorded more than
1,100 flight hours since that time. The V-22 program will continue Low
Rate Initial Production (LRIP) until the Milestone III decision
expected late CY 2005.
The Department will continue to procure the AH-1Z/UH-1Y. These
aircraft meet the Marine Corps' attack and utility helicopter
requirements by providing increased aircraft agility, airspeed, range,
and mission payload. They provide numerous capability improvements for
the Marine Corps, including increased payload, range and time on
station, improved sensors and lethality, and 85 percent component
commonality. The KC-130J MYP is funded and supported in this budget.
The advantages include an all digital cockpit that reduce aircrew
manning requirements, a new propulsion system that provides more cargo
capability, and increased fuel delivery.
Mine Warfare Programs.--In keeping with the Department's goal to
achieve an organic mine warfare capability in 2005, the budget request
supports the development and procurement of five organic airborne
systems integrated into the MH-60S helicopter: the AQS-20A Mine-hunting
System, the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS), the Airborne
Mine Neutralization System (AMNS), the Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance
System (RAMICS), and the Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep
(OASIS) system. The fiscal year 2005 Budget request also supports the
development and procurement of the Remote Minehunting System (RMS)
integrated into DDG-51 hulls 91-96, and the Long-term Mine
Reconnaissance System (LMRS) integrated into SSN-688. The ALMDS, AQS-
20A, and RMS will reach an initial operating capability in fiscal year
2005. The budget request supports the transition of assault breaching
technologies into acquisition, which will provide a capability to
detect, avoid, and defeat mines and obstacles in the surf and craft
landing zones. In fiscal year 2005, we will continue with our Surface
Mine Countermeasures (MCM) mid-life upgrade plan. We have initiated a
product improvement program for the engines of the MCM-1 AVENGER Class
mine countermeasure ships to enhance their reliability and
availability. We are upgrading our minesweeping capability with new
acoustic generators and magnetic sweep cables, and have programmed
resources to replace our maintenance-intensive mine neutralization
system (AN/SLQ-48) with an expendable mine neutralization system.
Munitions.--The Standard Missile (SM) program replaces ineffective,
obsolete inventories with the procurement of more capable SM-2 Block
IIIB missiles. The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) program continues
procurement of the improved guided missile launching system and the
upgraded Block I missile, providing an enhanced guidance capability
along with a helicopter, air and surface mode. In addition to SM and
RAM, the fiscal year 2005 Budget request provides funding to continue
production of the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) and will support
the first Full Rate Production (FRP) contract award of 82 United States
and 288 international missiles. We have committed to replenish our
precision munitions inventories and to do so, we will utilize a five-
year MYP to maximize the quantity of Tomahawk missiles procured.
Marine Corps Expeditionary Capability.--The Expeditionary Fighting
Vehicle (EFV), formerly the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV),
will provide surface assault elements the requisite operational and
tactical mobility to exploit opportunities in support of joint
operations. The EFV will be capable of carrying a reinforced Marine
rifle squad at speeds in excess of 20 nautical miles per hour from over
the horizon in sea state three. Once ashore, the EFV will provide
Marine maneuver units with a world-class armored personnel carrier
designed to meet the threats of the future. Production representative
vehicle procurement occurred in fiscal year 2003 and will deliver in
fiscal year 2005. IOC will be released in fiscal year 2008 and FOC in
2018.
Also critical to Marine Corps transformation efforts is the Joint
Lightweight 155 mm Howitzer (LW-155). This system will enter FRP in
fiscal year 2005, and our budget includes a request for a Joint Marine
Corps--Army MYP. Another transformational component of the fiscal year
2005 Budget, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), will
continue LRIP delivery.
Alignment
The DON is transforming to dramatically reduce operating and
support costs. Changes will embrace efficiency and result in increased
effectiveness and a higher readiness standard in concert with the
overarching goals of the President's Management Agenda. We have made
several fleet and shore organizational changes that have shown great
potential in maximizing the way forces can be employed and supported.
Fleet Response Plan (FRP).--FRP provides a model for a new joint
presence concept that will transform how the U.S. military is employed.
It refines maintenance, training, and readiness processes in order to
increase the number of combat ready ships and aircraft throughout the
Fleet. FRP ensures six employable Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) always
are ready to respond to a crisis, plus two additional CSGs capable of
deploying to the fight within 90 days of notification (``6+2''). With
the implementation of FRP, half of the Fleet either could be deployed
or postured to surge, able to arrive swiftly with the overpowering
combat power needed either to deter or defeat the hostile intentions of
an adversary, or to win decisively in combat against a significant
enemy.
TacAir Integration.--The Navy and Marine Corps Team embarked on a
Tactical Aircraft Integration plan that will enhance our core combat
capabilities and provide a more potent, cohesive, and affordable
fighting force. The culmination of a long-term effort to an increased
level of readiness from the resources given to us, TacAir integration
seeks to generate a greater combat capability from Naval TacAir.
Through TacAir integration, the Department will reduce the number of
tactical aircraft (JSF and F/A-18) from 1,637 to 1,140 aircraft by
2021. This integration will provide increased combat capability forward
and is in concert with enhanced sea basing concepts. A cornerstone of
this plan is the global sourcing of the Department's TacAir assets and
the funding and maintenance of legacy aircraft at the highest level of
readiness until they are replaced by the JSF and the Super Hornet (F/A-
18 E/F).
Training Resource Strategy (TRS).--TRS was developed to provide
high quality training to our deploying combat forces. The training of
our high technology force in modern warfare has shifted to a network of
existing ranges and installations stateside. Fully implemented, TRS has
resulted in more training options, reduced pre-deployment training
transit time, and has increased productive training days. The USS
ENTERPRISE was the first CSG to deploy under the TRS, utilizing six
training ranges, each unique to the successful completion of her
qualification. TRS supports the FRP and will quickly respond to surge
requirements by delivering and bringing to bear a capable fighting
force.
Current and future readiness requirements underscore the continued
need for realistic training and maximized use of training and testing
ranges. While we continue to find ways to enhance readiness through
increased use of information technology and simulation, live training
on actual ranges and training areas remains critical during the
essential phases of the training cycle. Maintaining training realism
and access to these ranges has been of keen concern to our Naval
forces. We continue to balance the need to maintain a ready and capable
force with the need to be sensitive to environmental and encroachment
issues.
For the last two years, Congress has addressed critical Navy needs
regarding encroachment. Readiness-specific changes to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), Endangered Species Act, and Migratory Bird
Treaty Act will help the Navy meet training and operational needs. The
Navy and Marine Corps has and will continue to demonstrate leadership
in both its military readiness role and as an environmental steward of
the oceans we sail and the lands we train upon. We are pursuing
opportunities for acquiring land buffers adjacent to our training
lands. We are implementing the Integrated Natural Resources Management
Plans prepared under the Sikes Act to address endangered species
concerns in lieu of designating critical habitats. We will continue
operational actions to minimize harm to marine mammals, as we continue
investments in research into marine mammal biology and behaviors. The
Marine Mammal Protection Act is due for reauthorization in this
legislative cycle. To maintain our military readiness, your support is
necessary to retain the proper balance between environmental protection
and military readiness during the reauthorization debate.
Carrier Strike Group (CSG)/Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG).--CSG
alignment is complete and the first Pacific Fleet Expeditionary Strike
Group (ESG-1), centered on the USS PELELIU Amphibious Ready Group and
the embarked Marines of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special
Operations Capable), is completing an eight month deployment. The Navy
deployed an Atlantic Fleet ESG, the USS WASP Amphibious Ready Group,
last month.
The ESG adds to the ARG/MEU, a robust strike, anti-air, anti-
surface, and anti-subsurface capability of a cruiser, destroyer,
frigate and attack submarine and for the first time, the Advanced
Swimmer Delivery System (ASDS). These combined capabilities give the
Combatant Commander a wider variety of options and enables independent
operations in more dynamic environments.
Vieques/NSRR closure.--The former training ranges on Vieques have
been closed and the property has been transferred to the Department of
the Interior (DOI), Fish and Wildlife Service. We have active clean-up
and range clearance programs underway at disposal sites on both East
and West parcels. We are working with the appropriate agencies to
negotiate a Federal Facilities Agreement governing clean-up activities.
We are refining costs to complete clean-up estimates for range areas
and resolve litigation issues filed by the residents of Vieques. We
will close Naval Station Roosevelt Roads by March 31, as directed by
the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act. Naval Activity Puerto
Rico will serve as the caretaker organization following operational
closure. Puerto Rico has established a Local Redevelopment Authority,
and we will proceed quickly to property disposal.
Commander Navy Installations Command (CNI).--We have aligned all
Navy shore installations under a single command that will allow us to
make better decisions about where to invest limited funds. By
consolidating all base operations worldwide and implementing common
support practices the Navy expects to save a substantial amount of
money over the next six years.
Communications
FORCEnet will provide the overarching framework and standard
communication mechanism for future combat systems. Navy Open
Architecture, in conjunction with the FORCEnet standards, will provide
a common open architecture for warfare systems aboard surface,
subsurface and selected airborne platforms such as the E-2C Advanced
Hawkeye. A critical subset application already being procured is the
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), which will be installed on 38
ships and 4 squadrons (16 aircraft) by fiscal year 2006. CEC includes
robust data communication capability among cooperating units in support
of sensor netting. In the future, CEC will also include a Joint Track
Manager to create a single integrated air picture of sufficient quality
to support fire control application for each combat control system.
Navy Marine Corps Internet (NMCI) is operational and providing
commercial IT services for more than 300,000 DON employees and two
Combatant Commanders. To date, we have ordered 330,000 of the expected
345,000 fiscal year 2004 seats. Implementing NMCI has enabled us to
increase the security posture of our networks and has given
unprecedented visibility into IT costs. As we roll out NMCI we are
doing away with the over 1,000 separate networks that the Navy used to
run. We have reduced the number of legacy applications in the Navy's
inventory from 67,000 to about 31,000 and begun further efforts to
reduce this number to around 7,000--an almost 90 percent reduction. As
we proceed with NMCI, we anticipate other opportunities for progress in
areas such as enterprise hosting, software release management, IT
resource analysis and technology insertion.
We have designed the NMCI Operational Evaluation to provide
critical information necessary to determine how well NMCI is supporting
mission of the user and to judge how well service level agreement
metrics measure the service. As part of the spiral development process,
NMCI worked with the testing community to segment the testing effort
into a local evaluation of Network Services and a higher-level
assessment of other Enterprise Services. Testing was completed December
15, 2003; the Final Report is due in April.
navy and marine corps in transformation (future readiness)
The Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps
consider the culture of transformation integral to the development of
future combat capabilities. Innovative capabilities will result in
profound increases in military power, maintaining the Navy and Marine
Corps Team as the preeminent global Naval power. We are now at the
point of delivering on many of our transformational goals.
We have embraced a vision in how Naval forces will contribute to
joint warfighting in the future. This vision can only be implemented
with the support of Congress. This section describes the principal
components of Naval Vision 21.
Acquisition Programs
The fiscal year 2005 Budget request supports continued funding for
accelerated development of several critical technologies into the CVN
21 lead ship. This transformational 21st Century ship, the future
centerpiece of the Navy Carrier Strike Group, will bring many
significant changes to the Fleet. These changes include a new
electrical power generation and distribution system, the electro-
magnetic aircraft launching system, a new enlarged flight deck, weapons
and material handling improvements, and a crew reduction of at least
800. Construction of the CVN 21 remains on track to start in fiscal
year 2007.
Critical components of Sea Power 21 are the DD(X) and LCS. These
ships, designed from the keel up to be part of a netted force, are the
centerpieces of the 21st Century surface combatant family of ships.
DD(X) will be a multi-mission combatant tailored for land attack. LCS
is envisioned to be a fast, agile, relatively small and affordable
combatant capable of operating against anti-access, asymmetric threats
in the littorals. The FYDP includes $2.76 billion to develop and
procure modular mission packages to support three primary missions of
mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare, and anti-terrorism and
force protection. Detail design and construction of the first LCS is
planned to begin in fiscal year 2005.
The V-22 Osprey, a joint acquisition program, remains a top
aviation acquisition priority. The V-22's increased capabilities of
range, speed, payload and survivability will generate truly
transformational tactical and operational opportunities. With the
Osprey, Naval forces operating from the sea base will be able to take
the best of long-range maneuver and strategic agility, and join it with
the best of the sustainable forcible-entry capability. LRIP will
continue until the Milestone III decision is made late CY 2005. We
expect to move from LRIP to FRP in CY 2006.
Another important joint program with the Air Force, the JSF has
just completed the second year of a 10-11 year development program. The
program is working to translate concept designs to produce three
variants. This is a complex process requiring more initial development
than we predicted. JSF development is experiencing typical challenges
that affect System Development and Demonstration (SDD) program schedule
and cost. LRIP was deferred and research and development increased to
cover SDD challenges. The current issues are solvable within the normal
process of design fluctuation, and have taken prudent steps necessary
to meet these challenges.
The plan to re-capitalize the P-3 Maritime Patrol Aircraft with the
MMA was further refined this past year in collaboration with the Broad
Area Maritime Surveillance-Unmanned Aerial Vehicle or BAMS-UAV program.
With a MMA IOC of fiscal year 2013, we also developed a robust
sustainment plan for the current P-3 that includes special structural
inspections and kits that extend the platform service life by a minimum
of 5,000 hours. Additionally, the Department has decided to join the
Army's Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) program as the replacement platform
for the aging EP-3.
In order to maintain Electronic Warfare (EW) superiority, the
Department is pursuing both upgrades in current Airborne Electronic
Attack (AEA) capability as well as a follow-on AEA aircraft to replace
the aging EA-6B. The Navy has selected the EA-18G as its follow-on AEA
aircraft and will begin to replace Navy EA-6Bs in fiscal year 2009.
Continuing an emphasis on transformational systems, the Department
has budgeted R&D funding through the FYDP for several aviation
programs. The Advanced Hawkeye (previously known as E-2 Radar
Modernization Program (RMP)) is funded through the FYDP with the first
production aircraft in fiscal year 2009. A fully automated digital
engine control and improved generators have been incorporated into the
aircraft to improve performance and reliability. Additionally, the
Department has included funding to support procurement of required
capabilities in the Fleet, such as Advanced Targeting Forward Looking
Infra-Red and the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems.
The fiscal year 2005 Budget continues to demonstrate the
Department's commitment to developing, acquiring and fielding
transformational UAV technologies for Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance and tactical missions. The budget includes funding for a
second Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) demonstrator and
continues development of the BAMS. The Navy's Unmanned Combat Air
Vehicle (UCAV-N) is incorporated into J-UCAS under a DOD joint program
office.
Helicopters.--The fiscal year 2005 Budget request includes an
incremental approach to developing a replacement for the current aging
Presidential helicopter. The Presidential Helicopter Replacement
Aircraft (VXX) will enhance performance, survivability, communications,
navigation and executive accommodations inherent in the existing fleet
of Presidential airlift helicopters.
Ballistic Missile Defense.--The fielding of a National Ballistic
Missile Defense capability is critical to protecting the U.S. homeland
against the evolving ballistic missile threat. As part of the
President's Directive to accelerate the fielding of a BMD Initial
Defensive Operations capability by September 2004, the Navy will
deploy, on a continuous basis, a DDG to serve as a Long-Range
Surveillance and Tracking (LRS&T) platform. Additionally, Aegis
Ballistic Missile Defense (ABMD) continues its development and testing
of the SM-3 missile in order to support deployment of a sea-based mid-
course engagement capability by December 2005. Since November 2002,
ABMD had two of three successful intercepts with the SM-3 Block
missile. The Navy is also evaluating the benefits associated with
developing a Sea-based Terminal Missile Defense capability. A viable
regional and terminal sea based ballistic missile defense system is
important to ensure the safety of U.S. forces and the flow of U.S.
forces through foreign ports and air fields when required.
FORCEnet/Navy Open Architecture/Space/C\4\I.--FORCEnet is the
operational construct and architectural framework for Naval warfare in
the Information Age which integrates warriors, sensors, networks,
command and control, platforms and weapons into a networked,
distributed combat force, scalable across the spectrum of conflict from
seabed to space and sea to land. FORCEnet is the core of Sea Power 21
and Naval Transformation, and is the USN/USMC vehicle to make Network
Centric Warfare an operational reality. It is being implemented in
coordination with transformation initiatives in the Army, Air Force,
and Coast Guard--enhancing efficiency, joint interoperability, and
warfighting effectiveness. DD(X), LCS, CVN-21, SSGN, VIRGINIA Class
SSN's, SAN ANTONIO Class LPD's, and MMA are examples of platforms that
are being designed from inception to perform in the netted environment
of the future. Systems being procured and produced under the FORCEnet
concept are CEC, Naval Fires Network (NFN) and Airborne/Maritime/Fixed
(AMF) Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS).
The Navy is engineering a single open architecture for all warfare
systems called Navy Open Architecture. Future systems will be designed
to this architecture while legacy systems will be migrated to that
single architecture where it is operationally and fiscally feasible.
This integrates the Command and Control and Combat systems information
flow using open specifications and standards and open architecture
constructs, to support FORCEnet and other global information networks.
Further, this significantly reduces the development and maintenance
costs of computer programs. The Navy and its Joint Service partners
continue to jointly engineer the Joint Track Manager and plan to
implement it into Navy Open Architecture as the Open Architecture Track
Manager. This joint focused application will be populated in all Naval
warfare systems that conform to the single OA warfare system
architecture.
The Navy and Marine Corps continues to pursue the maximum use of
space to enhance our operational capabilities. We look to leverage
existing systems and rapidly adapt emerging technology. For example,
the Navy has long been the leader in ultrahigh frequency (UHF)
satellite communications (SATCOM). The Navy is the executive agent for
the next generation UHF SATCOM system. This program, the Mobile Users
Objective System, will be the system used by all DOD components for
their UHF communications needs.
Sea Basing and Strategic Sealift.--Sea Basing is a transformational
operating concept for projecting and sustaining Naval power and a joint
force, which assures joint access by leveraging the operational
maneuver of sovereign, distributed, and networked forces operating
globally from the sea.
The Sea Basing concept has been endorsed by the other military
services and its importance was confirmed when DOD announced a Joint
Sea Basing Requirements Office will soon be established. Central to the
staying power of Naval forces will be the Maritime Pre-positioned
Force-Future MPF(F). The fiscal year 2005 Budget accelerates the lead
MPF(F) from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2007 to reflect an emphasis
on Sea Basing capabilities.
Infrastructure
Prior Rounds of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).--The
Department of the Navy completed the closure and realignment of
activities from the 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 rounds of BRAC. All that
remains is to complete the environmental cleanup and property disposal
on all or portions of 23 of the original 91 bases. We have had
significant successes on both fronts. We are successfully using
property sales as a means to expedite the disposal process as well as
recover the value of the property for taxpayers. We sold 235 acres last
year at the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, California on the
GSA internet web site for a net $204 million. We sold 22 acres at the
former Naval Air Facility Key West, Florida in January 2004 for $15
million. The City of Long Beach, California opted to pre-pay its
remaining balance on a promissory note, and gave us $11 million to
conclude its purchase of the former Naval Hospital Long Beach,
California. We are applying all funds to accelerate cleanup at
remaining prior BRAC locations. More property sales are planned that
will be used to finance remaining prior BRAC cleanup actions. Of the
original 161,000 acres planned for disposal from all four prior BRAC
rounds, we expect to have less than seven percent (or about 11,000
acres) still to dispose by the end of this fiscal year.
BRAC 2005.--The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act
authorized another round of BRAC in 2005. We will scrupulously follow
the process laid out in the law. We will treat each base equally and
fairly, whether considered for closure or realignment in the past or
not. In no event will we make any recommendations concerning any
closures or realignment of our bases until all the data has been
collected, certified and carefully analyzed within the overall BRAC
2005 statutory framework.
BRAC 2005 gives us the opportunity to transform our infrastructure
consistent with the significant changes that are, and will be,
happening with the transformation of our force structure. The Secretary
of Defense is leading a process to allow the military departments and
defense components to closely examine joint use opportunities. Military
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated the force multiplier
benefits of joint operations. We will apply those approaches to our
shore infrastructure. We will look beyond the traditional stovepipes of
Navy bases and Marine Corps bases in BRAC 2005 and take a joint
approach matching military requirements against capacity and
capabilities across the Department of Defense.
The added benefit is the opportunity to eliminate excess capacity
and seek greater efficiencies in our shore infrastructure. Continuing
to operate and maintain facilities we no longer need diverts precious
resources from our primary mission. Resources freed up as a result of
this process will be used to re-capitalize our ships, aircraft,
equipment and installations for the future.
Better Business Practices.--The DON has implemented several
continuous improvement initiatives consistent with the goals of the
President's Management Agenda that enable realignment of resources in
order to re-capitalize.
Specific initiatives include: converging our Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) pilots into an end-to-end operating system;
incorporating proven world class efficiency methodologies such as Six
Sigma and Lean concepts into our day-to-day operations; and
implementing additional Multi-Ship/Multi-Option (MSMO) repair contracts
and Performance Based Logistics (PBL) agreements. Of note, Lean
efficiency events that concentrate on increasing velocity and
productivity in our Aviation Intermediate Maintenance Departments
(AIMD) were initiated on USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73) and USS HARRY
TRUMAN (CVN 75). The outcome of these events will allow us to improve
our afloat AIMD processes and influence our future manning requirements
on CVN 21 Class carriers. These are the first Lean events conducted on
Navy warships.
These continuous improvement initiatives enable us to increase our
combat capabilities with the expectation that we become more efficient,
agile, flexible and reliable at a reduced cost of doing business.
OUR TOTAL FORCE (SAILORS, MARINES, AND CIVILIANS)
Today more than other time in recent history our Sailors and
Marines have a greater understanding and appreciation for service to
country. In time of war they have shown the Nation the highest
standards of military professionalism and competence. The heaviest
burdens in our war on terror fall, as always, on the men and women of
our Armed Forces. We are blessed as a Nation to have a 228-year legacy
where magnificent men and women volunteer to protect and defend
America. Sailors and Marines--along with our civilian workforce--remain
the strong and steady foundation of our Naval capabilities.
Active Duty
The Navy and Marine Corps again met enlisted recruiting and
accession goals in 2003, and continue to attract America's finest young
men and women to national service. The Navy achieved recruiting goals
for a fifth consecutive year and in February completed the 31st
consecutive month of attaining goals for accessions and new contracts.
The Marine Corps met its eighth year of meeting monthly and annual
enlisted recruiting goals and its thirteenth year of success in officer
recruiting. Both Services are well positioned for success in meeting
2004 officer and enlisted accession requirements.
During 2003, the Navy implemented a policy requiring 94 percent of
new recruits be high school diploma graduates (HSDG), and Navy
recruiters succeeded by recruiting 94.3 percent HSDG. Navy Recruiting
continued to seek the best and brightest young men and women by
requiring that 62 percent of recruits score above 50 on the AFQT; Navy
recruiters excelled with a rate of 65.7 percent. Navy recruiting also
sought to increase the number of recruits with college experience in
fiscal year 2003, recruiting more than 3,200 applicants with at least
12 semester hours of college.
The Marine Corps accessed 97.1 percent High School Diploma
Graduates in fiscal year 2003, exceeding their annual goal of 95
percent and ensured the Marine Corps recruited the highest quality
young men and women with 70.3 percent of Marine Corps recruits scoring
over 50 on the AFQT. This achievement exceeded their annual goal of 60
percent of accessions scoring above 50 on the AFQT. The Marine Corps
began fiscal year 2004 with a 58.8 percent starting pool in the Delayed
Entry Program and has continued to achieve its monthly recruiting goals
during the second quarter of fiscal year 2004. The Marine Corps Reserve
achieved fiscal year 2003 recruiting goals, assessing 6,174 Non-Prior
Service Marines and 2,663 Prior Service Marines. Navy Recruiting was
also successful in Naval Reserve recruiting by exceeding the enlisted
goal of 12,000 recruits for fiscal year 2003.
Retention.--Retaining the best and brightest is as important as
recruiting them. Military compensation that is competitive with the
private sector provides the flexibility required to meet that
challenge.
The Marine Corps has achieved first-term reenlistment goals over
the past nine years. They have already achieved 79.8 percent of their
first term retention goal and 59.8 percent of second tour and beyond
goals. Officer retention is at a 19 year-high.
Retention in the Navy has never been better. For the third straight
year, we experienced the highest retention in history. Retention goals
for all categories were exceeded. As a result, at-sea personnel
readiness is exceptional and enlisted gaps at sea are at an all-time
low.
Notwithstanding our current success in retention, we are constantly
on alert for indicators; trends and developments that might affect our
ability to attract and retain a capable, trained and talented
workforce. We are aware that we need to compete for the best, and
ensure continuing readiness, through a variety of means including
effective compensation and bonus programs.
The Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) remains the primary tool
available to the Navy and Marine Corps for retaining our best and
brightest enlisted personnel. SRB represents an investment in the
future of our Navy and Marine Corps. The Department of the Navy has a
proven track record in the judicious management of this program and
other continuation pays used to keep the right force mix to meet the
nations requirements. Your continued support of the SRB program as a
proven and highly effective tool is important and appreciated.
Attrition.--Navy leaders reduced attrition 10 percent from a year
ago and 33 percent from fiscal year 2000, while Marine Corps First-Term
Post Boot Camp attrition continues the favorable downward trend begun
in fiscal year 1999. For the Marine Corps, fiscal year 2003 attrition
was at a historical low, down 1,773 from the previous year. This drop
is due largely to a reduction in misconduct and incidents of desertion.
The Department's ``Zero Tolerance'' drug-use policy continues to be
strictly enforced, widely disseminated, and supported throughout the
leadership. Through a comprehensive random drug testing program,
educational programs, and Command support, the Navy and Marine Corps
Team achieved an 18 percent reduction in attrition even while testing
rates increased.
Training.--The Navy and Marine Corps have defined their respective
strategies for advancing into the future as part of a Joint Force. The
Services have developed strategies that clearly define how Navy and
Marine forces of the 21st Century will be equipped, trained, educated,
organized and used in our continued efforts to control the seas, to
project American military influence abroad, and to protect our borders.
Marine Corps' Strategy 21 defines as its vision and goal the
development of enhanced strategic agility, operational reach and
tactical flexibility and enabled joint, allied and coalition
operations.
Navy's Sea Power 21 defines its commitment to the growth and
development of its Service members. Sea Warrior is the ``people'' part
of Sea Power 21. Its focus is on growing individuals from the moment
they walk into a recruiting office through their assignments as Master
Chiefs or Flag Officers, using a career continuum of training and
education that gives them the tools they need to operate in an
increasingly demanding and dynamic environment. Transformation for the
future, leveraging technology and tapping into the genius of our people
to make them more efficient and effective--creating a single business
process for the range of human resource management activities is
exactly what Sea Warrior is all about. Our goal remains attracting,
developing, and retaining the more highly skilled and educated
workforce of warriors that will lead the 21st Century Navy.
Reserves
Reserves remain an integral part of our Navy and Marine Corps Team.
The Department of Defense is undergoing a transformation to a more
responsive, lethal and agile force based on capabilities analysis
rather than threat analysis. Last July, Secretary Rumsfeld issued a
memorandum, Rebalancing Forces, in which he directed the Services to
promote judicious and prudent use of rebalancing to improve readiness
of the force and to help ease stress on units and individuals. Three
areas of focus of the Services are: Enhance early responsiveness;
resolve stressed career fields; and employ innovative management
practices.
The Navy recently completed a study focused on redesigning the
Naval Reserve so that it is better aligned with, and operationally
relevant to, active forces. Working groups have been chartered to
implement key points of the study. Implementation has commenced and
will continue through this year and next. The three main areas of focus
are Personnel Management, Readiness and Training, and Organizational
Alignment. The Navy is transforming the Naval Reserve so that it is
fully integrated with active forces. Reservists are shifting away from
thinking of ``Naval Reserve requirements'' to ``Navy requirements''--a
shift that includes goals, capabilities and equipment. The Navy mission
is the Naval Reserve mission. One Navy, one team, is the message.
Naval and Marine Corps reservists are filling critical joint and
internal billets along with their active counterparts. Naval and Marine
Corps Reserve mobilization is a requirements-driven evolution and
reservists, trained and ready, are making significant contributions.
While the numbers of mobilized reservists can fluctuate as GWOT
requirements dictate, our objective is to keep the number of mobilized
personnel at a minimum.
Since September 11, 2001, the Navy has mobilized over 22,000
reservists with a peak of just over 12,000 during OIF. This is from a
Selected Reserve population of just over 87,000. Mobilized commissioned
Naval units include Coastal Warfare, Construction Battalion and
Aviation communities, while individuals were mobilized primarily from
Security Group, Naval Intelligence, Law Enforcement and Physical
Security augment units. We anticipate a steady state of approximately
2,500 mobilized Naval Reservists this year.
The Marine Corps has mobilized over 22,000 reservists from an
authorized Selected Reserve end strength of 39,600 and just over 3,500
from the Individual Ready Reserve. Currently mobilized reservists
number just under 6,500. With OIF II requirements, the number of
mobilized Marine Reservists is expected to increase by approximately
7,000. OIF II Marines will deploy in two rotations of approximately
seven months each, augmenting Marine Corps capabilities in Infantry,
Armor, Aviation, Command, Control, Computers and Intelligence, Military
Police and Civil Affairs.
Civilian Personnel
A large part of the credit for the Navy's outstanding performance
goes to our civilian workforce. These experienced and dedicated
craftspeople, researchers, supply and maintenance specialists, computer
experts, service providers and their managers are an essential part of
our total Naval force concept.
In the past, our ability to utilize these skilled human resources
to accomplish the complex and fast-developing missions of the 21st
Century has been limited by the requirements of a 19th Century
personnel system. The fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization Bill now
allows DOD to significantly redesign a National Security Personnel
System (NSPS) for the civilian workforce. This change represents the
most significant improvement to civilian personnel management since the
1978 Civil Service Reform Act.
The DON has volunteered to be in the first wave of conversions to
NSPS later this year. The Department expects to transition as many as
150,000 of our dedicated, hard-working civilians to the new system this
year. We will work closely with DOD to ensure we meet this aggressive
timeline. We are also working Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement
Act streamlining initiatives alongside NSPS to ensure we use these
tools to produce a robust and capable workforce.
The reforms will provide supervisors and managers greater
flexibility in managing our civil service employees, facilitate
competition for high quality talent, offer compensation competitive
with the private sector, and reward outstanding service. It will build
greater pride in the civilian workforce and attract a new generation of
civilians to public service. Properly executed, these changes also will
assist us in better utilizing the active duty force by making it easier
to employ civilians in jobs currently filled by uniformed military
personnel.
NSPS legislation will have a transformational effect on
organizational design across the Department. NSPS will improve
alignment of the human resources system with mission objectives,
increase agility to respond to new business and strategic needs, and
reduce administrative burden. The NSPS Act authorizes a more flexible
civilian personnel management system that allows us to be a more
competitive and progressive employer at a time when our national
security demands a highly responsive system of civilian personnel
management. The legislation also ensures merit systems principles
govern changes in personnel management, whistleblowers are protected,
discrimination remains illegal, and veterans' preference is protected.
The process for the design of NSPS is specified by statue and covers
the following areas: job classification, pay banding, staffing
flexibilities, and pay for performance.
The foundation for NSPS is a more rigorous tie between performance
and monetary awards for employees and managers. Basic pay and
performance incentives should be tied directly to the performance
measurement process--supervisory personnel are also rewarded for
successfully performing managerial duties. Implementation of this
system will be a significant step forward by linking employees'
performance to mission accomplishment and enabling better management of
scarce resources throughout the DON.
We are faced with a monumental change in how we will do business
and an even larger cultural change from one of entitlement to one that
has a performance-based compensation. This will be a huge effort and we
are determined to ensure successful implementation. We will continue to
scrutinize our human resource business methods. As we implement the
bold initiatives in NSPS, we will take a hard look at our
administrative policies with a specific eye on those that are
burdensome or add no value.
Quality of Service
We will continue to provide an environment where our Sailors and
Marines, and their families have confidence in themselves, in each
other, in their equipment and weapons, and in the institution they have
chosen to serve. This year, with your help, we continued the
significant advances in compensation, in building the structure to
realize the promise of the revolution in training, in improving
bachelor and family housing, and in strengthening our partnership with
Navy and Marine families.
The Department remains committed to improving living conditions for
Sailors and Marines, and their families. Our policy is to rely first on
the private sector to house military families. As a result, along with
the initiative to increase Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), the need
and consequently the inventory for military family housing is going
down. Additionally, we are partnering with the private sector in
Public/Private Ventures (PPV) to eliminate inadequate housing.
At the top of nearly any list put together in our partnership is
the promise of medical care for Sailors, Marines, and their families.
Naval medicine is a force multiplier, ensuring our troops are
physically and mentally ready to whatever challenges lie ahead. High
quality care and health protection are a vital part of our ability to
fight the Global War on Terrorism and execute other worldwide mission.
Naval medicine today is focused on supporting the deployment readiness
of the uniformed services and promoting, protecting and maintaining the
health of all those entrusted to Naval Medicine care--anytime,
anywhere.
Safety
The Navy and Marine Corps are working to meet the Secretary of
Defense's goal of reducing mishaps by 50 percent from fiscal year 2002
to the end of fiscal year 2005. We have many initiatives in place and
planned for the near future. We have seen real progress in reducing
private motor vehicle fatalities, which are down 20 percent from the
fiscal year 2002 baseline. We have begun applying technologies now used
in commercial aviation to provide a visual and quantitative feedback
loop to pilots and mechanics when either the pilot or aircraft has
exceeded specific safety of flight parameters. We will continue to
press forward with safety both to take care of people, our most
precious asset, and to allow us to invest elsewhere.
Shaping the Force
The Navy is making an effort to reduce its active duty manpower as
part of the DON transformation program. This is the first step and an
integral part of our strategy to properly shape both the officer and
enlisted force. Today, as the Navy moves to a more efficient and surge-
ready force, maintaining the correct skill sets is more important than
ever. We are convinced we can get the job done with fewer people; by
eliminating excess manpower we can focus better on developing and
rewarding our high-performing forces. Additionally, reducing manpower
gradually today will ensure the Navy is properly manned when a new
generation of optimally manned ships joins our force, with completely
revised maintenance, training, and war-fighting requirements. We will
ensure any manpower reductions will be preceded by reductions in
functions.
SUMMARY
Naval forces remain a critical and unique element of our national
security strategy. The Navy and Marine Corps Team answers the
President's call to duty by being the first on station--with staying
power. Our forces exploit the open oceans and provide the Combatant
Commander with persistent sovereign combat Naval forces. This is the
value that credible forward deployed Naval forces provide our Nation.
The fiscal year 2005 Budget unifies many of our innovative and
transformational technologies with Naval Power 21. Sustaining
investment in Naval forces continues to protect and promote American
interests by allowing the forward deployed Navy and Marine Corps Team
to shape the international security environment and to respond to the
full spectrum of current and future crises.
With our fiscal year 2005 Budget request we focus on people, combat
capability, technology insertion, and improved business practices.
Additionally, we continue to work with our Joint Service partners in
organizing, equipping and training to fight jointly. With continued
Congressional support the Department of the Navy will position the Navy
and Marine Corps Team as part of the most formidable military force in
the 21st Century.
Senator Stevens. Admiral Clark.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL VERNON CLARK, CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS
Admiral Clark. Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, and
distinguished members of the committee, good morning. I, like
Secretary England, consider it an honor to be with you here
today, representing all the sailors, both active and reserve,
and the civilians who are serving in our Navy today.
I am particularly happy, also, to be here at the table with
leaders like Secretary England and General Mike Hagee. I'd like
to report to you that this group has a great partnership,
working together, leading our Navy and Marine Corps team to the
future. That's what we see as our task, and we are set out to
do it.
Today, and I believe appropriately so, America's focus is
primarily on the Army and, more so, soon to be the Marine
Corps, as they execute their missions in Operation Iraqi
Freedom II. Having said that, I want to report to you that your
Navy continues to be out and about. And while the Army
dominates Operation Iraqi Freedom today, we have two carriers
and three Expeditionary Strike Groups, and fundamentally one-
third of the Navy, still deployed around the world. Ships and
submarines, forward deployed on the point representing the
United States of America. And that includes two of our large-
deck amphibious ships, the Boxer and the Bataan, who are now
returning home, after surging forward just a few weeks ago to
carry Marine Corps aviation assets forward for Operation Iraqi
Freedom II.
A year ago this time when I appeared before this committee,
we were an important part of the joint team that conducted
major combat operations last spring in Iraq. Lifting the joint
force, projecting power ashore, and fully 55 percent--Senator
Cochran, mirroring the numbers that you talked about--55
percent of our Navy deployed in support of the conflict. No
other Navy in the world can deliver this kind of decisive
combat capability. It highlights our fundamental mission, and
that is to take credible, persistent combat power to the far
corners of this earth anywhere, anytime we need to do so,
without a permission slip.
I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to be here
today, to appear before you, and to talk about this great Navy,
and to thank you on behalf of all of our outstanding men and
women in the uniform, and those that are wearing civilian
clothes, too, that are working to make our Navy better every
day. And we are all grateful for the continued strong support
that is being provided by the Congress that is making our Navy
ready to respond, ready to act anytime the Nation needs us to
do so, but also helping us create the Navy of the future, which
is our fundamental task, also.
As the Secretary said, our budget request this year is a
solid and balanced investment plan, the roadmap, as he has
called it, that focuses on three areas. First, it accelerates
our investment in Sea Power 21 capability. Second, it delivers
the right readiness at the right cost, and that's been a key
factor in our ability to respond this past year. And it
continues to shape the 21st century workforce. This budget
includes the next steps in our journey to the future.
A much more capable Navy is what we're talking about. It
includes funding for the Littoral combat ship, the DD(X), CVN
21, the Joint Strike Fighter, unmanned vehicles in the air and
on the surface and under the sea, the Virginia class submarine
and the modifications to Trident SSGNs, among others.
And maybe most importantly today, it lays the foundation
with LHA(R) and maritime pre-positioned forces, the future for
the Navy/Marine Corps team. That future is laid down in this
budget request. And this is a very exciting concept, the next
step in expeditionary warfare. We stand at the threshold of
creating the next generation Navy/Marine Corps team, a team
that will deliver the kind of quick-response, global-reach
capability that this Nation needs. This budget will help us
deliver a more responsive Navy. The Fleet Response Plan and a
readiness assessment process that we are now using has allowed
us to better assess risk, and allowed us to present a budget
that delivers the right readiness at the right cost.
And what this means, unlike previous submissions that I
have been involved in, is that we have taken more risk--we have
assessed the risk, and we have taken risk where we believe that
it is prudent so that we can invest in the new acquisition that
is required for us to have the Navy of the future. And so I ask
for your support in this year's readiness request. It will
deliver the right readiness at the right cost for the Nation.
Lastly, our request continues to sharpen our investment in
our people so that we can shape them into the workforce that we
need for the future. And, of course, in the Navy we recognize
that every single thing that is good that is happening in the
Navy is happening because we have been winning the battle for
people. For all of our advanced technology--and our advanced
technology is incredible--for the readiness that we have
achieved, it is still our people that bring our capabilities to
bear whenever and wherever the Nation needs them.
But, at the same time, Mr. Chairman, we do recognize the
cost of manpower. We know that manpower is not free. And I am
committed to building a Navy that can maximize the capability
of our people and minimize the total number of people on the
payroll. And as you can see from this request, and as Senator
Inouye has indicated, this budget request reduces our end
strength. Our strategy for doing this is straightforward,
Senator. We are investing in the growth and the development of
our people. We are improving training and our maintenance
processes. We are leveraging technology. We are decommissioning
older, more manpower-intensive platforms that have less
capability for the future, and we are rebalancing our reserve
and active forces. And as we deliver more high-tech ships and
aircraft, our workforce will intentionally get smarter, but we
intend for it also to get smaller.
Your support, over the years, of incentive pay, re-
enlistment bonuses, and the kind of training and information
tools that make our people more productive, has been critical
to our success in the past and is crucial to our ability to
attract and retain and shape the kind of workforce we need for
the future.
I want to report to you that your support for these
initiatives has been working. We have the highest retention
that we ever had in the history of the Navy, and we have an
extraordinarily competitive and talented group of people in our
Navy. I ask you to continue to give us the tools that we need
to shape this force for the future. And I look forward to
discussing this with you in the minutes and hours ahead, and
the months ahead, as we move toward this budget.
I close by saying that we have a higher quality Navy and
Marine Corps team today than at any time that I've witnessed in
my career, and I believe it's so for a very important reason.
It is because our sailors feel the support and the confidence
that is being placed in them by the citizens of the United
States of America.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very proud team. They believe in
the importance of what they are doing. And each of you have
seen them on the point, and you know how they are reacting to
the challenges that are being presented to them. And they are
responding to the signals of support that are being sent to
them by the citizens of America.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I thank you for your support, and the citizens of America
for their support, and I look forward to your questions this
morning.
Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Admiral.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Vern Clark
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you. I want to express my gratitude for
the substantial investment you have made in making this Navy the best
Navy the nation has ever seen.
Your Navy is built to take credible combat power to the far corners
of this earth, taking the sovereignty of the United States of America
anywhere we need to take it and at anytime we choose to do so. It is
capable of delivering the options this nation needs to meet the
challenges of today and it is committed to the future capabilities the
joint force will need to win throughout the 21st century.
It is a wonderful time to be a part of this Navy and a great
privilege to be associated with so many men and women--active and
reserve, uniformed and civilian--committed to the service and defense
of this nation. I speak for all of our men and women in thanking you
for your exceptional and continuous support.
your navy today--projecting decisive joint power across the globe
Your Navy's performance in Operations ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) and
IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) last year proved--more than anything else--the
value of the combat readiness in which you have invested. It
demonstrated the importance of the latest technology in surveillance,
command and control and persistent attack. It highlighted our ability
to exploit the vast maneuver space provided by the sea. Most
importantly, it reaffirmed the single greatest advantage we hold over
every potential adversary: the genius of young Americans contributing
their utmost in their service to this nation.
This past year, the fleet produced the best readiness levels I've
seen in my career. We have invested billions of dollars to training,
maintenance, spare parts, ordnance, flying hours and steaming days
accounts these last few years, and that investment resulted in the
combat ready response of more than half the Navy to operations
worldwide.
Seven aircraft carriers and nine big deck amphibious ships were
among the 164 U.S. Navy ships forward deployed last spring in support
of OEF and OIF and contingencies worldwide. The Military Sealift
Command sailed and chartered more than 210 ships and moved 94 percent
of the nation's joint and combined capability to the fight. We also
deployed three Fleet Hospitals, a Hospital Ship, 22 P-3 aircraft, 25
Naval Coastal Warfare detachments and we mobilized more than 12,000
reservists.
OIF and OEF were the most joint operations in our history and they
have provided the best possible opportunity to dissect, study and
analyze some of the limiting factors and effects of how we fight.
Beyond the mere numbers, these operations confirmed that we should
continue to pursue the capabilities that enhance our power projection,
our defensive protection and the operational independence afforded by
the sea.
While we recognize that we must continue to challenge all of our
assumptions in a variety of scenarios, our lessons learned indicate
that the capabilities-based investment strategies, new war fighting
concepts and enabling technologies we are pursuing in our Sea Power 21
vision are on the right vector. Let me give you some examples.
--The reach, precision and persistence of our Sea Strike capability
added lethality to ground combat engagements in Afghanistan and
Iraq. The joint surveillance and attack technologies and
processes that we have already put in place forced enemy combat
formations to either disband and desert or be destroyed in
place by precision weapons. Navy aviation generated more than
7,000 combat sorties in support of OIF, sometimes flying joint
missions with land-based Air Force tankers more than 900 miles
from their carriers. Surface combatants and submarines struck
targets throughout Iraq with more than 800 Tomahawk missiles.
The initial deployments of new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet squadrons
greatly extended our range, payload, and refueling options. And
we will realize more of these capabilities in the future
through the conversion of the first of four Trident SSBNs into
the SSGN conventional strike and Special Operations Forces
platform.
--USS HIGGINS (DDG 76) provided early warning and tracking to joint
forces in Kuwait and southern Iraq to help warn forces and
defend against the threat of theater ballistic missiles. This
tracking-only capability demonstrated the initial potential of
extending Sea Shield defenses to the joint force. In a sign of
things to come, we advanced our missile defense capability with
another successful flight test of our developmental sea-based
defense against short-to-medium range ballistic missiles. USS
LAKE ERIE (CG 70) and USS RUSSELL (DDG 59) combined to acquire,
track and hit a ballistic test target in space with an SM-3
missile in support of the Ballistic Missile Defense program.
This was the fifth success in six tests.
Our OIF mine warfare efforts cleared 913 nautical miles of water
in the Khor Abd Allah and Umm Qasr waterways, opening 21 berths
in the Umm Qasr port and clearing the way for operations in the
littoral areas of the Northern Persian Gulf and for
humanitarian aid shipments into Iraq. These operations included
the use of the High Speed Vessel X1 (JOINT VENTURE), Navy
patrol craft and six unmanned, autonomous underwater vehicles
(AUV) directly from our science and technology (S&T) program in
the littoral for special operations and mine clearance
operations, and gave us important insights into our vision for
both future littoral and mine warfare concepts and
capabilities.
--We projected joint combat forces across the globe with greater
speed and agility than we have ever done in the past. Along
with our number one joint partner, the United States Marine
Corps, we put more than 60,000 combat-ready Marines ashore in
Kuwait in 30 days. The Navy's Military Sealift Command
delivered more than 32 million square feet of combat cargo and
more than one billion gallons of fuel to the nation's war
fighters in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. We
were able to sustain the strategic and operational flexibility
afforded by Sea Basing to generate a three-axis attack on Iraq
from our dispersed aircraft carriers, surface combatants and
submarines in the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the
Persian Gulf.
We forged ahead in our shipbuilding investments. We awarded three
preliminary design contracts for the Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS), leading to the construction of the first LCS in fiscal
year 2005. We selected the baseline design for the DD(X) 21st
Century multi-mission destroyer, launched SAN ANTONIO (LPD 17),
christened VIRGINIA (SSN 774) and began fabrication of MAKIN
ISLAND (LHD 8) and LEWIS AND CLARK (T-AKE 1).
--In OIF, we were able to know more, decide faster and act more
decisively than ever before. Our three-axis, multi-platform
attack from the Persian Gulf, Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea--as
well as the geometric increases in striking power, defensive
protection and speed of maneuver generated by our joint
forces--is made possible by the power of joint command,
control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance (C\4\ISR). Fully eighty percent of targets
struck with precision ordnance were unknown at aircraft launch.
We developed and installed CENTRIX and COWAN networks to
enhance joint and coalition interoperability on all of our
deploying ships, and we also promulgated the FORCEnet campaign
plan, defining the architecture and standards that will help us
further integrate warriors, sensors, weapons, and platforms.
These accomplishments this past year have taught us more about who
we are and where we're headed. We know that the combat power of the
truly joint force is much more than the sum of the services'
contributions. We understand the value of readiness and the importance
we must place on improving the fleet's ability to respond and surge
with decisive combat power. We relearned the lesson that over flight
and basing is not guaranteed; our dominance of the maritime domain and
our consequent ability to quickly deliver an agile combat force is a
priceless advantage for our nation. And we reaffirmed that our people
are now, and always will be, the root of our success.
YOUR NAVY TOMORROW--ACCELERATING OUR ADVANTAGES
Readiness, advanced technology, dominance of the maritime domain,
and the genius of our people--these are our asymmetric advantages. They
are the core of our Sea Power 21 Navy and we intend to accelerate these
advantages over the coming year. We are in a position to continue to
build upon and recapitalize these strengths, to innovate and
experiment, and to push the envelope of operational art and
technological progress. Our ability to project persistent, sovereign
combat power to the far corners of the earth now and in the future
depends on it.
In last year's statement, I discussed principally the advantages
brought by advanced technology and the vast maneuver area of the sea in
our Sea Power 21 vision.
This year, I'd like to spend a few moments on the efforts we've
taken to improve our other advantages: our readiness to respond to the
nation's defense needs and the tools we'll need to ensure the right
people for our Sea Power 21 Navy.
Today's naval forces and personnel are superbly trained and well
provisioned with ordnance, repair parts and supplies. They are ready
earlier--for a longer period of time--and they are deploying at a
higher state of readiness than ever before. In short, the Navy the
nation has paid for is truly ready to accomplish its missions and it is
more ready to do so than I've ever seen it in my career.
I mentioned the results; in OIF, we surged more than half the fleet
to fight half a world away. The combined power of our forward presence
forces and those that we were able to surge overseas helped keep our
enemies on the run. This conflict and our analysis of future campaign
scenarios make it apparent that the readiness of both our forward
forces and the forces that must surge forward will be critically
important to our future. It is no longer good enough to be able to
surge just once every ten years or so.
The war on terrorism and the unpredictability of the global
security environment make this an immediate imperative. The nation
needs a Navy that can provide homeland defense and be both forward and
ready to surge forward to deliver overmatching and decisive combat
power whenever and wherever needed. We are committed to do so.
With this in mind, we launched the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) this
past year. The FRP resets the force in a way that will allow us to
surge about 50 percent more combat power on short notice and at the
same time, potentially reduce some of the personnel strain of forward
rotations.
In simplest terms, rather than having only two or three CSGs
forward-deployed and properly equipped at any one time--and an ability
to surge only a maximum of two more--the FRP enables us to now
consistently deliver six forward deployed or ready to surge Carrier
Strike Groups (CSGs) almost immediately, plus two additional CSGs in
the basic training phase in 90 days or less. This FRP capability is
commonly known as six plus two.
To do this, we have fundamentally reconfigured our employment
policy, fleet maintenance, deployment preparations and fleet manning
policies to expand the operational availability of non-deployed fleet
units. We have shifted the readiness cycle from one centered solely on
the next-scheduled-deployment to one focused on returning ships to the
right level of readiness for both surge and deployed operations. The
net result is a fleet that is more ready, with more combat power--more
quickly--than was possible in the past.
Our forward rotations remain critically important to our security,
to strengthening alliances and coalitions, and to the global war on
terrorism. But it is clear we must make these rotations with purpose,
not just to fill the calendar.
For example, implementing the new Proliferation Security Initiative
to counter weapons of mass destruction as a tool for terrorists and
their sponsors is likely to involve the use of forward naval forces in
maritime interdiction. Additionally, we plan to be ready to establish
Initial Missile Defense operations using forward-deployed ARLEIGH BURKE
class guided missile destroyers and their AEGIS systems in Long-Range
Tracking and Surveillance roles. And of course, we will continue to
provide Combatant Commanders with the combat-credible, rapidly
employable forward forces required for the nation's defense.
But at the same time, we recognize that our ability to rapidly
surge significant additional combat power and provide a range of joint
employment options is critically important to the swift and decisive
combat operations that must be our future. The FRP allows us to do just
that.
We have an obligation to accurately assess the readiness needs and
create the resources necessary to support this FRP capability. This has
also been a major focus this past year.
Readiness is a complex process. It is much more than a count of our
end strength, our ordnance and spares, and the number of hours and days
spent training. It is the product of our ability to deliver the
required effects needed to accomplish the mission. We know too that
readiness at any cost is unacceptable; as leaders we must achieve and
deliver the right readiness at the right cost.
The Integrated Readiness Capability Assessment (IRCA) was developed
for the fiscal year 2005 budget to more carefully examine our readiness
processes. Starting with our new FRP operating construct, we took a
hard look at everything that we needed to have on hand and what we
needed to do to deliver the required combat readiness for the nation's
needs.
The IRCA assessment helped us understand the collective
contributions of all the components of readiness, accurately define the
requirements, align the proper funding and provide a balanced
investment to the right accounts. It improved our visibility into the
true requirements and it gave us a methodology to assess and understand
both acceptable and unacceptable risks to our current readiness
investments.
The end result is this: we have carefully defined the readiness
requirement. We have identified areas where we can streamline or cease
activities that do not add to readiness. And we have requested the
funds our commanders need to create the right readiness for fiscal year
2005. I ask for your support of this year's current readiness request
as we've re-defined these processes and already taken acceptable risks.
We will deliver the right readiness at the right cost to the nation.
These improvements to our operational availability of forces and
the associated readiness elements will not be made on the backs of our
people.
We have a smart, talented cadre of professionals who have chosen a
lifestyle of service. Our ability to challenge them with meaningful,
satisfying work that lets them make a difference is part of our
covenant with them as leaders.
A new operating concept like the Fleet Response Plan could not be
made if we still had the kind of manpower-intensive mindset to problem
solving we had even five years ago. But today, thanks to your sustained
investment in science and technology among others, we have already
realized some of the advancements in information technology,
simulators, human system integration, enterprise resource planning,
web-enabled technical assistance and ship and aircraft maintenance
practices that can reduce the amount of labor intensive functions, the
training and the technical work required to ensure our readiness.
These advances speak to our larger vision for our Sea Power 21 Navy
and its Sea Warrior initiative. Our people are today's capital assets.
Without them, all the advanced weaponry in the world would sit dormant.
But at the same time, it is the effects they deliver that are the true
measure of their contribution to readiness and capability.
We have long had a force stove-piped into active and reserves,
uniformed and civilian, sea and shore, and enlisted and officer
components, all with work driven largely by the limits of industrial
age military capabilities, personnel practices, technology and the
organizational models of the day.
In today's era, when we have whole corporations bought or sold just
to capture the intellectual capital of an organization, we recognize
that our human resource strategy must capture the talents and efforts
of our capital as well. Our vision for the future is a more truly
integrated workforce wholly committed to mission accomplishment. This
must include a total force approach that can functionally assess
missions, manpower, technology and training and produce an enterprise-
wide resource strategy.
The principles of this strategy are clear. We will capture the work
that contributes to mission accomplishment. We will define enterprise-
wide standards. We will leverage technology to both enhance and
capitalize on the growth and development of our people. We will
streamline organizational layers. We will instill competition. And we
will incentivize the talents and behaviors needed to accomplish the
mission.
There is still much to study and discuss as we develop our total
force approach in the months and years ahead, but we can already see
that the application of these principles will help us more accurately
define our manpower requirement and lead us to a smaller workforce in
the future.
The benefits are enormous. Our people will be powerfully motivated
and better educated and more experienced in the coming years. They will
be properly equipped to maintain, operate and manage the higher
technology equipments that are our future. Our combat capabilities will
continue to grow.
We must be committed to building a Navy that maximizes the
capability of its people while minimizing the total number in the
manpower account. Manpower is never free; in fact, manpower we do not
truly need limits both the true potential of our people and the
investments needed to transform our combat capability for the future.
Our developing human resource strategy will likely require changes
in the way we recruit, assess, train, manage and balance the workforce
in the years to come. Sea Warrior of course, is crucial here. Last
year's authorization of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS)
is very important to such an effort as well. The NSPS Act authorized a
more flexible civilian personnel management system that allows DOD to
be a more competitive and progressive employer. The Navy has
volunteered to be in the first wave of conversions to NSPS because it
will facilitate the kind of competition and performance we need in the
21st century.
In the near future, we will need to look at improving the two-way
integration of our active and reserve force. At a time when our ability
to surge is more important to the nation than ever, we must ensure our
Navy reserves have the kind of future skills, front-line equipment,
training standards and organizational support that will facilitate
their seamless integration into required combat and support structures.
Most importantly, I believe we will need the kinds of flexible
authorities and incentive tools that will shape the career paths and
our skills mix in a way that lets us compete for the right talent, not
just within the Navy, but with all the nation's employers as well.
In the months ahead, I will continue to discuss with you our
developing human resource strategy and the kinds of authorities we'll
need to deliver on it.
We are beginning to realize the powerful war fighting capabilities
of Sea Power 21. Our culture of readiness and our commitment to
developing a 21st Century workforce will help us employ those
transformational capabilities to achieve unprecedented maritime power.
OUR FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST
This past year our Navy's budget request continued our effort to
sustain our current readiness gains, deepen the growth and development
of our people and invest in our transformational Sea Power 21 vision
while harvesting the efficiencies needed to fund and support these
three critical priorities. This year we intend to:
--Deliver the right readiness at the right cost to support the war on
terror and the nation's war fighting needs,
--Shape the 21st century workforce and deepen the growth and
development of our people,
--Accelerate our investment in Sea Power 21 to recapitalize and
transform our force and improve its ability to operate as an
effective component of our joint war fighting team.
At the same time, we will continue to pursue the Sea Enterprise
improvements that make us a more effective Navy in both fiscal year
2005 and beyond. Our Navy budget request for fiscal year 2005 and the
future supports this intent and includes:
--Nine new construction ships in fiscal year 2005, including
construction of the first transformational destroyer (DD(X))
and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the acceleration of a SAN
ANTONIO Class Amphibious Transport Dock Class ship from fiscal
year 2006 to fiscal year 2005, and one SSBN conversion and
refueling. Our request this year includes the following ships:
--3 ARLEIGH BURKE Class Guided Missile Destroyers (DDG)
--1 VIRGINIA Class submarine (SSN)
--1 SAN ANTONIO Class Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD)
--2 Lewis and Clark Class Dry Cargo and Ammunition ships (T-AKE)
--1 21st Century Destroyer (DD(X))
--1 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), and
--1 SSBN conversion/refueling
The investment plan across the future year's defense plan (FYDP)
also includes three Maritime Prepositioned Force (Future) (MPF
(F)) ships and advanced procurement for an MPF (F) aviation
variant. While our build rate dips to six ships in fiscal year
2006, this is a reflection of a shift in focus to the next
generation surface combatants and sea basing capabilities. We
have also assessed the risks and divested several assets that
have high operating costs and limited technological growth
capacity for our transformational future; this includes
decommissioning two coastal mine hunter ships, and the
accelerated decommissioning of the remaining SPRUANCE-class
destroyers, SACRAMENTO Class Fast Combat Store Ships and the
first five TICONDEROGA-class guided missile cruisers in the
future year's plan.
--Procurement of 104 new aircraft in fiscal year 2005, including the
F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, the MH-60 R/S Seahawk and Knighthawk
Multi-mission Combat Helicopter, the T-45 Goshawk training
aircraft and the Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey among others. We
continue to maximize the return on procurement dollars through
the use of multi-year procurement (MYP) contracts for
established aircraft programs like the Super Hornet and we have
increased our research and development investment this year in
the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the EA-18G Airborne Electronic
Attack (AEA) aircraft and the broad area anti-submarine, anti-
surface, maritime and littoral intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance (ISR) capable Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft
(MMA).
--Investment in transformational unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV)
like the Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance System, and unmanned
aviation vehicles (UAV) such as the Broad Area Maritime
Surveillance UAV and the Joint-Unmanned Combat Air System. The
budget also requests funding for experimental hull forms like
the X-Craft, and other advanced technologies including the
Joint Aerial Common Sensor (JACS).
--A 3.5 percent basic pay raise, and a reduction in average out-of-
pocket housing costs from 3.5 percent to zero, allowing Sailors
and their families more of an opportunity to own their own
homes and have more of a stake in their communities.
--Investment in housing and Public-Private Ventures that will help
eliminate inadequate barracks and family housing by fiscal year
2007 and enable us to house shipboard Sailors ashore when their
vessel is in homeport by fiscal year 2008.
--Readiness investment that supports the Fleet Response Plan (FRP),
including sustained funding for ship and aircraft operations,
aviation depot maintenance, and precision guided munitions.
This includes improvements in ship maintenance and training
scheduling to maximize surge capabilities.
Delivering the Right Readiness at the Right Cost
To me, the ``right readiness'' is the return on your investment in
the Navy. Readiness is the catalyst that brings combat power to bear
whenever it is needed. Achieving readiness at any cost however is not
good for the nation. This year's request accurately defines our
readiness needs, assesses the risks to our investment and--as
requested--will deliver the resources necessary for leaders in the Navy
to create the required readiness.
--Ship Operations and Flying Hours requests funds for ship operations
OPTEMPO of 51.0 days per quarter for our deployed forces and 24
days per quarter for our non-deployed forces. We have properly
funded the flying hour account to support the appropriate
levels of readiness and longer employability requirements of
the FRP. This level of steaming and flying hours will enable
our ships and air wings to achieve the required readiness over
the longer periods defined by the Fleet Response Plan, and as a
result, it will improve our ability to surge in crisis and
sustain readiness during deployment.
--Ship and Aviation Maintenance. We have made significant
improvements these last few years by reducing major ship depot
maintenance backlogs and aircraft depot-level repair back
orders; improving aircraft engine spares; adding ship depot
availabilities; ramping up ordnance and spare parts production;
maintaining steady ``mission capable'' rates in deployed
aircraft; fully funding aviation initial outfitting; and
investing in reliability improvements.
Our fiscal year 2005 request continues to improve the
availability of non-deployed aircraft and meets 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. We are
making great strides in improving the visibility and cost
effectiveness of our ship depot maintenance program, reducing
the number of changes in work package planning and using our
continuous maintenance practices when changes must be made.
--Shore Installations. Our Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and
Modernization (SRM) program remains focused on improving
readiness and quality of service for our Sailors. While our
fiscal year 2005 Military Construction and Sustainment program
reflects difficult but necessary trade-offs between shore
infrastructure and fleet recapitalization, the majority of the
SRM trends are very good. Facilities sustainment has increased
in fiscal year 2005. Our budget request keeps us on a course to
achieve the DOD goal of a 67-year recapitalization rate by
fiscal year 2008, achieve DON goals to eliminate inadequate
family and bachelor housing by fiscal year 2007 and provides
Homeport Ashore Bachelor Housing by fiscal year 2008. We are
exploring innovative solutions to provide safe, efficient
installations for our service members, including design-build
improvements, and BRAC land sales via the GSA Internet.
Additionally, with the establishment of Navy Installations
Command, we have improved our capability to manage our
dispersed facility operations, conserve valuable resources,
establish enterprise-wide standards and continue to improve our
facility infrastructure.
--Precision Guided Munitions receive continued investment in our
fiscal year 2005 request with emphasis on increasing the Joint
Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW) baseline variant, Joint Direct Attack
Munition (JDAM), and Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM) inventory
levels, while the JSOW penetrator variant enters full-rate
production. We have also entered into a Common Missile program
with the U.S. Army to replace the aging inventory of TOW,
Maverick and Hellfire missiles. Joint partnerships with the Air
Force and Army in several of our munitions programs continue to
help us optimize both our inventories and precious research and
development investments and will remain a focus for us in the
future.
--Training Readiness. We continue to make significant strides in this
critical area. In fiscal year 2004, the Congress supported two
important programs to advance our training readiness. First,
you endorsed the Training Resource Strategy (TRS), to provide
more complex threat scenarios and to improve the overall
realism and value of our training. Additionally, you funded the
Tactical Training Theater Assessment and Planning Program to
provide for a comprehensive training range sustainment plan.
Our fiscal year 2005 budget continues this work. We are working
to make the Joint National Training Capability a reality. We
have established a single office to direct policy and
management oversight for all Navy ranges as well as serve as
the resource sponsor for all training ranges, target
development and procurement, and the Navy portion of the Major
Range Test Facility Base (MRTFB).
--Environmental Readiness. In the last two years, Congress has
provided significant legislative relief from encroachment and
environmental requirements by amending the Endangered Species
Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. These amendments help to balance environmental
stewardships and realistic military training. We will continue
to focus the use of our ranges on military training, and remain
committed to our environmental obligations through integrated
natural resource management plans. We will make every effort to
protect marine mammals while ensuring our Sailors are properly
trained and our transformational systems are properly tested.
We look forward to demonstrating our ongoing commitment to
environmental stewardship.
Shaping the 21st Century Workforce
At the heart of everything good in our Navy today is this: we are
winning the battle for people. Higher quality recruits, historic
retention rates, innovative incentive pay pilots, reduced attrition,
competitive reenlistments and detailing, and outstanding leadership in
the ranks has made this the highest quality workforce the Navy has ever
seen.
In 2003 specifically, we exceeded all of our aggregate retention
goals for the third straight year; our recruiters reached their quotas
for the 28th consecutive month; we reduced attrition another 10 percent
from fiscal year 2002 levels; and, through decommissioning older,
manpower-intensive platforms, improving training and employment
processes, and more efficient infrastructure organization, we have
reduced gaps at sea to less than 1,000, down from 18,000 gaps just six
years ago.
These accomplishments will help us develop the 21st Century
workforce we'll need for our Sea Power 21 Navy. As our Navy becomes
more high tech, so must our workforce. Our people will be a more
educated and experienced group of professionals in the coming years,
and we must properly employ their talents. We will spend whatever it
takes to equip and enable these outstanding Americans, but we do not
want to spend one extra penny for manpower we do not need.
As part of that effort, we continue to pursue the kind of new
technologies and competitive personnel policies that will streamline
both combat and non-combat personnel positions, improve the two-way
integration of active and reserve missions, and reduce the Navy's total
manpower structure. To that end, we are proposing a fiscal year 2005
Navy end strength reduction of 7,900 personnel.
We will use existing authorities and our Perform to Serve program
to preserve the specialties, skill sets and expertise needed to
continue the proper balancing of the force.
We intend to build on the growth and development momentum of the
last three record-breaking years. We are fully committed to ensuring
every Sailor has the opportunity and resources to successfully compete.
Our goal remains attracting, developing, and retaining the most highly
skilled and educated workforce of warriors we have ever had, to lead
the 21st century Navy.
As I testified last year, Sea Warrior is designed to enhance the
assessment, assignment, training and education of our Sailors.
Our fiscal year 2005 budget request includes the following tools we
need to enhance mission accomplishment and professional growth:
--Innovative personnel employment practices are being implemented
throughout the fleet. Optimal manning experiments in USS BOXER
(LHD-4), USS MILIUS (DDG 69) and USS MOBILE BAY (CG 53)
produced revolutionary shipboard watch standing practices,
while reducing overall manning requirements and allowing
Sailors to focus on their core responsibilities. The fleet is
implementing best practices from these experiments to change
Ship Manning Documents in their respective classes. Optimal
manning means optimal employment for our Sailors.
We have our fourth crew aboard USS FLETCHER (DD 992) and our
third crew aboard USS HIGGINS (DDG 76) in our ongoing Sea Swap
initiative. This has saved millions of dollars in transit fuel
costs and increased our forward presence without lengthening
deployment times for our Sailors. FLETCHER and HIGGINS will
return to San Diego this year after a period of forward
deployed operations of 22 months and 17 months respectively. We
will continue to assess their condition and deep maintenance
needs to develop and apply lessons learned to future Sea Swap
initiatives.
--Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). Targeted bonuses such as SRB
are critical to our ability to compete for our highly trained
and talented workforce both within the Navy and with employers
across the nation as well. Proper funding, adequate room for
growth and the flexible authorities needed to target the right
skills against the right market forces are important to the
shape of the workforce. This program specifically targets
retention bonuses against the most critical skills we need for
our future. We ask for your continued support and full funding
of this program.
--Perform to Serve (PTS). Last year, we introduced PTS to align our
Navy personnel inventory and skill sets through a centrally
managed reenlistment program and instill competition in the
retention process. The pilot program has proven so successful
in steering Sailors in overmanned ratings into skill areas
where they are most needed that the program has been expanded.
More than 2,400 Sailors have been steered to undermanned
ratings and approved for reenlistment since the program began
last February and we will continue this effort in 2005.
--Assignment Incentive Pay (AIP) is a financial incentive designed to
attract qualified Sailors to a select group of difficult to
fill duty stations. AIP allows Sailors to bid for additional
monetary compensation in return for service in these locations.
An integral part of our Sea Warrior effort, AIP will enhance
combat readiness by permitting market forces to efficiently
distribute Sailors where they are most needed. Since the pilot
program began last June, more than 1,100 AIP bids have been
processed resulting in 238 Sailors receiving bonuses for duty
in these demanding billets. We ask for continued support of
this initiative.
--Professional Military Education (PME). We are taking a more
comprehensive approach to the education of our people than we
have done in the past. We are in the process of developing a
PME continuum that integrates general education, traditional
Navy-specific Professional Military Education (NPME), and Joint
Professional Military Education (JPME) curricula. This will
allow us to develop a program that fully incorporates all
aspects of our professional and personal growth and development
training needs. Improvements so far include establishing
networks with civilian educational institutions, developing new
degree programs, and establishing partnerships with other
services' institutions. We are also expanding opportunity
through distance learning and the Internet. We are committed to
broadening the professional and intellectual horizons of both
our officers and our enlisted men and women to prepare them to
operate tomorrow's fleet and assume key naval and joint
leadership roles.
--Human Performance Center (HPC) has been established to apply Human
Performance and Human System Integration principles in the
research, development and acquisition processes. In short, the
HPS will help us understand the science of learning. They will
ensure training is driven by Fleet requirements and they will
focus requirements on the performance needed to carry out our
missions. This will eliminate potential performance and
training deficiencies, save money and help us improve our
readiness.
--The Integrated Learning Environment (ILE) is the heart of our
Revolution in Training. ILE is a family of systems that, when
linked, will provide our Sailors with the ability to develop
their own learning plans, diagnose their strengths and
weaknesses, and tailor their education to support both personal
and professional growth. They will manage their career
requirements, training and education records. It will match
content to career requirements so training is delivered at the
right time. Most importantly, these services will be provided
anytime, anywhere via the Internet and the Navy-Marine Corps
Intranet (NMCI).
We are taking advantage of every opportunity to accelerate the
tools we need to develop our 21st Century workforce. The improvements
and pilots that Congress has supported--including bonuses, pay table
adjustments, retirement reforms, better medical benefits, and our Sea
Warrior initiatives--are having the desired impact.
Your support of our fiscal year 2005 request for a 3.5 percent
basic pay raise, for our efforts to transform our manpower structure in
some fundamental ways, and for a reduction in average out-of-pocket
housing costs from 3.5 percent to zero will have a direct effect on our
ability to properly size and shape the 21st century workforce that is
our future.
Accelerate Our Investment in Sea Power 21
As I testified last year, Sea Power 21 defines the capabilities and
processes that the 21st century Navy will deliver. We now have an
opportunity to accelerate the advantages that our vision for a joint,
netted and sea-based force provides this nation, thanks to the
tremendous investments that you have made in our battle for people, in
the quality of service for each of our Sailors, and in readiness.
This year, we will pursue distributed and networked solutions that
could revolutionize our capability. We will focus on the power of Sea
Basing and our complementary capability and alignment with our number
one joint partner, the U.S. Marine Corps. We will sustain a robust
science and technology program, and we will exploit investments made in
joint research and development wherever possible.
For example, we are urgently pursuing technical advances to support
our Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen and Marines in Iraq. The Naval Sea
Systems Command and the Office of Naval Research are working closely
with all services, government agencies, industry, and academic and
government laboratories to identify, test, and deploy promising
technologies that can counter improvised explosive devices (IEDs),
snipers, suicide bombers and other force protection threats. We are
also pursuing other quick-reaction technology initiatives such as
persistent wide-area surveillance using small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,
blue force tracking technology, body armor and extremity protection. We
are committed to ensuring that the joint force on the ground is as
equipped as they possibly can be to accomplish their mission.
Our highest priority programs within each of the core capability
sets that define our Sea Power 21 vision.
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 maximize our sea basing capability and minimize as
much as possible our reliance on shore-based support nodes. To do this,
we will make doctrinal, organizational and operational changes mandated
by this concept and by the underlying technology that makes it
possible. We have an opportunity here, along with the U.S. Marine Corps
and the U.S. Army, to reexamine some of the fundamentals of not only
how we move and stage ground forces, but how we fight ashore as well.
Our highest priority Sea Basing investments include:
--Surface Combatant Family of Ships. As I've already testified, the
power of joint forces in OIF was in the synergy of individual
service strengths. The same concept holds true within the Navy
itself. We seek the synergy of networks, sensors, weapons and
platforms that will make the joint force greater in combat
power than the sum of the individual parts. Development of the
next generation of surface combatants as ``sea frames''--
analogous to ``air frames''--that are part of a modular system
is just such an endeavor.
The surface combatant family of ships allows us to dramatically
expand the growth potential of our surface combatants with less
technical and fiscal risk. To bring these concepts to life and
to take them--and the fight--to the enemy, we have decided upon
three entirely new ship classes. The first to premier will be
the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) in 2007. The advanced strike
destroyer (DD(X)) will follow in about 2011. And just a few
years after the first DD(X), the keel will be laid on the first
CG(X), the next class of cruiser designed from the keel up for
theater air and ballistic missile defense.
Our research and development efforts and experimentation with
high speed and theater support vessels like SWIFT, and the X-
Craft later this year, are helping us reduce our technical risk
and apply important lessons in hull design and mission
modularity to the development of the surface combatant family
of ships. DD(X) is the heart of the family and will spiral
promising technologies to both CG(X) and LCS in the future. I
will discuss each one of these ships in more detail below.
--CVN 21 is the centerpiece of the Navy Carrier Strike Group of the
future. It will bring transformational capabilities to the
fleet, including a new electrical generation and distribution
system, the electro-magnetic aircraft launching system (EMALS),
a new/enlarged flight deck, weapons and material handling
improvements, and a crew reduction of at least 800 personnel.
It will be able to generate higher daily and sustained sortie
rates than our NIMITZ-class aircraft carriers. Our fiscal year
2005 request of $979 million in research and development and
procurement funding continues the development of CVN 21 and
several critical technologies in the lead ship, including the
EMALS prototype and testing already ongoing in Lakehurst, New
Jersey. Construction of the CVN 21 remains on track to start in
fiscal year 2007.
--CVN 70 RCOH. The fiscal year 2005 budget provides advanced
procurement funds for the USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70) RCOH, now
scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2006. CVN 70 has sufficient
reactor fuel for one additional deployment. This action makes
the best possible use of CARL VINSON's remaining fuel capacity
and improves shipyard work loading.
--MPF(F). These future Maritime Prepositioning Ships will serve a
broader operational function than current prepositioned ships,
creating greatly expanded operational flexibility and
effectiveness. We envision a force 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. Our fiscal year
2005 request accelerates the lead MPF(F) from fiscal year 2008
to fiscal year 2007 to reflect our emphasis on Sea Basing
capabilities.
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 2005 priorities:
--DD(X). The technology engine for the Fleet, DD(X) is the
centerpiece of a surface combatant family of ships and will
deliver a broad range of capabilities. This advanced multi-
mission destroyer will bring revolutionary improvements to
precise, time-critical strike and joint fires and our
Expeditionary Strike Groups of the future.
Transformational and leap ahead technologies include an electric
drive and integrated power system; an Advanced Gun System with
the high rate of fire and precision to reach almost 8 times
farther and command more than 110 times the area of our current
five inch 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.
DD(X) is an enabler both technically and operationally. This
seaframe will also reduce our seagoing manpower requirements
and will lower total ownership costs.
This program will provide a baseline for spiral development of
technology and engineering to support a range of future
seaframes such as (CG(X)). It will also enable the
transformation of our operations ashore. Imagine an Army or
Marine rifleman on the ground and Navy Petty Officer at sea
looking at the same real-time picture of enemy troops encamped
at a municipal airport. With the push of a button, the rifleman
sends targeting coordinates to the Petty Officer in a DD(X)
more than 50 miles offshore. Within a few minutes, rounds from
the AGS start falling on the airport with incredible accuracy.
That kind of on-demand, persistent time-critical strike will
revolutionize our joint fire support and ground maneuver
concepts of operation and it will free our strike fighter
aircraft for more difficult targets at much greater ranges.
DD(X)'s all-electric drive, called the Integrated Power System
(IPS), will not only drive the ship through the water, but will
also generate the kind of power capacity that will enable
eventual replacement of the Advanced Gun System (AGS). When
combined with the physical capacity and volume of the hull
form, DD(X) could lead us to revolutionary technologies from
the naval research enterprise like the electromagnetic rail gun
and directed energy weapons. The fact that rail guns do not
require any explosives will free up magazine space for other
mission areas. This capability is projected to be a reality in
the 2015 to 2018 timeframe. DD(X) will be in service for
decades after that; having the kind of growth potential to
install those kinds of technologies dramatically lowers our
future development costs.
The funding profile for DD(X) supports the 14,000-ton design and
the S-Band Volume Search Radar (VSR). Lead ship detail design
and construction are planned to start in fiscal year 2005.
--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 JSF has just completed the second year of a 10-
11 year development program, and is experiencing a variety of
typical challenges that affect System Development and
Demonstration (SDD) program schedule and cost. Additional
design work is required to address technical issues, primarily
weight projections. The budget therefore realigns $5 billion
from procurement appropriations in fiscal year 2005 through
fiscal year 2009, and Low Rate Initial Production was deferred
one year to fiscal year 2007. The JSF remains vital to our
future. It will give us the range, persistence and
survivability needed to keep our strike fighters viable for
years to come.
--SSGN. Funding is included in fiscal year 2005 to continue the SSGN
conversion program. Our future SSGN capability will provide
covert conventional strike platforms capable of carrying 150
Tomahawk missiles. The SSGN will also have the capacity and
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 vehicles to enhance the joint force commander's
knowledge of the battlespace. The inherently large capacity of
these hulls will enable us to leverage future payloads and
sensors for years to come. We still expect our first SSGN to be
operational in 2007.
--EA-18G. Last year, you initiated funding at our request to replace
the aging EA-6B Prowler with the EA-18G Airborne Electronic
Attack aircraft. Increased EA-6B usage in 2003 has resulted in
wing center section or outer wing panel fatigue for some 43 EA-
6B aircraft, making your support last year critical to our
ability to dramatically accelerate the recapitalization of the
nation's only joint electronic attack capability. Using the
demonstrated growth capacity of the F/A-18E/F, the EA-18G will
quickly recapitalize our Electronic Attack capability at lower
procurement cost, with significant savings in operating and
support costs; 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. We
begin purchasing airframes in fiscal year 2006 and will achieve
initial operating capability in 2009.
Sea Shield is the projection of layered, global defensive power.
Sea Shield will enhance deterrence and war fighting 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 power in the littoral
and deep inland. Sea Shield capabilities include, Homeland Defense, Sea
and Littoral Control, and Theater Air and Missile Defense. Our highest
priority Sea Shield programs this year include:
--Mine Warfare Programs. We intend to field a set of unmanned,
modular Mine Counter-Measure (MCM) systems employable from a
variety of host platforms or shore sites to minimize our risk
from mines and sustain our national economic and military
access to every corner of the globe. Our future MCM capability
will be faster, more precise and organic to both Expeditionary
and Carrier Strike Groups and will ultimately remove both the
man and our mammals from the minefield. Within the FYDP, we
expect to reduce the time that it takes to render sea mining
ineffective by at least half of the time that it takes us
today.
Our fiscal year 2005 budget request includes funding to realize
organic mine warfare capabilities in one Strike Group this
year, while maintaining the funding necessary for a potent and
dedicated Mine Countermeasure (MCM) force. We have also
requested an increase of $167 million across the FYDP for mine
warfare programs, to include unmanned vehicles such as the
Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS) to provide a
clandestine mine reconnaissance capability from our LOS
ANGELES-class submarines, and the Remote Minehunting System on
ARLEIGH BURKE-class destroyers (DDGs 91-96). Both of these
programs are scheduled to reach Initial Operating Capability
(IOC) milestones this year. Future introduction of the Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS) with mine warfare mission modules will
improve the ability of Strike Groups to neutralize mine threats
in parallel with--not in sequence before--other operations.
--Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The role of LCS is to provide access to
joint forces in the littorals; a capability gap we identified
as a result of the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. During the
past year and a half, considerable campaign analysis and fleet
battle experiments have demonstrated that naval forces need
better ways to fight mines; small, fast, highly armed boats;
and quiet diesel and advanced air-independent propulsion
submarines operating in shallow waters. The performance of U.S.
Navy Patrol Craft and the experimental HSV-X1 JOINT VENTURE in
the Iraqi littoral was critical to the early detection and
destruction of the Iraqi mine threat. The same kind of
capability needs to be delivered in a fast, maneuverable,
shallow-draft platform that has the survivability to operate
independently. LCS will have these characteristics, along with
self-defense, navigation, and command-and-control systems.
LCS will be built from the keel up to be a part of a netted and
distributed force, and will be the first ship designed with
FORCEnet as a requirement. The main battery of LCS will be its
off-board systems: manned helicopters and unmanned aerial,
surface and underwater vehicles. It is the off-board vehicles--
with both sensors and weapons--that will enter the highest
threat areas. Its modular design, built to open-systems
architecture standards, provides flexibility and a means to
rapidly reconfigure mission modules and payloads. As technology
matures, the Navy will not have to buy a new LCS platform, but
will upgrade the mission modules or the unmanned systems.
LCS also will have an advanced hull design and be significantly
different from any warship that has been built for the U.S.
Navy. Detail design and construction of the first LCS Flight 0
ship is planned in fiscal year 2005. The LCS requirements
process is tailored to support the rapid delivery of two
flights (Flight 0 and 1) of ships, using an evolutionary,
``spiral'' acquisition approach. The spiral development process
allows time-phased capability improvement for ship and mission
systems. This incremental development and delivery strategy
supports the ship's accelerated acquisition schedule, diverse
threat and capability requirements, and dynamic levels of
technology push/pull. The ship's modular, open design will also
enable lifecycle adaptability and affordability. Four LCS's
have been added since last year's budget plan was submitted.
--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. We are working
closely under the authority of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
to deliver this much-needed capability to the nation's
Combatant Commanders. Our sea-based missile defense programs
experienced tremendous success on the test range this year,
scoring two of three intercepts. Continued development and
testing will support Initial Defensive Operations beginning in
the fall of 2004, with select ARLEIGH BURKE-class destroyers
providing Long Range Surveillance and Tracking to the nation's
capability late this year.
--Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA)--Broad Area Maritime
Surveillance (BAMS). We significantly increased this year's
research and development funding for the Multi-Mission Aircraft
to recapitalize our 1950's-era Lockheed ``Electra'' based P-3
force. Our acquisition plan was further refined this past year
with the integration of the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance-
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (BAMS-UAV) program into the overarching
Maritime Patrol and Armed Reconnaissance requirement. This
lethal combination of manned and unmanned reconnaissance
aircraft will recapitalize our maritime patrol anti-submarine
warfare, anti-surface warfare and armed intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance capability. We also developed a
robust sustainment plan for the current P-3 fleet that includes
special structural inspections (SSI) and kits that extend P-3
service lives by a minimum of 5,000 hours. This SSI program
will replace, correct or modify our current P-3 force to ensure
that they do not prematurely reach the end of their fatigue
life before we achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC) of
the MMA in 2013.
--VIRGINIA-class submarine (SSN-774). The first ship of this class
was christened last year and will commission in 2004. This
class will replace LOS ANGELES-class (SSN-688) attack
submarines and will incorporate new capabilities, including
unmanned vehicles, and the ability to support Special Warfare
forces. It will be an integral part of the joint, networked,
dispersed 21st Century Fleet. Our fiscal year 2004 budget
funded the first of five submarines under the multi-year
procurement (MYP) contract authorized by Congress last year.
The second submarine of the MYP contract is funded in fiscal
year 2005. Approximately $240 million in economic order
quantity advance procurement is funded in fiscal year 2005 in
support of this contract.
--CG Modernization. Funding for the TICONDEROGA-class cruiser
modernization continues in fiscal year 2005. The Cruiser
Modernization 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 area air defense to the
joint force commander. These modifications include
installations of the Cooperative Engagement Capability, which
enhances and leverages the air defense capability of these
ships, and an ASW improvement package. These converted cruisers
could also be available for integration into ballistic missile
defense missions when that capability matures. Our first
cruiser modernization begins in fiscal year 2006.
FORCEnet is the operational construct and architectural framework
for naval warfare in the joint, information age. It will allow systems,
functions and missions to be aligned in a way that will transform our
situational awareness, accelerate speed of decisions and allow naval
forces to greatly distribute its combat power in a unified, joint
battlespace. FORCEnet provides the world-class IT tools that we need to
continue to be the world-class Navy.
Programs that will enable the future force to be more networked,
highly adaptive, human-centric, integrated, and enhance speed of
command include:
--Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). NMCI is operational and
providing commercial IT services for more than 300,000 DON
employees and two Combatant Commanders. This initiative, as
part of our FORCEnet strategy, is providing a single, secure
shore-based network and will link with our tactical networks to
provide end-to-end collaboration within the DON and across the
joint community. Fiscal year 2005 funding of $1.6 billion
provides for NMCI operations and, at the same time, continues
transition of the remaining legacy IT networks to NMCI
enterprise network services. This past year, with the help of
the authorizing language you provided, the NMCI program
finalized a full partnership agreement with the Defense
Information Systems Agency for operations and provisioning.
--Mobile User Objective System (MUOS). The new MUOS Satellite
Communications (SATCOM) program will increase DOD Narrowband
UHF SATCOM capacity by roughly 1,300 percent over current
capabilities. MUOS is a $6.4 billion joint interest program,
and it supports a particularly important ``Comms-on-the-Move''
capability for handheld terminals, aircraft, missiles, and UAVs
in urban and heavily wooded terrain. We plan to reach the
Initial Operating Capability milestone in 2009, with Full
Operational Capability in 2013.
--Joint Aerial Common Sensor (JACS). We have partnered with the Army
in the Joint Aerial Common Sensor development program in our
pursuit of a replacement for the aging EP-3 airborne
information warfare and tactical signals intelligence (SIGINT)
aircraft. JACS will provide multi-intelligence strike targeting
data and Signals Intelligence capabilities, and will include a
Synthetic Aperture Radar, Ground Moving Target Indicator,
Electro-Optical and Infrared Sights, and Measurements and
Signature capabilities. These will be coupled with automatic/
manual data fusion. Our fiscal year 2005 request includes $25
million for this program.
--Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). JTRS will be the wireless
``last tactical mile'' component of the Global Information Grid
(GIG) and will transform Navy's tactical communications systems
by incorporating Internet Protocol (IP) communications over
multi-spectral radio frequency (RF) media. JTRS is a software
programmable, multi-band, multi-mode family of net-workable
radios, capable of simultaneous voice, data, video
communications and mobile ad hoc networking. Our fiscal year
2005 request includes $56 million for JTRS.
--Deployable Joint Command Control System (DJC\2\). DJC\2\ is the
SECDEF and CJCS priority C\2\ transformation initiative. DJC\2\
will provide a standing, fully deployable, scaleable, and
standardized command and control (C\2\) capability to the
Regional Combatant Commanders (RCC) and Joint Force Commanders.
DJC\2\ responds to the need for joint, deployable C\2\
capability, with first RCC delivery to PACOM in fiscal year
2005. DJC\2\ is an enabler for the Standing Joint Force
Headquarters concept being developed by Joint Forces Command
(JFCOM). DON is Lead Component for the acquisition program, and
we ask your support for the $81 million we've requested in
fiscal year 2005.
Improving Effectiveness
As I've testified, your Navy today is the most capable and most
ready Navy in our history, thanks in large part to the support of the
Congress and of the American people. But, I believe that we can do
better--that, in fact, we must do better--as stewards of the public
trust in determining not just how much we should spend on programs, but
how those defense dollars are spent. This is especially true today
because of the strategic challenges posed by the ongoing global war on
terrorism, because of our need to recapitalize aging, Cold War-era
infrastructure and capability, and because of the burgeoning
technological and operational changes that will dramatically alter the
way we fight. Revolutionizing the way in which our defense dollars are
spent presents opportunities to increase our effectiveness, both now
and in the future.
Sea Enterprise is focusing headquarters leadership on outputs and
execution, and is creating ideas that will improve our productivity and
reduce our overhead costs. Its key objectives are to:
--Leverage technology to improve performance and minimize manpower
costs.
--Promote competition and reward innovation and efficiency.
--Challenge institutional encumbrances that impede creativity and
boldness in innovation.
--Aggressively divest non-core, under-performing or unnecessary
products, services and production capacity.
--Merge redundant efforts.
--Minimize acquisition and life-cycle costs.
--Maximize in-service capital equipment utilization.
--Challenge every assumption, cost and requirement.
Department of the Navy senior leadership is actively engaged in
tracking the execution of ongoing Sea Enterprise initiatives totaling
approximately $40 billion, and identifying $12.4 billion in cost
savings and requirements mitigation across the Future Years Defense
Program (FYDP). We are committed to efficiency and productivity
improvements that will generate the savings necessary to augment our
investment stream and implement our Sea Power 21 vision--delivering the
right force, with the right readiness, at the right cost. Specific
highlights of these fiscal transformation initiatives include:
--Right Readiness. Along with the Fleet Response Plan, we have also
initiated processes ashore that will generate a more effective
force. As just one example, we have established a single shore
installation management organization, Commander, Navy
Installations (CNI), to globally manage all shore
installations, promote ``best practices'' development, and
provide economies of scale, increased efficiency,
standardization of polices, and improved budgeting and funding
execution. This initiative is anticipated to save approximately
$1.2 billion across the FYDP.
--Right Cost. We've taken a hard look at our ``level of effort''
programs to maximize return on taxpayer investment. This year's
effort generated $2 billion in future savings in programs not
supported by specific performance metrics in force structure,
readiness or cost benefit. In addition, we focused on
streamlining our organizations and processes as a means to
harvest efficiencies and control costs. Innovative programs
like SHIPMAIN and the Naval Aviation Readiness Integrated
Improvement Program are aiding in developing and sharing best
practices, streamlining maintenance planning and improving
performance goals in shipyards, aviation depots, and
intermediate maintenance activities. We also reorganized the
Navy Supply Systems Command, including the establishment of the
Naval Operational Logistics Support Center to consolidate
transportation, ammunition and petroleum management. We will
continue to look for additional opportunities in this area
while leveraging the gains already made.
--Right Force. We believe transformation to our future force must
include improving our buying power. To improve upon our force
structure, we're divesting non-core, redundant, under-
performing, and outdated products and services. We are using
multi-year procurement contracts and focusing where possible on
economic order quantity purchase practices to optimize our
investments. An excellent example lies in the F/A-18E/F multi-
year procurement contract that anticipates procurement of 210
aircraft while saving us in excess of $1.1 billion across the
FYDP. We also recognize the need to transform our single
greatest asymmetric advantage, our people. The upcoming year
will focus on ensuring we not only have the right number, but
the right mix of military, civilian, and contractor personnel
to accomplish the mission at the lowest possible cost. You've
given us a tremendous tool to enhance our flexibility in this
area, the National Security Personnel System, and we plan to
take full advantage of it.
Building on prior efforts, I'm dedicating a significant amount of
personal time to conducting execution reviews with leadership at the
major commands across the Navy because, as I see it, leadership
engagement in execution is an essential step to achieving our Sea
Enterprise objectives. These reviews have provided me the opportunity
to focus on the intricate details of the organizations while ensuring
commanders are aligned with the vision and direction in which we are
steaming. We focus on ways to swiftly move from strategy to
implementation, as well as innovative ways to reduce costs and return
resources to the enterprise for reinvestment.
In 2005, the Navy will continue to pursue product and process
efficiencies and the opportunities to be more effective while improving
our war fighting capability. Harvesting the savings for
recapitalization is a vital part of that effort, and we will continue
to balance the benefits of new productivity initiatives against
operational risks. Our intent is to foster a culture of continuous
process improvement, reduce overhead, and deliver the right force
structure both now and in the future.
CONCLUSION
For us, winning the Global War on Terrorism remains our number one
objective--and victory is the only acceptable outcome. To achieve this,
we are accelerating the advantages we bring to the nation.
The Fleet Response Plan will improve upon the operational
availability of fleet units, providing forward deployed forces for
enhanced regional deterrence and contingency response, while at the
same time, retaining the ability to rapidly surge in times of crisis.
We are investing in enhanced war fighting capability for the joint
force, using the extended reach of naval weapons and sensors to reach
farther and more precisely with striking power, and deliver broader
defensive protection for joint forces ashore and fully leverage our
command of the sea.
We are creating a personnel environment that attracts, retains and
relies upon creative, effective and competitive people. We are
investing in the tools, the information technology and the training
that delivers more meaningful job content to them because it is they
who offer us our greatest advantage.
The support of Congress is vital to our readiness today and to
building the Navy of tomorrow--I thank you for your dedicated efforts
and support.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL MICHAEL W. HAGEE, COMMANDANT,
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
General Hagee. Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, and
distinguished members of this committee, it is my privilege to
report on the state of your Marine Corps.
First, like Admiral Clark and Secretary England, I would
like to thank you for your visits to our servicemen and women
within and outside the United States. These trips always have a
positive effect on individual morale. I would also like to
thank this committee for its support of your marines and their
families over the past few years. This support is critical to
ensuring that we remain the expeditionary force that is most
ready when the Nation is least ready.
After we withdrew from Southern Iraq, in September of last
year, we continued to have significant numbers of marines
deployed to Afghanistan, Horn of Africa, Philippines, Japan,
the Republic of Georgia, and other regions in support of the
global war on terrorism. With these ongoing deployments, and in
the midst of reconstituting our force and equipment, we were
directed to have approximately 25,000 marines trained and
prepared to deploy to Iraq within 4 months. Today, we have
nearly completed, almost 2 weeks ahead of schedule, the
movement of these marines and sailors to Kuwait and Iraq in
support of Operation Iraqi Freedom II.
Simultaneous with this major deployment, we have executed a
short-notice deployment of over 1,400 marines and sailors to
Haiti to conduct security and stability operations there. The
immediate responsiveness, speed, flexibility, and adaptability
of your marines demonstrate the continued relevance of naval
expeditionary capabilities to our Nation's security.
Your sustained commitment and support of the American
people have been indispensable in my ability to report to you
that your marines are well trained, well equipped, and highly
motivated to meet the challenges vital to maintaining the
Nation's security today and in the future.
Let me assure you that the Marine Corps' first priority is
and will continue to be warfighting readiness and excellence in
support of our Nation. In the near term, the Marine Corps is
focused on readiness to provide capable forces that meet the
demanding needs of our Nation. For the long term, the Marine
Corps and Navy are committed to developing a new
transformational sea-basing capability that will provide a
critical joint competency for assuring access and projecting
combat power ashore worldwide.
During Operation Iraqi Freedom, we used a combination of
forward-deployed marine expeditionary units, maritime pre-
positioning squadrons, two large amphibious task force, and
strategic air- and sealift to deploy a combat-ready and
sustainable force of almost 70,000 marines and sailors in less
than 60 days. No other fighting force in the world can do that.
Exploding the operational speed, reach, and inherent
flexibility of sea power, your Navy/Marine Corps team, closely
integrated with joint and coalition partners and special
operating forces, engaged in 26 days of sustained combat
operations, fought ten major engagements, destroying eight
Iraqi divisions before stopping north of Baghdad, in Tikrit,
almost 500 miles inland.
Today, marines are relieving the United States (U.S.) Army
units in Western Iraq. In preparation for this deployment, we
work closely with the U.S. Army in and out of Iraq, focusing on
equipment, tactics, techniques, and procedures. We drew on
analysis of our experiences in conducting security and
stability operations last year in Southern Iraq, the tactics of
the British, and our own extensive small-wars experience. We
have assimilated these lessons through a comprehensive training
package that includes rigorous urban operations and language
and cultural education. We are paying particular attention to
individual protective equipment, enhanced vehicle and aircraft
hardening, and aviation survival equipment and procedures.
However, we also continue to plan for the future. In close
cooperation and collaboration with the U.S. Navy, as Admiral
Clark has mentioned, we have developed operational concepts
that will deliver increased capabilities for the Nation and the
regional combatant commanders in 10 to 14 days for major
contingencies, and 0 to 4 days for smaller contingencies, an
increase in over 50 percent response time.
The MV-22 Osprey, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Joint
Strike Fighter, Littoral combat ship, LHA(R), DD(X), and the
Maritime Pre-positioning Force Future are in the 5-year defense
plan and are critical to this effort. These platforms will
comprise a system of systems that will significantly improve
our warfighting capabilities by leveraging advancements in
technology. The integration and interdependence of these
transformational programs will enable us, as part of the joint
force, to project more combat power ashore in less time with
the same number of marines. We ask for your continued support
of these important complementary and transformational programs
and concepts.
Your support for quality-of-life issues has been critical
in our ability to recruit and retain the best young men and
women America has to offer. The success in these programs is
reflected in our ability to continue to meet our recruiting and
retention goals even in these demanding times.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, members of this committee, I
would like to emphasize the magnificent performance of your
individual marine, the most agile and lethal weapons system on
today's battlefield. On behalf of all marines, I thank this
committee for its steadfast support, 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 readiness of
your United States Marine Corps. Your Marines are firmly committed to
warfighting excellence, and the support of the Congress and the
American people has been indispensable to our success in the Global War
on Terrorism. Your sustained commitment to improving our Nation's armed
forces to meet the challenges of today as well as those of the future
is vital to the security of our Nation. On behalf of all Marines and
their families, I thank this Committee for your continued support.
INTRODUCTION
In the near-term, the Marine Corps' top priorities are to maintain
our high state of readiness and to provide capable forces that meet the
demanding needs of the Unified Combatant Commanders in order to
prosecute the Global War On Terrorism in support of the Nation. For the
long-term, the Marine Corps and Navy are committed to developing a
Seabasing capability that will provide a critical joint competency for
assuring access and projecting power that will greatly improve the
security of the United States. The marked increase in our warfighting
capability will be apparent as we introduce new systems such as the MV-
22 Osprey, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Joint Strike
Fighter, and the Lightweight 155 mm howitzer into our force structure,
using them to enhance the already potent combat power of our Marine
Air-Ground Task Forces as integral elements of our Nation's joint
force.
The Navy-Marine Corps team continues to play a critical role in the
Global War On Terrorism and in the establishment of stability and
security throughout the world. During this past year, the Marine Corps,
both active and reserve, was engaged in operations from Afghanistan, to
the Arabian Gulf, the Horn of Africa, Liberia, the Georgian Republic,
Colombia, Guantanamo Bay, and the Philippines. Most prominent in
highlighting the value and power of the Nation's naval expeditionary
capability was the Marine Corps' participation in Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM. Success in this operation underscored the unique contributions
of our multi-dimensional naval dominance, our expeditionary nature, our
flexibility to deal with complex situations and challenges, and the
adaptability of our forces and individuals in order to defeat the
challenges posed by adaptive, asymmetric enemies and long-term threats.
Early last year, the I Marine Expeditionary Force deployed a combat
ready force of almost 70,000 Marines and Sailors in less than 60 days
using the full array of our complementary power projection
capabilities. Forward deployed Marine Expeditionary Units (Special
Operations Capable) again demonstrated their proven value for immediate
response. Eleven strategically located Maritime Prepositioned Force
ships were unloaded in 16 days to provide the equipment and sustainment
for two Marine Expeditionary Brigades. A seven ship amphibious force
from each coast embarked a total of 11,500 Marines, Sailors, and their
equipment and within thirty days these fourteen ships began to arrive
and offload in Kuwait. Strategic sea and air lift was also vital to our
success in this effort. Exploiting the operational speed, reach, and
inherent flexibility of seapower, the Navy-Marine Corps team achieved a
rapid buildup of sustained warfighting power that was combat ready to
support U.S. Central Command on March 1, 2003.
Closely integrated with our joint and coalition partners, as well
as Special Operations Forces, the I Marine Expeditionary Force provided
the Combatant Commander with a potent combined arms force comprising a
balance of ground, aviation, and combat service support elements all
coordinated by a dynamic command element. This teamwork--the product of
demanding and realistic Service and joint training--presented a multi-
dimensional dilemma for the Iraqi regime's forces and loyalists. It
also greatly increased the range of options available to our leadership
as they addressed each unique and complex situation. The integration of
the 1st United Kingdom Division within the I Marine Expeditionary Force
provides outstanding lessons for achieving merged coalition
capabilities and consistent goals in the future.
The combat power of I Marine Expeditionary Force generated an
operational tempo that our enemy could not match. With short notice
that operations would commence early, the Marines and their joint and
coalition partners rapidly secured key strategic objectives. The I
Marine Expeditionary Force then engaged in 26 days of sustained combat
operations. Using the tenets of maneuver warfare, they executed four
major river crossings, fought ten major engagements, and destroyed
eight Iraqi divisions before stopping in Tikrit--almost 500 miles
inland. In support of Joint Special Operations Forces Northern Iraq,
the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit inserted a Marine-Air Ground Task
Force from the Eastern Mediterranean into Northern Iraq--almost 1,200
miles distance. The sustained resources of the Marine force, which were
derived primarily from our seaborne logistics, provided us unrivaled
advantages. While our logistics were stretched by the operational
commanders, our combat service support units demonstrated flexibility
and resourcefulness.
Highlighting the expeditionary mindset of Marines, our combined
arms force successfully operated in desert, urban, swamp, and rural
environments while effectively conducting combat, peacekeeping, and
humanitarian operations--at times simultaneously. Marines also
demonstrated the ability to re-task and reorganize to conduct
unanticipated missions like the taking of the city of Tikrit. Following
major combat operations, I Marine Expeditionary Force assumed
responsibility for security and stability in five Central Iraq
provinces until they were relieved of the last province by coalition
forces this past September. Flexibility and adaptability are key
characteristics of an expeditionary force, and they are critical
advantages that we must seek to optimize for the future, particularly
in this era of global uncertainty.
Recent operations also emphasize the increased importance of access
to key regions for projecting our Nation's power. With global
interests, the United States must retain the capability to secure
access as needed. Power projection from the sea greatly increases the
range of options available to avert or resolve conflicts. A credible
naval forcible-entry capability is critical to ensure that we are never
barred from a vital national objective or limited to suboptimal
alternatives.
Since the end of major combat operations, the Marine Corps has been
setting the force in order to enhance warfighting readiness for future
contingencies. We are reloading combat equipment and materiel on the
ships of the Maritime Prepositioned Squadrons while also ensuring that
the requirements for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM II are fulfilled. We are
using provided funding to repair, refurbish, and where necessary,
replace equipment. During this period, Marines have continued to
forward deploy. Marine Corps units are supporting Operation ENDURING
FREEDOM in Afghanistan, operations in the Horn of Africa, exercises
critical to supporting the Combatant Commanders' Theater Security
Cooperation Plans, and counter-drug operations in support of joint and
joint-interagency task forces. In addition, we have conducted a major
program to identify and analyze lessons learned from the Iraqi
campaign. We have also begun to assimilate these lessons and determine
where and how our force should be rebalanced.
As the last few years have demonstrated, the Marine Corps Reserve
is a full partner in our total force. Reserve units participated in all
aspects of the war in Iraq, providing air, ground, and combat service
support as well as a large number of individual augmentees to Marine
and joint staffs. Mobilized Marine reserve infantry battalions have
also served as ready reaction forces, ``on call'' to support the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's role in homeland security.
BUILDING ON SUCCESS FOR IMMEDIATE OPERATIONS
We continue to execute global operations and exercises with our
joint and coalition partners. The Marine Corps is beginning to relieve
the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment and the 82d Airborne Division in
Western Iraq in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM II. These forces
will be deployed in two rotations of seven months each. This rotation
policy will result in the least disruption for the long-term health of
the Marine Corps, precluding stop-loss/stop-move and unnecessary
interruptions in recruit training, career progression and development,
professional military education, and other deployment requirements. The
first rotation, from March until September 2004, will include 25,000
Marines and their equipment and includes almost 3,000 reserve component
Marines. A second rotation--of like size and composition--will overlap
the first and ensure a smooth and stable transition.
In preparation for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM II, I Marine
Expeditionary Force has analyzed lessons learned from their experiences
in conducting security and stability operations from March to September
2003, and recent Army lessons learned. As they did last year, I Marine
Expeditionary Force is working closely with the Army forces in Iraq;
they have conducted a number of liaison visits with the Army units they
will relieve. They have drawn from procedures used by the Los Angeles
Police Department for neighborhood patrolling in gang dominated areas,
the tactics of the British in Iraq--which reflect years of experience
in low intensity conflicts and peacekeeping operations, as well as the
Marine Corps' own extensive ``Small Wars'' experience. We have
assimilated these lessons through a comprehensive training package that
includes tactics, techniques, procedures for stability and counter-
insurgency operations. We have conducted rigorous urban operations
training and exercises. Over 400 Marines are receiving Arabic language
immersion training, and all deploying Marines and Sailors are receiving
extensive cultural education. Our supporting establishment is focused
on the equipment, logistics, and training requirements of this force--
paying particular attention to individual protective equipment,
enhanced vehicle and aircraft hardening, and aviation survival
equipment and procedures. This training and support are critically
important as we send Marines back to war in a volatile, dangerous, and
changing situation.
During this next year Marine Expeditionary Units will still deploy
as part of Naval Expeditionary Strike Groups in support of Combatant
Commander requirements. Units will continue to rotate to Okinawa and
Iwakuni Japan, and some of those forces will further deploy in support
of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM II. While the operational tempo remains
high, recruiting and retention continue to exceed our goals. We are
monitoring the health of our Service, and we are focused on ensuring
that the Marine Corps remains ready for all current and future
responsibilities.
TAKING CARE OF OUR OWN
Events of the past year continue to highlight the value of the
individual Marine over all other weapon ``systems.'' While we always
strive to provide our Marines with the best equipment and weapons, we
never forget that people and leadership are the foundations of the
Marine Corps' readiness and warfighting capabilities. Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM demonstrated that the Marine Corps' recruiting, training, and
education of the force are extremely successful in maintaining the high
standards of military readiness our Nation requires. The Marine Corps
remains committed to taking care of our Marines, their families, and
our civilian Marines.
Marines
End Strength.--The Marine Corps is assimilating the Congressionally
authorized increase in Marine Corps end-strength to 175,000. The
increase of 2,400 Marines previously authorized by Congress addressed
an urgent need to train and maintain enough Marines for the long-term
requirements associated with the Global War on Terrorism. It has been
particularly important in enabling us to provide the Nation with a
robust, scalable force option specifically dedicated to anti-
terrorism--the 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (Anti-Terrorism).
The Marine Corps is expeditionary by nature and therefore
accustomed to deploying in support of contingency and forward presence
missions. We are structured in such a way as to satisfy our enduring
requirements and meet operational contingencies as long as the
contingencies are temporary in nature. While the force is stretched, we
are meeting our current challenging operational commitments. Our high
operational and personnel tempos have not negatively impacted
accessions or retention efforts; however, we continue to monitor both
very closely.
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 eight years for enlisted recruiting and thirteen years for officer
recruiting. This past year the Marine Corps recruited over 100 percent
of its goal with over 97 percent Tier I High School graduates. In order
to continue attracting America's finest youth, Recruiting Command
provides its recruiters the best tools available to accomplish their
mission.
The Marine Corps Reserve achieved its fiscal year 2003 recruiting
goals with the accession of 6,174 Non-Prior Service Marines and 2,663
Prior Service Marines. With regard to our reserve component, officer
recruiting and retention to fill out the requirements of our Selected
Marine Corps Reserve units remains our most challenging concern. This
is primarily due to the fact that we recruit Reserve officers almost
exclusively from the ranks of those who have first served a tour as an
active duty Marine officer and currently the Corps is experiencing a
low attrition rate for company grade officers in our active force. We
are attempting to alleviate this challenge. Two successful methods
include increasing awareness of the benefits of service in the Reserves
to the company grade officers who are leaving the active ranks and
reserve officer programs for qualified enlisted Marines.
Retention.--Retaining the best and the brightest Marines is a
constant goal; history has proven that superb leadership in the staff
noncommissioned officer ranks is a major contributor to the Corps'
combat effectiveness. The ranks of this elite group of leaders can only
be filled by retaining our best enlisted Marines. The Marine Corps has
two retention measures and both clearly indicate healthy service
continuation rates. Our First Term Alignment Plan (first tour) has
consistently achieved its reenlistment requirements over the past nine
years. With under one-half of the current fiscal year completed, we
have achieved 82 percent of our first-term retention goal. Furthermore,
our Subsequent Term Alignment Plan (second tour and beyond) reveals
that we have already retained 66 percent of our goal for this fiscal
year.
Current officer retention is at a nineteen year high, continuing a
four-year trend of increasing retention. Despite the increased
retention overall, certain Military Occupational Specialties
perennially suffer high attrition. We are attempting to overcome this
challenge by offering continuation pay for those Marines with Military
Occupational Specialties that include special qualifications and
skills. 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.--In 2003, the Marine Corps Reserve rapidly
mobilized combat ready Marines to augment and reinforce the active
component. Marine Corps Reserve activations in support of Operation
IRAQI FREEDOM began in January 2003, and peaked at 21,316 Reserve
Marines on active duty in May 2003. This represented 52 percent of the
Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR). Of the over 5,400 Reservists
currently on active duty, almost 1,300 Individual Mobilization
Augmentees, Individual Ready Reserves, and Retirees fill critical joint
and internal billets. As of January 2004, the Marine Corps Reserve
began activating approximately 7,000 SMCR Marines in support of
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM II. Judicious employment of Reserve Marines
remains a top priority of the Marine Corps to ensure the Marine Corps
Reserve maintains the capability to augment and reinforce the active
component. Marine Corps Reserve units and individuals are combat ready
and have rapidly integrated into active forces commands demonstrating
the effectiveness of the Total Force Marine Corps.
A strong Inspector-Instructor system and a demanding Mobilization
and Operational Readiness Deployment Test program ensured Marine Corps
Reserve units achieved a high level of pre-mobilization readiness.
Marine Reserve Units continuously train to a C1/C2 readiness standard,
eliminating the need for post-mobilization certification. Ninety-eight
percent of SMCR Marines called up for duty reported for mobilization
and less than one percent requested a deferment, delay, or exemption.
The Marine Corps Reserve executed a rapid and efficient mobilization
with units averaging six days from notification to being deployment-
ready, and 32 days after receiving a deployment order they arrived in
theater. Many activated Marine Reserve units were ready to deploy
faster than strategic lift could be provided.
Building on the important lessons of the last year, the Marine
Corps is pursuing several transformational initiatives to enhance the
Reserves' capabilities as a ready and able partner with our active
component. These pending initiatives include: increasing the number of
Military Police units in the reserve component; establishing a Reserve
Intelligence Support Battalion to include placing Reserve Marine
Intelligence Detachments at the Joint Reserve Intelligence Centers;
returning some of our Civil Affairs structure to the active component
to provide enhanced planning capabilities to the operational and
Service Headquarters; and, introducing an improved Individual Augmentee
Management Program to meet the growing joint and internal requirements.
When called, the Marine Corps Reserve is ready to augment and
reinforce. Our Reserve Marines are a vital and critical element of our
Total Force. The training, leadership, and quality of life of our
reserve component remain significant Marine Corps priorities.
Marine For Life.--The commitment to take care of our own includes a
Marine's transition from active service back to civilian life. The
Marine For Life Program's mission is to provide sponsorship for our
more than 27,000 Marines who honorably leave active service each year.
The program was created to nurture and sustain the positive, mutually
beneficial relationships inherent in our ethos, ``Once a Marine, Always
a Marine.'' In cities across the United States, Reserve Marines help
transitioning Marines and their families get settled in their new
communities. Sponsorship includes assistance with employment,
education, housing, childcare, veterans' benefits, and other support
services needed to make a smooth transition. To provide this support,
Marine For Life taps into the network of former Marines and Marine-
friendly businesses, organizations and individuals willing to lend a
hand to a Marine who has served honorably.
Initiated in fiscal year 2002, the program will reach full
operational capability in fiscal year 2004. In addition to 110 Reserve
Marines serving as ``Hometown Links,'' an enhanced web-based electronic
network, easily accessed by Marines worldwide, will support the
program. The end state of the Marine For Life Program is a nationwide
Marine and Marine-friendly network available to all Marines honorably
leaving active service, that will improve their transition to civilian
life.
Civilian Marines
Civilian Workforce Campaign Plan.--Recognizing that our Civilian
Marines are integral to the success of military operations, General
James L. Jones, the 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps, charged our
senior Marine Corps officials with the development and implementation
of a strategic 5-year plan for the recruitment, development, and
retention of our Civilian Marines. The Civilian Workforce Campaign Plan
(CWCP) consists of six strategic goals: (1) nurture, build, and grow
Civilian Marines; (2) provide flexible career opportunities; (3) create
leaders at all levels; (4) improve the performance evaluation system;
(5) strengthen workforce management expertise; and (6) establish an
integrated Total Force management approach. As Commandant, I have
provided the following additional implementing guidance.
Our vision is to make the Marine Corps the employer of choice for a
select group of civilians imbued with the Marine Corps values of honor,
courage, and commitment. Through implementation of the CWCP, we will
not only define what the Marine Corps will offer its Civilian Marines,
but what the Corps expects from them. We will attract, nurture, build,
and grow Civilian Marines by providing innovative recruitment,
development, retention, reward, and acculturation programs throughout
the work-life cycle.
National Security Personnel System.--We want to take this occasion
to thank again the committee and the Congress for enacting the National
Security Personnel System (NSPS) in the Fiscal Year 2004 National
Defense Authorization Act. The Act authorized a more flexible civilian
personnel management system for the Department that allowed the
Department to be a more competitive and progressive employer at a time
when our national security demands a highly responsive system of
civilian personnel management. The legislation ensures that merit
system principles govern any changes in personnel management,
whistleblowers are protected, discrimination remains illegal, and
veterans' preference is protected. The Department will collaborate with
employee representatives, invest time to try and work out our
differences, and notify Congress of any differences before
implementation. In January, Department officials met with union
representatives to begin the development of a new system of labor-
management relations. Later this year, following an intensive training
program for supervisors, managers, human resources specialists,
employees, as well as commanders and senior management, the Department
plans to begin implementing NSPS. The Marine Corps, along with the
entire Department of the Navy, expects to be in the first wave of
implementation.
Military-Civilian Conversions.--The Marine Corps will continue to
actively pursue a review of all functional areas within the Marine
Corps in an effort to return more Marines to the operating forces.
Through fiscal year 2003, we have returned over 2,000 manned structure
spaces to the operating forces, and we will return approximately 650
more Marines in fiscal year 2004. The fiscal year 2005 President's
Budget converts roughly an additional 1,400 more billets from Marines
to Civilian Marines, which will provide us more options to increase
manning in the operating forces.
Education
Amid today's uncertain, volatile security environment, our most
effective weapon remains the individual Marine who out-learns, out-
thinks, and out-fights any adversary. Such warfighting competence is
secured only through intellectual development. Recent events
demonstrated how quality education instills confidence in Marines. Our
educational standards and programs produce innovative leaders who take
initiative and excel during challenging situations involving
uncertainty and risk. These high educational standards are inculcated
by the Marine Corps University and are designed to target every rank in
both our active and reserve forces. Each year the Marine Corps
University student population includes members of the other armed
services, various government agencies as well as dozens of
international military officers from over thirty different countries.
The Marine Corps endeavors to provide its Marines with ``lifelong
learning'' opportunities through a variety of educational programs,
college courses, and library services on our bases and stations.
Furthermore, distance learning programs through the Marine Corps
University make continuing education available to Marines regardless of
their location. In addition, the Marine Corps will continue to fully
fund the Tuition Assistance Program in accordance with the Department
of Defense guideline--funding for 100 percent of tuition cost up to
$250 per semester hour with a maximum of $4,500 per year. In fiscal
year 2003, there were 25,454 Marines enrolled in almost 80,000 courses
with the help of the Tuition Assistance Program.
Joint Initiatives.--The Marine Corps synchronizes its educational
objectives with those of the other armed services in order to provide
Regional Combatant Commanders with the most capable joint force. We
support the proposal for a Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS) and
for broadening Joint Professional Military Education (JPME)
opportunities for the Total Force. By working closely with Joint Forces
Staff College and our sister services, JAWS has the potential to
empower future combatant commanders with talented officers who are
experienced in campaign planning. Intent on broadening our joint
experience base, the Marine Corps is pursuing an accredited advanced
joint curriculum (JPME Phase II) at the Marine Corps War College and
will continue to work to provide JPME opportunities for both active and
reserve components.
Senior Leader Development Program.--The Senior Leader Development
Program was developed last year to address General Officer and Senior
Executive Service career development and to link education
opportunities to career progression. A study was commissioned to
identify the competencies required in each of our general officer
billets in an effort to link core and complimentary curriculum with the
assignment process. Within the core curriculum, senior leaders will
attend the Joint Warfare series of courses as prerequisites by rank and
billet while they study innovation, business transformation, and
resource management through complementary courses.
Quality of Life/Quality of Service
The Marine Corps works to improve the quality of life for Marines
and their families in order to continue the success of the all
volunteer force. We provide excellent quality of life programs and
services, while also helping new Marines to better understand what to
expect in the military lifestyle. We continuously assess, through a
variety of means, the attitudes and concerns of Marines and their
families regarding their quality of life expectations. With 67 percent
of our Marines deployed away from their home installations at the
height of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, we carefully captured lessons
learned to ensure quality of life programs meet the needs of deployed
Marines and families who remain at home. Community and Family
Assistance Centers were established at Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton,
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, and Marine Corps Base Twentynine
Palms to provide Marine family members and loved ones access to
relevant information and referral services.
To further help Marines and their families before, during, and
after deployments, the Marine Corps implemented Marine Corps Community
Services (MCCS) One Source, a Marine Corps-conducted, Department of
Defense funded pilot program providing around-the-clock information and
referral services. MCCS One Source is especially useful to our
activated Marine Reserves and their families as they negotiate the
requirements and procedures associated with utilization of military
programs such as TRICARE and other benefit services. In recognition of
the importance of the transition home after deployments for both
Marines and their families, the Marine Corps developed a standardized
return and reunion program consisting of a mandatory warrior transition
brief for returning Marines, a return and reunion guidebook for Marines
and family members, a caregiver brief, and briefs designed for spouses.
We greatly appreciate the supplemental appropriations bills during
2003, that contained additional help for deployed Marines and their
families. In 2004, quality of life efforts will continue to focus on
issues related to supporting deployed forces and their families.
Safety
Safety programs are vital to force protection and operational
readiness. Marine leaders understand the importance of leadership,
persistence, and accountability in the effort to reduce mishaps and
accidents. The fiscal year 2003 off duty and operational mishap rates
were driven upward by the mishaps that occurred during and post
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, while the aviation mishap rate decreased. To
meet the Secretary of Defense's challenge to all Services to reduce
mishaps by 50 percent in two years, the Marine Corps is focusing on
initiatives that deal particularly with the development of strategies
and specific interventions to reduce all mishaps. Our leadership at
every level understand the challenge, and we are actively involved in
the effort to safeguard our most precious assets--Marines and Sailors.
BUILDING ON SUCCESS FOR THE FUTURE
The Marine Corps, in partnership with our Navy brethren, provides
our Nation with unrivaled maritime power to help secure peace and
promote our national interests. The President's fiscal year 2005
budget, together with your support, will provide a strong foundation
for our continued success. The fiscal year 2005 budget--predicated on a
peacetime operational tempo--sustains a high level of readiness and
ensures our ability to rapidly respond to emerging situations. It also
allows us to assimilate new technologies and explore new concepts that
will help realize the full potential of our people and their equipment.
We will continue to seek improved means to increase the efficiency of
our investments and increase the combat effectiveness of our forces.
Technology and Experimentation
The Marine Corps has a long history of innovation and adaptation.
Experimentation is our principle means to explore new ideas and
technologies in order to develop new capabilities to overcome emerging
challenges. The Marine Corps Combat Development Command has realigned
its experimentation program around the Sea Viking campaign. This
campaign will explore both concept and prototype technology development
pathways leading to the sea-based expeditionary capabilities envisioned
for the future, to include forcible entry from the sea. The Sea Viking
campaign is complementary to the joint concept development and
experimentation campaign of Joint Forces Command and the Navy's Sea
Trial experimentation process. As an integral part of this effort, the
Marine Corps is refining the expeditionary combat capabilities best
suited to participate in future Expeditionary Strike Group and
Expeditionary Strike Force operations. It is also exploring the
potential for an expanded Seabasing capability in support of future
joint operations.
The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory has experimented with
several new pieces of equipment to enhance individual and small unit
effectiveness. Based on successful experimentation, limited numbers of
the M16A4 Modular Weapons System, Rifle Combat Optic, and the
Integrated Intra Squad Radio were fielded for use during Operation
IRAQI FREEDOM. The Marine Corps continues to seek enhanced capabilities
for the future as we continue to improve and transform the force. In
addition, we have procured sufficient quantities of the Outer Tactical
Vest and its Small Arms Protective Insert plates to ensure all Marines
participating in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM II are equipped with enhanced
ballistic protection.
New Concepts and Organizations
The Expeditionary Force Development System implemented this past
year is a methodological process that is designed to facilitate the
development and realization of military operational concepts. It is a
streamlined and integrated system that covers all phases of concept
development to the acquisition of necessary equipment and weapons
systems. The Expeditionary Force Development System proved to be of
great value to our forces engaged in combat operations and is proving
to be a helpful means of ensuring that the Marine Corps quickly profits
from recent operational experiences. The system is compatible with and
supports naval and joint transformation efforts as it integrates
transformational, modernization, and legacy capabilities and processes.
Several emerging concepts and organizational structures are maturing
that will benefit the Marine Corps and ensure we can meet the future
demanding requirements of the Combatant Commanders.
The Seabasing Concept.--Seabasing, envisioned as a National
capability, is our overarching transformational operating concept for
projecting and sustaining multi-dimensional naval power and selected
joint forces at sea. As stated by the Defense Science Board in its
August 2003 Task Force report: ``Seabasing represents a critical future
joint military capability for the United States.'' It assures joint
access by leveraging the operational maneuver of forces globally from
the sea, and reduces joint force operational dependence upon fixed and
vulnerable land bases. Seabasing unites our capabilities for projecting
offensive power, defensive power, command and control, mobility and
sustainment around the world. This will provide our Regional Combatant
Commanders with unprecedented versatility to generate operational
maneuver. Seabasing will allow Marine forces to strike, commence
sustainable operations, enable the flow of follow-on forces into
theater, and expedite the reconstitution and redeployment of Marine
forces for follow-on missions. As the core of Naval Transformation,
Seabasing will provide the operational and logistical foundation to
enable the other pillars of Naval Transformation (Sea Strike, Sea
Shield, Sea Base, and FORCEnet).
This year, the Marine Corps has continued to refine plans for the
Marine Expeditionary Brigade of 2015, in concert with our concept for
sea-based operations. Similarly, the Analysis of Alternatives for our
Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), a critical component of
Seabasing, will provide valid choices for achieving Seabasing
capabilities. These initiatives will complement, rather than replace,
the amphibious lift and forcible entry capacity of the LHA(R), LPD-17,
and LHD, and will provide the Nation a deployment and employment
capability unmatched in the modern world.
Expeditionary Strike Groups.--The Marine Corps and Navy continue
the series of experiments that will refine 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 enhanced Marine Expeditionary Units
(Special Operations Capable) to provide greater combat capabilities to
Regional Combatant Commanders. Navy combatants are incorporated within
the existing training and deployment cycle of the Amphibious Ready
Group. Further experimentation will also allow us to test command-and-
control arrangements for the Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). The ESG-
1, composed of West Coast Navy and Marine forces, recently completed
the pilot deployment in this series. The ESG-2, composed of East Coast
Navy and Marine forces, will deploy later this year. Currently, the
Marine Corps Combat Development Command is working with Navy and Marine
operating forces to capture critical information from these
experimental deployments to ensure that the ESG capability thoroughly
integrates doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership,
education, personnel, and facilities. Also, the Marine Corps Combat
Development Command is working with the Navy to develop the concept for
the employment of the additional capabilities that the ESG provides
Regional Combatant Commanders. Finally, the Center for Naval Analyses
is evaluating the series of experiments through embedded analysts
deployed with both ESGs and will submit their consolidated reports to
the Navy and Marine Corps in October 2004.
Marine Corps--U.S. Special Operations Command Initiatives.--The
Marine Corps continues to aggressively improve interoperability with
Special Operations Forces. The U.S. Special Operations Command-Marine
Corps Board has developed over 30 initiatives to support our
interoperability goals. The Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations
Command are working to leverage existing pre-deployment and deployment
training as a means to ``operationalize'' our relationship. Our
deploying Marine Expeditionary Units (Special Operations Capable)
exchange liaison officers with the Theater Special Operations Commands
as the Marine Expeditionary Units deploy within the various theaters.
On June 20, 2003, a Marine Corps ``proof of concept'' Detachment that
is task organized to complement U.S. Special Operations Command mission
areas in Direct Action, Special Reconnaissance, Coalition Support and
Foreign Internal Defense formally stood up at Camp Pendleton,
California. The Detachment transferred to the operational control of
U.S. Special Operations Command last December, to facilitate joint pre-
deployment training and is scheduled to deploy in April 2004, with a
Naval Special Warfare Squadron supporting U.S. Central Command.
Finally, we are conducting joint training with U.S. Special Operations
Command in the areas of fixed and rotary wing air support of special
operation missions.
Reestablishment of Air-Naval Gunfire Liaison Companies.--During
this past summer the Marine Corps reestablished an Air-Naval Gunfire
Liaison Company in I Marine Expeditionary Force and another in the II
Marine Expeditionary Force. These companies provide teams that
specialize in all aspects of fire support--from terminal control to
support of division fire support coordination centers. They greatly
enhance Marine Air-Ground Task Force Commanders' liaison capability--
with foreign area expertise--to plan, coordinate, employ, and conduct
terminal control of fires in support of joint, allied, and coalition
forces. Each company will be fully stood up by this summer, and a
separate platoon will be stood up in III Marine Expeditionary Force in
October 2004.
Tactical Aircraft Integration.--Naval Tactical Aircraft (TacAir)
Integration makes all Naval Strike-Fighter aircraft available to meet
both Services' warfighting and training requirements. As part of the
TacAir Integration plan, a Marine Fighter-Attack squadron will
eventually be attached to each of the ten active Carrier Air Wings and
will deploy aboard aircraft carriers. In addition, three Navy Strike-
Fighter squadrons will be assigned into the Marine Corps' Unit
Deployment Program for land-based deployments. Force structure
reductions associated with this plan should result in a total cost
savings and cost avoidance of over $30 billion. The integration of the
fifth Marine squadron into a Carrier Air Wing and the first Navy
squadron into the Unit Deployment Program are scheduled for later this
year.
TacAir Integration retains our warfighting potential and brings the
Naval Services a step closer to the flexible sea based force we
envision for the future. A leaner, more efficient naval strike-fighter
force is possible because of three underlying factors. The first factor
is ``Global Sourcing''--the ability to task any non-deployed Department
of Navy squadron to either Service's missions, allowing for a reduction
in force structure. Second, ``Level Readiness''--applying the proper
resources to training, maintenance, and modernization, will ensure the
smaller force is always capable of responding to the Services' and
Nation's needs. Third, the development of an operational concept that
will efficiently manage the employment of this integrated strike-
fighter force within the naval and joint context. Support of readiness
accounts, modernization programs, and our replacement of the F/A-18 and
AV-8B with the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Joint Strike
Fighter will ensure the potential promised by this integration.
Better Business Practices
The Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy have emphasized,
and the Marine Corps is committed to, business transformation in order
to optimize resource allocation. The Marine Corps is employing a
variety of business transformation initiatives including: competitive
sourcing of over 3,500 commercial billets to save $57 million annually;
outsourcing garrison food service in our mess halls in the continental
United States in to free up 594 Marines for other duties; using public-
private ventures to fund new family housing and to increase the
quantity of safe, comfortable, and affordable homes; consolidation of
equipment maintenance from five to three echelons in order to improve
maintenance effectiveness and efficiency; and, regionalizing garrison
mobile equipment to realign Marines and dollars with higher priorities.
The Marine Corps continues to develop its activity based costing
capability in order to support fact based decision making.
In March 2003, the Marine Corps began participation in the Navy
Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI)--a network outsourcing initiative that
will provide a common end-to-end Department of Navy information system
capability for voice, video, and data communications. By outsourcing
information technology services not considered to be core competencies,
the Marine Corps has been able to return 355 supporting establishment
personnel structure spaces to the operating forces. As a result of this
improved business practice, the NMCI operating environment will promote
greater naval interoperability. The Marine Corps will continue to
refine our business practices and increase the effectiveness of
warfighting potential.
OUR MAIN EFFORT--EXCELLENCE IN WARFIGHTING
Training
Training at Eglin Air Force Base.--In anticipation of the cessation
of naval expeditionary forces training in Vieques, Puerto Rico, efforts
began in September 2002 to establish a new training capability at Eglin
Air Force Base (AFB). Training at Eglin AFB is envisioned to provide a
near term pre-deployment training capability for East Coast Navy
Amphibious Ready Groups/Expeditionary Strike Groups and Marine
Expeditionary Units (Special Operations Capable), with the potential to
be part of the long-term solution. The training concept was designed
for up to two 10-day training periods per year. The long-term objective
is that during each 10-day event, the Expeditionary Strike Groups will
be able to conduct the full spectrum of training required. The Marine
Corps has invested approximately $4.2 million in environmental
assessment/mitigation and infrastructure development required to
establish an initial training capability at Eglin AFB.
In December 2003, the Marine Corps completed its first 10-day
training period at Eglin AFB, at an additional cost of approximately $1
million. The Marine Corps is assessing the quality the training offered
at Eglin AFB while continuing to explore and develop other options,
both within the United States and abroad. While Eglin AFB has the
potential for enhanced live fire and maneuver training, developing this
capability will require a significant investment by the Department of
the Navy and Department of Defense to upgrade existing facilities.
Joint National Training Capability.--As described by the Deputy
Secretary of Defense: ``The centerpiece of our Training Transformation
effort will be a Joint National Training Capability.'' The Joint
National Training Capability is one of the three pillars of Training
Transformation, and will improve joint interoperability by adding
certified ``joint context'' to existing Service training events. The
Joint National Training Capability is a cooperative collection of
interoperable training sites, nodes, and events that synthesizes
Combatant Commander and Service training requirements with the
appropriate level of joint context.
The first in a series of pre-Initial Operational Capability Joint
National Training Capability exercises was held in January 2004,
linking a Marine Corps Combined Arms Exercise with live Close Air
Support sorties, a Navy Stand-off Land Attack Missile Exercise, an Army
rotation at the National Training Center, and an Air Force Air Warrior
Exercise. The Marine Corps will be actively involved in future Joint
National Training Capability exercises including Combined Arms
Exercises and Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron-1 evolutions
scheduled for fiscal year 2005. The Marine Corps is fully engaged in
the Joint National Training Capability program development, and is on
track to enhance Service core-competency training with the appropriate
level of joint context. In concert with the other Services, the Marine
Corps is working with Joint Forces Command to refine the phrase ``joint
context,'' certify ranges, and accredit exercises to ensure the force
is training properly.
Infrastructure
Blount Island Facility.--The acquisition of the Blount Island
facility in Jacksonville, Florida, is critical to our Nation and to our
Corps' warfighting capabilities. Blount Island's peacetime mission is
to support the Maritime Prepositioning Force. Its wartime capability
and capacity to support massive logistics sustainment from the
continental United States gives it strategic significance. The Blount
Island facility has a vital role in the National Military Strategy as
the site for maintenance operations of the Maritime Prepositioning
Force. The Marine Corps thanks Congress for your role in supporting
this acquisition project. Phase II, funded by the $115.7 million
appropriated in the Defense Authorization Act of 2004, gives the Marine
Corps ownership of the leased maintenance area and supporting dredge
disposal site consisting of 1,089 acres.
Encroachment.--We are grateful to Congress for providing a tool to
facilitate the management of incompatible developments adjacent to or
in close proximity to military lands. We are working with state and
local governments and with non-governmental organizations such as the
Trust for Public Lands, The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and
the Endangered Species Coalition to acquire lands buffering or near our
bases including Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, and
Camp Pendleton. In return for our investment, the Marine Corps is
receiving restrictive easements that ensure lands acquired remain
undeveloped and serve as buffer zones against future encroachment on
our bases.
We are also grateful to Congress for codifying legislation that
gives us the opportunity to partner with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and State fish and game agencies in order to manage endangered
species present on military lands. Management via our Integrated
Natural Resources Management Plans, which we prepare in partnerships
with these agencies, allows us to protect and enhance populations of
these species on our lands while allowing Marines to train. Finally, we
support the Secretary of Defense's efforts to provide flexibility under
the Clean Air Act and to clarify the governing authorities under which
DOD would manage operational ranges. The Marine Corps strives to be a
good environmental steward and the growing number of endangered species
on our lands and their increasing populations are examples of our
successes. We remain committed to protecting the resources entrusted to
us by the American people.
Base Realignment and Closures.--A successful Base Realignment and
Closure process, resulting in recommendations in 2005, is critically
important to the Nation, the Department of Defense, and the Department
of Navy. By eliminating excesses and improving efficiencies, the armed
services will achieve a transformation of our infrastructure in the
same way we are achieving a transformation of our forces.
Recommendations will be developed only after a thorough and in-depth
review.
Command and Control
Naval expeditionary warfare will depend heavily on the ability of
the forces to share linked and fused information from a common source
which will, in turn, ensure command and control of widely dispersed
forces. Exploiting the use of space, ground and aerial platforms
requires a networked, protected, and assured global grid of
information. Leveraging command and control technology to improve our
interoperability continues to be our focus of effort.
Advances in technology and a need to leverage existing
infrastructure requires us to establish a new Information Technology
(IT) framework--one that is more reliable, efficient, secure, and
responsive. This new IT framework must provide enhanced information
access and improved information services to the operating forces. By
streamlining the deployment of IT tools and realigning our IT
resources, the Marine Corps Enterprise IT Services will shift the
burden away from the operating forces by establishing a new IT
environment. This IT environment will fuse and integrate Department
wide, net-centric enterprise services to provide a common set of
sharable IT services to the entire Marine Corps. By eliminating
individual organizations providing duplicative and redundant services,
we will reduce the IT burden on the operating forces through enterprise
provided IT services, and improve our ability to process information
and enhance the speed of decision-making.
Intelligence
Our fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2004 enhancements to
Marine intelligence improved the intelligence capability within Marine
units and established a ``reach-back'' intelligence production
capability between forward deployed units and our Marine Corps
Intelligence Activity in Quantico, Virginia. These improvements are
proving to be remarkably beneficial to our efforts in Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. Marine intelligence is
concurrently supporting ongoing operations, preparing for near term
operations, and transforming our intelligence systems to meet future
warfighting requirements. Marine Intelligence Specialists have provided
significant contributions to ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Djibouti and will play a crucial intelligence role as Marine Forces
return to Iraq in larger numbers this year. Before again deploying to
Iraq, we will train over 400 Marines in basic Arabic to aid in our
efforts to work with the Iraqis at the patrol level, and we will
provide enhanced language training for some of our Arabic heritage
speakers and others trained linguists to increase our operational
influence and effectiveness. Meanwhile, we prepare for future conflicts
by ensuring that our intelligence training and systems funded in the
fiscal year 2005-2009 program incorporate the latest technological
advances and become more capable of seamless interoperability with the
systems used by other armed services and national agencies.
Mobility
As preliminary assessments of operations in Iraq highlight,
operational and tactical mobility are essential to overcome the current
range of threats. The ability to rapidly respond and then flexibly
adapt to a changing situation is critical to address future challenges.
Increasing the speed, range, and flexibility of maneuver units that are
enhanced by logistical power generated from the sea, will increase
naval power projection. The following initiatives are vital to achieve
greater operational mobility:
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 range, speed,
payload, and survivability will generate truly transformational
tactical and operational capabilities. With the Osprey, Marine forces
operating from a 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.--Continued replacement of our aging KC-130 fleet with KC-
130J aircraft is necessary to ensure the viability and deployability of
Marine Corps Tactical Air and Assault Support well into the 21st
Century. Acquisition of the KC-130J represents a significant increase
in operational efficiency and enhanced refueling and assault support
capabilities for the Marine Corps. The KC-130J provides the aerial
refueling and assault support airlift resources needed to support the
Osprey, the Joint Strike Fighter, and the Marine Air-Ground Task Force
and Joint Force Commanders.
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV).--The EFV, formerly known as
the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), will provide Marine
surface assault elements the requisite operational and tactical
mobility to exploit fleeting opportunities in the fluid operational
environment of the future. Designed to be launched from Naval
amphibious shipping from over the horizon, the EFV will be capable of
carrying a reinforced Marine rifle squad at speeds in excess of 20
nautical miles per hour in sea state three. This capability will reduce
the vulnerability of our naval forces to enemy threats by keeping them
well out to sea while providing our surface assault forces mounted in
EFVs the mobility to react to and exploit gaps in enemy defenses
ashore. Once ashore, EFV will provide Marine maneuver units with an
armored personnel carrier designed to meet the threats of the future.
EFV will replace the aging Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV). With its
high speed land and water maneuverability, highly lethal day/night
fighting ability, and advanced armor and Nuclear Biological and
Chemical protection, the EFV will significantly enhance the lethality
and survivability of Marine maneuver units and provide the Marine Air
Ground Task Force and Expeditionary Strike Group with increased
operational tempo across the spectrum of operations.
Power Projection Platforms.--Combined with embarked Marines,
amphibious warships provide our Nation with both a forward presence and
a flexible crisis response force. These power projection platforms give
decision-makers immediately responsive combat options. As the Seabasing
concept matures, enhanced naval expeditionary forces will be optimized
to provide a full spectrum of capabilities.
Inherent in the Sea Strike pillar of the Seabasing concept is the
ability to both strike with fires from the sea base and from units
maneuvering within the littoral region. The dilemma that these two
offensive capabilities impose on an enemy and the multitude of options
they create for our leadership increase our ability to achieve success
effectively and efficiently. The built-in flexibility and survivability
of amphibious ships coupled with their combat sustainment capability
ensure the rapid achievement of a full range of offensive operations
that either allow us to accomplish operational objectives directly or
enable us to set the conditions for major joint operations. The ability
to defeat an anti-access strategy--before it is completed or even once
it is developed--is vital to our national security objectives.
The LPD 17 class amphibious ships, currently planned or under
construction, represent the Department of the Navy's commitment to a
modern expeditionary power projection fleet. These ships will assist
our naval forces in meeting the fiscally-constrained programming goal
of lifting 2.5 Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) Assault Echelons
(AEs). The lead ship detail design has been completed and the
construction process is over 80 percent complete with a successful
launch in July 2003. Production effort is focused on meeting test
milestones for a November 2004 delivery. Construction of LPD 23 has
been accelerated from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2005, leveraging
fiscal year 2004 Advance Procurement resources provided by Congress.
LPD 17 replaces four classes of older ships--the LKA, LST, LSD, and the
LPD--and is being built with a 40-year expected service life.
LHAs 1-5 reach their 35-year service life at a rate of one per year
in 2011-15. LHD-8 will replace one LHA when it delivers in fiscal year
2007. In order to meet future warfighting requirements, the Navy and
Marine Corps leadership is evaluating LHA (Replacement)--LHA(R)--
requirements in the larger context of Joint Seabasing, power
projection, the Global War On Terrorism, and lessons learned from
Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM. The resulting platform
will provide a transformational capability that is interoperable with
future amphibious and Maritime Preposition Force ships, high-speed
connectors, advanced rotorcraft like the MV-22, Joint Strike Fighter,
and Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles.
Maritime Pre-positioning Force.--The leases on the current Maritime
Prepositioning Ships begin to expire in 2009. The Maritime
Prepositioning Force (Future)--MPF(F)--will be a key enabler to sea-
based operations. It will allow us to better exploit the maneuver space
provided by the sea to conduct joint operations at a time and place of
our choosing. When the MPF(F) becomes operational, the maritime
prepositioning role will expand far beyond its current capability to
provide the combat equipment for a fly-in force. MPF(F) will serve four
functions that the current MPF cannot: (1) at-sea arrival and assembly
of units; (2) direct support of the assault echelon of the Amphibious
Task Force; (3) long-term, sea-based sustainment of the landing force;
and (4) at-sea reconstitution and redeployment of the force. The
enhanced capabilities of these ships will significantly increase the
capability of the Sea Base--in the Seabasing concept--to provide
unimpeded mobility and persistent sustainment. This enhanced sea base
will minimize limitations imposed by reliance on overseas shore-based
support, maximize the ability of the naval elements of the joint force
to conduct combat operations from the maritime domain, and enable the
transformed joint force to exploit our Nation's asymmetric advantage of
our seapower dominance. The ability to rapidly generate maneuver forces
from this sea base will augment our forward presence and forcible entry
forces, increasing the overall power and effect of the joint campaign.
Acceleration of the lead MPF(F) from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year
2007 in the fiscal year 2005 budget reflects an emphasis on Seabasing
capabilities. The fiscal years 2005-2009 plan procures three MPF(F)
ships and advanced construction for an MPF(F) Aviation variant.
High Speed Connectors.--High Speed Connectors (HSC) possess
characteristics that make them uniquely suited to support the Sea Base
and sea-based operations. HSCs are unique in combining shallow draft,
high speed and large lift capacity into a single platform. HSCs will
help create an enhanced operational capability by providing commanders
with a flexible platform to deliver tailored, scalable forces in
response to a wide range of mission requirements. The range and payload
capacity of HSCs, combined with their ability to interface with current
and future MPF shipping and access austere ports greatly enhances the
operational reach, tactical mobility, and flexibility of sea-based
forces.
Mine Countermeasure Capabilities.--There is a great need to
continue the development of our mine countermeasure capabilities. A
major challenge for the Navy-Marine Corps Team is ensuring the
effective delivery of ground forces ashore when mines and other anti-
access measures are employed in the surf zone or ashore beyond the high
water mark. We are currently exploring with the Navy how the technology
of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) promises a short-term solution
and may lead to a better long-term solution to the challenge of mines
in the surf zone. Using unitary bombs, fuses, and JDAM tail kits, we
have designed a mine countermeasure known as the JDAM Assault Breaching
System (JABS). Preliminary test results are showing promise as an
interim solution for breaching surface laid minefields and light
obstacles in the beach zones. Further testing and characterization of
the JABS system is proceeding throughout fiscal year 2004 with tests
against Surf Zone Mines and obstacles.
Some aspects of JABS development may lead to a long-term solution
to the mine threat. One possible solution that is envisioned includes
developing bomb-delivered darts that physically destroy buried mines in
the Beach Zone and Surf Zone region. In addition, the Navy has adopted
the Marine Corp Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA)
mine sensor system for the beach zone with a planned product
improvement enhancement for COBRA called the Rapid Overt Airborne
Reconnaissance (ROAR) that extends detection to the very shallow water
and the surf zone regions by 2015. In addition, the Marine Corps seeks
to improve breaching capability beyond the high water mark by
developing both deliberate and in-stride breaching systems. These
include the Advanced Mine Detector program and the Assault Breacher
Vehicle program.
Fires and Effects
As events over the past year have demonstrated--and suggest for the
future--the increased range and speed of expeditionary forces and the
depth of their influence landward has and will continue to increase. To
fully realize these capabilities the Nation requires a range of
complementary, expeditionary lethal and non-lethal fire support
capabilities. During Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, sixty AV-8B Harrier
aircraft were based at-sea aboard amphibious shipping--minimizing the
challenge of airfield shortages ashore. This prelude to future sea-
based operations was extremely successful with over 2,200 sorties
generated--mostly in support of I Marine Expeditionary Force ground
units. A key factor to this success was the employment of forward
operating bases close to the ground forces which allowed the AV-8B to
refuel and rearm multiple times before returning to their ships. In
addition, the complementary capabilities of surface and air delivered
fires were highlighted in this campaign. Further, the importance of
both precision and volume fires was critical to success. Precision
fires assisted in reducing both collateral damage and the demands on
tactical logistics. I Marine Expeditionary Force also validated the
requirement for volume fires in support of maneuver warfare tactics.
These fires allow maneuver forces to take advantage of maneuver warfare
opportunities before precision intelligence can be developed and
precision fires can be employed against fleeting targets or rapidly
developing enemy defensive postures.
Short Take Off Vertical Landing Joint Strike Fighter (STOVL JSF).--
The STOVL JSF will be a single engine, stealth, supersonic, strike-
fighter capable of short take-offs and vertical landings. The aircraft
is designed to replace the AV-8B and FA-18 aircraft in the Marine Corps
inventory. The operational reliability, stealth, and payload capability
designed into the STOVL JSF represents a great improvement in combat
capability over existing legacy platforms. The aircraft is in the
second year of a 10-12 year development program. The STOVL JSF force is
integral to our future warfighting capabilities. Its design and
capabilities will fulfill all Marine Corps strike-fighter requirements
and better support the combined arms requirements in expeditionary
operations. Continued support of the STOVL JSF is vital to the Marine
Corps.
Indirect Fires Support.--In response to identified gaps in our
indirect fires capability, the Marine Corps undertook an effort to
replace the aging M198 155 mm towed howitzers and provide a full
spectrum all-weather system of systems fires capability. Operations in
Iraq confirmed this requirement and the direction that the Marine Corps
has undertaken. This system of systems will be capable of employing
both precision and volume munitions.
The Lightweight 155 mm howitzer (LW 155) is optimized for
versatility, pro-active counter fire and offensive operations in
support of light and medium forces. It supports Operational Maneuver
from the Sea and replaces all M198's in the Marine Corps, as well as
the M198's in Army Airborne, Light Units and Stryker Brigade Combat
Teams. Compared to the current system, the LW 155 is more mobile,
capable of more rapid deployment, more survivable, and more accurate.
Initial operational capability is expected during fiscal year 2005, and
a full operational capability will be reached three years later.
The High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) fulfills a
critical range and volume gap in Marine Corps fire support assets by
providing twenty-four hour, all weather, ground-based, responsive,
General Support, General Support-Reinforcing, and Reinforcing indirect
fires throughout all phases of combat operations ashore. HIMARS will be
fielded in one artillery battalion of the active component and one
battalion of the reserve component. An initial operational capability
is planned for fiscal year 2007 with a full capability expected during
fiscal year 2008. An interim capability of one battery during fiscal
years 2005-2006 is also currently planned.
The Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS) is the third element
of the triad of ground firing systems, and it will be the principal
indirect fire support system for the vertical assault element. EFSS-
equipped units will be especially well suited for missions requiring
speed, tactical agility, and vertical transportability. The estimated
Approved Acquisition Objective is eighty-eight systems. Initially, this
provides eleven batteries to support our Marine Expeditionary Units
(Special Operations Capable). Initial operational capability is planned
for fiscal year 2006 and full operational capability is planned for
fiscal year 2008.
Naval Surface Fire Support.--An important element of our fires and
effects capability will continue to be surface ships that provide
direct delivery of fires from the sea base. 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. In the critical
period of the early phases of the forcible entry operations when
organic Marine Corps ground indirect fires are not yet or just
beginning to be established, the landing force will be even more
dependent on the complementary capability required of naval surface
fire support assets. To date, no systems have been introduced or are
being developed which meet near or mid-term Naval Surface Fire Support
requirements. The DD(X) destroyer--armed with two 155 mm Advanced Gun
Systems--continues to be the best long-term solution to satisfy the
Marine Corps' Naval Surface Fire Support requirements. Our Nation's
forcible entry, expeditionary forces will remain at considerable risk
for want of suitable sea-based fire support until DD(X) joins the fleet
in considerable numbers in 2020. Currently, the lead ship of this class
will not be operational until fiscal year 2013. In addition, the Marine
Corps is closely monitoring research into the development of electro-
magnetic gun technology to support future range and velocity
requirements. Electro-magnetic guns could potentially provide Naval
Surface Fire Support at ranges on the order of 220 nautical miles, and
could eventually be incorporated into ground mobile weapon systems like
the future Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles as size, weight, and power
technology hurdles are overcome.
H-1 (UH-1Y/AH-1Z).--The current fleet of UH-1N utility helicopters
and AH-1W attack helicopters is reaching the end of their planned
service life and face a number of deficiencies in crew and passenger
survivability, payload, power availability, endurance, range, airspeed,
maneuverability, and supportability. The Department of the Navy has
determined that the H-1 Upgrade Program is the most cost effective
alternative that meets the Marine Corps' attack and utility helicopter
requirements until the introduction of a new technology advanced
rotorcraft aircraft. The H-1 Upgrade Program is a key modernization
effort designed to resolve existing safety deficiencies, enhance
operational effectiveness of both the UH-1N and the AH-1W, and extend
the service life of both aircraft. Additionally, the commonality gained
between the UH-1Y and AH-1Z (projected to be 84 percent) will
significantly reduce life-cycle costs and logistical footprint, while
increasing the maintainability and deployability of both aircraft. On
October 22, 2003, the program to enter Low-Rate Initial Production
(LRIP), and on December 29, 2003 the LRIP Lot 1 aircraft contract was
awarded to Bell Helicopter.
Information Operations.--The Marine Corps is exploring ways to
ensure Marines will be capable of conducting full spectrum information
operations, pursuing the development of information capabilities
through initiatives in policy and doctrine, career force, structure,
training and education, and programs and resources. Marine forces will
use information operations to deny, degrade, disrupt, destroy or
influence an adversary commander's methods, means or ability to command
and control his forces.
New Weapons Technologies.--The Marine 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 to potentially support a tactical gunship high
energy laser weapon, (2) Active Denial System--a high-power millimeter-
wave, non-lethal weapon, (3) Free Electron Lasers for multi-mission
shipboard weapons application, and (4) various promising Counter
Improvised Explosive Device technologies.
Logistics and Combat Service Support
Logistics Modernization.--Since 1999, the Marine Corps has
undertaken several logistics modernization efforts to improve the
overall effectiveness of our Marine Air-Ground Task Forces as agile,
expeditionary forces in readiness. Some of these initiatives have
reached full operational capability or are on track for complete
implementation. Applying the lessons learned from Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM resulted in new initiatives concerning naval logistics
integration, naval distribution, and the integration of the Combat
Service Support Element with Marine Corps Bases.
The Marine Corps' number one logistics priority is the re-
engineering of logistics information technology and the retirement of
our legacy systems, which is described in the next section. The Marine
Corps is working to enhance the integration of its distribution
processes across the tactical through strategic levels of warfare,
providing the warfighter a ``snap shot'' view of his needed supplies in
the distribution chain to instantly locate specific items that are en
route. This capability, described in the following section, will result
in increased confidence in the distribution chain and will reduce both
the quantity of reorders and the amount of inventory carried to support
the war fighter.
Logistics Command and Control.--The Global Combat Support System-
Marine Corps is the Marine Corps' portion of the overarching Global
Combat Support System Family of Systems as designated by the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council and the Global Combat Support System
General Officer Steering Committee. It is a Marine Corps acquisition
program with the responsibility to acquire and integrate commercial off
the shelf software in order to satisfy the information requirements of
commanders, as well as support the Marine Corps Logistics Operational
Architecture. The Global Combat Support System-Marine Corps program
will provide modern, deployable information technology tools for all
elements of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. Existing Logistics
Information Systems used today in direct support of our Marine Air
Ground Task Forces are either not deployable (mainframe based) or are
deployable with such limited capability (tethered client server) that
our commanders lack in-transit and asset visibility. Global Combat
Support System-Marine Corps requirements include a single point of
entry, web based portal capability to generate simple requests for
products and services, logistics command and control capability to
support the Marine Air Ground Task Force, and back office tools to
assist in the management of the logistics chain. These capabilities
will improve warfighting excellence by providing commanders with the
logistics information they need to make timely command and control
decisions. The key to improving the accuracy and visibility of materiel
in the logistics chain is to establish a shared data environment.
End-to-End Distribution.--The Marine Corps is aggressively pursuing
standardization of the materiel distribution within the Marine Corps to
include interfacing with commercial and operational-level Department of
Defense distribution organizations. Furthermore, distribution processes
and resources used in a deployed theater of operations need to be the
same as those used in garrison. We strongly support United States
Transportation Command's designation as the Department of Defense's
Distribution Process Owner. In this capacity, United States
Transportation Command can more easily integrate distribution processes
and systems at the strategic and operational levels and provide the
Department of Defense a standard, joint solution for distribution
management. Materiel End-To-End Distribution provides Marine commanders
the means to seamlessly execute inbound and outbound movements for all
classes of supply while maintaining Total Asset and In-transit
Visibility throughout the distribution pipeline.
CONCLUSION
The Marine Corps remains focused on organizing, training, and
equipping our forces to best support combatant commanders throughout
the spectrum of combat. Incorporating recent experiences, increasing
our forces' integration with joint capabilities, exploiting the
flexibility and rapid response capabilities of our units, and
preserving the adaptability of our Marines, will collectively lead to
more options for the combatant commanders. The Marine Corps' commitment
to warfighting excellence and the steadfast support we receive from
this Committee will lead to success in the Global War On Terrorism
while helping to ensure America's security and prosperity.
______
Biographical Sketch of General Michael W. Hagee
General Hagee graduated with distinction from the U.S. Naval
Academy in 1968 with a Bachelor of Science in Engineering. He also
holds a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from the U.S. Naval
Postgraduate School and a Master of Arts in National Security and
Strategic Studies from the Naval War College. He is a graduate of the
Command and Staff College and the U.S. Naval War College.
General Hagee's command assignments include: Commanding Officer
Company A, 1st Battalion, 9th Marines (1970); Platoon Commander,
Company A and Commanding Officer Headquarters and Service Company,
First Battalion, First Marines (1970-1971); Commanding Officer,
Waikele-West Loch Guard Company (1974-1976); Commanding Officer, Pearl
Harbor Guard Company (1976-1977); Commanding Officer, 1st Battalion,
8th Marines (1988-1990); Commanding Officer, 11th Marine Expeditionary
Unit (Special Operations Capable) (1992-1993); Commanding General, 1st
Marine Division (1998-1999); and Commanding General, I Marine
Expeditionary Force (2000-2002).
General Hagee's staff assignments include: Communications-
Electronics Officer, 1st Marine Air Command and Control Squadron
(1971); Assistant Director, Telecommunications School (1972-1974);
Training Officer, 3d Marine Division (1977-1978); Electrical
Engineering Instructor, U.S. Naval Academy (1978-1981); Head, Officer
Plans Section, Headquarters Marine Corps (1982-1986); Assistant Chief
of Staff, G-1, 2d Marine Division (1987-1988); Executive Officer, 8th
Marines (1988); Director Humanities and Social Science Division/Marine
Corps Representative, U.S. Naval Academy (1990-1992); Liaison Officer
to the U.S. Special Envoy to Somalia (1992-1993); Executive Assistant
to the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps (1993-1994); Director,
Character Development Division, United States Naval Academy (1994-
1995); Senior Military Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Washington, D.C.; Executive Assistant to the Director of Central
Intelligence (1995-1996); Deputy Director of Operations, Headquarters,
U.S. European Command (1996-1998); and Director Strategic Plans and
Policy, U.S. Pacific Command (1999-2000).
His personal decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service
Medal with palm, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit with
two Gold Stars, Bronze Star with Combat ``V'', Defense Meritorious
Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with one Gold Star, Navy
Achievement Medal with one Gold Star, the Combat Action Ribbon, and the
National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal.
Senator Stevens. Well, gentlemen, those are some of those
finest statements I have heard in my period on this committee,
and I thank you all very much for the depth of your comments
and for the reports you've made.
FLEET RESPONSE PLAN
Admiral, could you explain a little bit more about this
Fleet Response Plan?
Admiral Clark. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Fundamentally, it goes like this. We had deployed--I like
the word ``surge''--Operation Iraqi Freedom, we surged over 50
percent of the fleet. One of our tasks was to--our business,
was telling our people, ``Look, our job is to make sure that we
get the most bang for the buck for the taxpayers of America.
And is there any way we can put this back together when we
bring it home that will make it more effective than it is
today?'' And, fundamentally, Mr. Chairman, what we've done is
this. We put a group of sailors in the room, and asked them,
``Are there things that we can do that will make us better?''
They came back with an approach, and said, ``If we look at
different ways to phase our training, if we look at new ways we
can put maintenance concepts together that will increase the
operational availability of our units, we will be able to
provide 50 percent more operational capability in response to
the President if a national emergency occurs.''
And what that means today is this. We analyzed the risk and
the requirement for naval forces. As the major combat phase of
Operation Iraqi Freedom wound down, the Secretary of Defense
looked at where we were. And I said, ``If we bring these forces
home now--the risk looked like we can bring the principal naval
force home--we will put this back together in a way that makes
it more ready than ever before.'' And, Mr. Chairman, I can tell
you, this morning, if the requirement came today, I could surge
that force forward again, the exact same force that we sent
forward for Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is ready to go this
morning. And what we have done is give the Nation a more
responsive Navy that can respond to a crisis and an emergency
anywhere in the world.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
V-22
General Hagee, I thank you, again, for the opportunity to
fly the V-22. It was an experience of a lifetime. I enjoyed
being in the aircraft. But I understand now that there's been
flight restrictions placed upon the V-22. Could you tell us
what's caused that?
General Hagee. Yes, sir, I can. And we appreciate you
coming down and flying in that truly transformational platform.
Back in December, when one of the--it happened to aircraft
number ten, which is instrumented, was flying towards the edge
of the envelope in an area where we're normally not going to
conduct flight operations, an input at the control caused some
yawing in the aircraft. We brought the aircraft down. It took
us some time to reproduce that particular phenomena. It was not
uncontrolled. There was no effect on safety of flight. This
aircraft happened to have a new flight control software package
put into it. So we believe it is a problem in the software. We
are investigating that right now. We haven't come to complete
closure on how to solve that. We are very confident that we
can.
We have put no flight restrictions on any of the
instrumented aircraft. We have put some flight restrictions on
the uninstrumented aircraft. We believe that we'll have a
solution to this software, possibly hardware solution, by May
of this year. We do not see that impacting the continued
evaluation of the aircraft, sir.
Senator Stevens. Will it affect the period for testing? It
this going to prolong the period of testing the V-22.
General Hagee. Sir, I think on the operational tests we're
not quite sure on that. But, as you know, this is not a time-
driven evaluation; this is an event-driven evaluation. We'll
have a much better feel for that in about April or May, sir.
Senator Stevens. Well, again, I think it was a joy to be
able to fly that airplane. It does things that one would never
expect to be able to do, and particularly because of the
software that you've adapted into it. I would appreciate it if
you'd keep me posted on that if there's anything additional we
can do. I would like to be sure that we do keep the schedule
for putting that aircraft really into full operation, as far as
the marines are concerned.
General Hagee. We will keep this committee informed, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
DD(X)
Admiral Clark, the DD(X) includes transformational
technologies that bring what my staff believes are
revolutionary capabilities to the fleet. Can you accomplish the
acquisition strategies for the DD(X) within the cost and
schedule that is currently outlined, in view of those new
technologies?
Admiral Clark. Well, Mr. Chairman, I agree completely with
your staff and their assessment of what DD(X) is all about. It
is a revolutionary platform. And I believe that when we have
DD(X), it is going to change the way we do everything. And what
I think is going to happen is that when we realize these
capabilities, it will set us on a path to spiral to our other
platforms, as well.
Let's talk about cost and schedule. As you know, we
received permission to fund this ship in Research and
Development. There are certainly risk areas in the development
of something that is this revolutionary, including an all-
electric platform, an advanced gun system that will fire, with
precision, at a [deleted]. You know, this will give us the
ability to support General Hagee and all of his marines, and
cover [deleted] more area in support of them than we can do so
today with a gun system. And I have great confidence in that
path that we're on, because there have been mitigation
strategies put in place to address the new technologies that
we're bringing on. However, I would not be so bold as to say
that any of us can predict the future. But I have great
confidence in the team that is putting the plan together to
create the future. And what does that mean? Well, it means
this. One of the reasons that we asked to put this platform in
research and development is that we wanted to have the same
kind of tools to do this kind of new development that we have
with other combat systems, and we haven't done that with ships
before. And we believe that this was the right way to go at
this.
So I don't see any cause for concern on the horizon. I'm
confident with where we are in the reports that I'm getting
from the acquisition community. But I also believe that the
path that we set on last year to fund this in research and
development (R&D) is absolutely the right approach.
END STRENGTH REDUCTIONS
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, I am informed that there
are plans to reduce the end strength of the Navy by 7,900
sailors, and another 8,700 sailors over the next 4 years. We're
told, to be on the safe side, that that is premature. What do
you say to that?
Mr. England. Well, let me reiterate, to some extent, the
opening comments that Admiral Clark made regarding our
manpower. We do want the very best-trained force, but we also
do not want an extra force. We do not want people that we do
not need in this great Navy, frankly. And as we have made
improvements, in terms of our ships, in terms of our manning--
for example, if you go back, Senator, to the ships, Senator
Inouye, that are sitting out in Hawaii, the U.S.S. Missouri, it
had almost 2,000 sailors when it was active. Now we have about
350 sailors on our destroyers. That will go down, on DD(X), to
about 150 sailors. So our manpower demands are less. A lot of
our older ships, we are retiring, where most of the manpower
has the highest demands. Also, our maintenance is better, our
reliability is better on these ships, technology is helping us.
So we are not stressed, in terms of our force, Senator. I
mean, we have efficiencies in the system, effectiveness, in
terms of better performance, that we can reduce the size of our
force. So this is a planned program, and we are not doing this
in advance. I mean, we clearly understand the forces we need,
and we are taking them down after we have new processes and new
technology in place. So this reflects, frankly, the
effectiveness, the efficiency of the Navy and our plans, in
terms of staffing this great naval force.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)
Senator Stevens. Could you briefly--I've got a minute
left--briefly tell us about the Joint Strike Fighter? Just an
update on the Joint Strike Fighter?
Mr. England. First, I hope one day you'll be able to fly
the Joint Strike Fighter, Senator. But, look, it is a very,
very important program. There are three development programs
going on simultaneously. As you may know, we delayed the
program 1 year because we wanted to keep them together, and we
wanted to make sure that we solved all the problems early as we
transitioned from the prototypes into development. So we did
delay the program deliberately 1 year because our feeling is,
by doing this now, we will save a lot of money and time later
on. These are very important programs to us. There is an Air
Force version and a Navy version. They are both, frankly,
overweight, but not to the point that they will miss their key
performance parameters. So we know we will realize significant
improvement there.
The short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version,
which is now both for the Marine Corps and also for the U.S.
Air Force, also is experiencing a weight problem, because it is
the most difficult design challenge. On the other hand, it
provides us the greatest advantage, and it will replace the AV-
8B, which is currently becoming long in the tooth and having
difficulty in the Marine Corps. So it provides us the very
greatest step forward, in terms of capability. It is harder to
do, but I am absolutely convinced the design is on track and we
will achieve the key performance parameters for these three
airplanes.
This program also has a large international content. We
have about $4.5 billion funded by our friends and allies around
the world, who are also relying on these three airplanes. This
is a highly integrated program. It is technically challenging,
but it is also very achievable, and the results will be
dramatic for the entire military and for our friends and allies
around the world.
I would encourage full support for this program, because it
is so crucial to so many services. And, Senator, I can tell
you, from my own personal experience, I am convinced that these
three airplanes will all be of significant value, major value,
to our military forces.
Senator Stevens. I'm smiling, Mr. Secretary, because
someone the other day asked me why do people use that phrase
``long in the tooth,'' as when we get older, our teeth get
shorter.
Senator Inouye.
SUBMARINE FORCE STRUCTURE
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, your stated submarine force
structure calls for 55 boats, but it appears that by 2020, we
may have about 30. You have indicated that this would be
unacceptable. Do you have alternative programs or platforms to
adjust this force structure?
Mr. England. Senator, right now, as you probably recall, we
start a multi-year--last year, we were authorized to go into a
multi-year, so we have a five-submarine multi-year program that
will continue for 5 years. So we are, frankly, fixed at this
rate of one a year for the next 5 years. That was the program
authorized by the Congress. At the same time, you are right, if
we continue at that level, our submarine force will, indeed,
shrink. So, recognizing that, we have initiated a study to
better understand the size of our submarine force and how we
might afford a larger force as we go forward. That study will
be part of our 2006 deliberations. So we will come to the
Congress next year with our submarine program, in terms of
recommendations. We are working that now. We will be briefing
that shortly within the Department of Defense, and that will be
part of our whole development of the fiscal year 2006 budget.
So, with your permission, I would like to defer a final answer
on that. Frankly, for the next 5 years, next 4 years now, we
are locked into this one submarine a year because of the multi-
year program. So it does give us some time to work, and we will
have that resolved in fiscal year 2006.
Senator Inouye. Well, we'll wait for your study.
END STRENGTH
Admiral Clark, the Secretary spoke of how your end strength
may be reduced. As the operational chief here, do you agree
with that?
Admiral Clark. I certainly do, Senator. And, in fact, you
can blame me for this, or give me credit, whichever way you
choose to do so. I have been--I want to report publicly, I have
been under no pressure from anybody senior to me in the chain
of command to affect my manning.
What we have been doing is this. Actually, I've learned a
lot from working with Secretary England. He worked in the big-
business world. And, you know, I grew up driving destroyers and
haven't run an operation nearly as big as we're now given the
task to operate. Part of our journey, Senator, is that we
have--as I said in my opening statement, we have come to grips
with the cost of manpower. And I've made a commitment to our
people that goes like this. ``We will invest in your growth and
development if you promise to serve and support and defend the
Constitution of the United States and be part of the Navy. We
are going to invest in you. And we're going to make sure that
you have opportunities to make a difference in our Navy.''
That's what I promised them. But I've also asked my leaders,
the Senior Executive Service (SES) civilians and the admirals
in this organization, that are given the task to function as
executives, ``Look, we've got to figure out how to run this
business more effectively. This is for the taxpayers. How do we
give them the most return on their investment?'' And I will
tell you that we are actively seeking ways to learn how to
operate this organization more effectively and more
efficiently. We are making great progress, and that is the
result of the 7,900 you see today.
My objective is this. I've learned that 10,000 people
equals $1.5 billion a year, and I'm turning that money into
recapitalization. The year I got to this job--and, Mr.
Chairman, you indicated this is my fourth visit to see you
all--the year I got here, the investment in shipbuilding was
$4.7 billion. The investment today is $11.1 billion, and I've
been shooting to get toward a goal of $12 billion a year. We
have done this fundamentally by redirecting resources inside
the Navy and becoming more effective. And so we intend to
continue working toward that, and I want to promise you that
part of this is because the technology insertion is allowing us
to do tasks with fewer people. As he said, DD(X) is going to
have far fewer people, the CVN 21 is going to have a 900-person
reduction in the crew, and these kinds of things make these
savings possible. And our investments make it possible. We
intend to keep looking for ways to operate more effectively and
put that money in tomorrow's Navy.
SHIP FORCE STRUCTURE
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, I'm certain you recall that
about 10 years ago, when we discussed warfare, they spoke of
major war, regional war, guerrilla war, et cetera, and you
needed so many ships for that, and so many men for that. Is the
force structure that you're proposing for regional war or
global war?
Mr. England. Senator, it's for whatever the Navy is called
upon, sir. I mean, I believe as we go forward, and particularly
what is in the 2005 budget, with our new ships, our Littoral
combat ship and DD(X), along with LHA, the new LHA(R) we're
looking at and the new ships that we'll have, in terms of pre-
positioning, the future ships, there are concepts there that
provide us significantly greater flexibility, in terms of
projecting power forward. As General Hagee said, we believe
this is a 50-percent improvement, in terms of response time to
put power forward, which is very, very important, in terms of
affecting the outcome of whatever events may be occurring.
I think my judgment--and I believe I can speak for the CNO
and the Commandant here--it's our judgment we have approaches
now that allow the Navy and the Marine Corps, our naval force,
to respond to any type of threat to America, whether it be
regional or a larger war. I mean, we are prepared now to
respond and do this very, very quickly. That's our objective--
very, very quick response.
FORCIBLE ENTRY
Senator Inouye. General Hagee, the Department, last year,
announced that it had initiated a study on forcible entry
options. And we've been told that this study may have an impact
upon programs like the LPD-17, the LHA(R), and the
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. What is the status? And what
can we expect?
General Hagee. Thank you for that question, sir.
First, there are two studies, really. There is a joint
forcible-entry study that the Navy and the Marine Corps took
the lead on and conducted last year. That is going to inform a
much larger joint study on joint forcible entry that's being
led by the joint staff right now. We hope to have the results
of that study sometime late spring, early summer. I think it's
really important to look at forcible entry from a joint
standpoint.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, the joint forcible-
entry study that we did within the Navy and the Marine Corps,
the analysis of alternatives that we received on LHA(R), and
the analysis of alternatives that we have just received a
preview on for the maritime pre-positioning force has helped
inform us on how we can project combat power faster, more
combat power ashore faster, in the future. And what you're
going to see Admiral Clark, myself, and the Secretary talk
about is the integration of these platforms. They are
complementary platforms. The maritime pre-positioning ship, the
new maritime pre-positioning ship, the new LHA(R), which--we
want to leverage the Joint Strike Fighter and the MV-22
capabilities; we want to make that ship more aviation-capable--
the LPD-17, the connectors between those platforms, the DD(X),
the Littoral combat ship, all will come into play, and we are
starting to inform ourselves on what the advantages and
disadvantages of having one platform versus the other. For
example, on your maritime pre-positioning-ship future, if that
has a well deck, or if that has what we're calling an
integrated landing platform, which is platform external to the
ship, where the ship can put that platform on the leeward side
and actually do offloads onto that platform in a higher-state
sea, this could impact the ultimate design of other amphibious
ships and what we would be carrying on those amphibious ships.
So we are trying very hard and, I think, somewhat
successfully, in looking at how all of these platforms come
together to deliver a better capability, a more agile
capability to the regional combatant commander.
Senator Inouye. And this is realistic?
General Hagee. Yes, sir. We have talked with scientists, we
have talked with physicists. This is not a physics problem;
this is an engineering problem. It's also a finance problem, or
an issue. And that's why the Secretary of the Navy and Admiral
Clark and myself have urged support of the fiscal year 2005
budget, sir.
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, General.
Admiral Clark. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that
question?
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir, Admiral.
Admiral Clark. Senator Inouye, I'd just like to say that
our task is to deliver the Marine Corps to the fight. And I see
the integration between MPF(F), Maritime Pre-Positioned Force
Future, and the LHA(R) as a critical intersection of new
capability unlike what we have today. I absolutely do not
believe that LHA(R) is just a repeat of the LHDs that we have
today. It is going to be a much better, more capable platform
that optimizes the aviation capability we are investing in. And
that, coupled with the new concepts that we are pushing forward
on MPF future, will give the marines much more surgeable
capability. We talked about surging the Navy; it will improve
the Marine Corps' surgeable capability, too, which is why the
future will see General Hagee and the marines producing combat
capability faster anywhere in the world we have to. And these
two new capabilities are going to make that happen.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. I'll be waiting for
your report.
Admiral Clark. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Cochran.
LHA(R) AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIAL BASE
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I notice, in the budget submission, the
construction of the LHA(R) has been delayed 1 year from what
was planned in last year's 2004 budget, and that you've
identified $250 million for the construction of the LHA(R) as
an unfunded requirement. I understand that a delay in the
construction of this ship is likely to lead to an increase in
the cost of the ship. Can you discuss the need to maintain the
shipbuilding industrial base associated with the construction
of the LHA(R)?
Mr. England. Senator, I'd be happy to. You raised a valid
issue here. We originally had LHA(R) proposed for fiscal year
2007, in terms of our planning in the Future Years Defense
Program (FYDP). We moved that out to fiscal year 2008, and we
did it, frankly, because of funding issues. We are required, as
you know--to fully appropriate the money, fund the ship
immediately, on day one. That would have required, in fiscal
year 2007, that we fund the full value of the ship in fiscal
year 2007. Frankly, we did not have the resources to do that,
so we've moved it to fiscal year 2008, where it was affordable,
in terms of our projection on fiscal year 2007 and on fiscal
year 2008. It does leave us with a problem right now, in terms
of the yard, because we would like to start at least advanced
procurement, some incremental funding, I guess you would call
it, at that point in time. But, at this point, we are required
to fund the full ship. Now, as we go forward in 2006 and 2007,
we're going to have to look at those funding profiles to see
how we can handle that situation. But, frankly, that was--your
point is valid--it was strictly a decision we had to make based
on what we saw as the funding profiles in those years.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
LARGE DECK AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS REPLACEMENT
General Hagee, can you discuss the need to replace the
large-deck amphibious ships that have exceeded their designed
service life?
General Hagee. Yes, sir, Senator. Thank you, also, for that
question. And it really goes back to my answer to Senator
Inouye.
I don't think that we can look at one individual ship. As
Admiral Clark talked about, we're looking at the LHA(R), which
is going to be, as I mentioned, an increased aircraft-capable
ship. We're going to leverage the Joint Strike Fighter and the
MV-22 capabilities. It's also going to complement the Maritime
Pre-Positioning Force Future ship, and will complement the LPD-
17. So as we build the LHA(R), and as we build MPF future, I
believe that you will see some of the equipment that has, in
the past, been carried on these large amphibs, move over to the
Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Future ship.
What we want is the capability to operate from the sea base
in a state-four sea. We want to be able to do to the reception,
staging, onward movement, integration, the arrival and
assembly, at sea. Today, we cannot do that, because we--as
Admiral Clark mentioned, we dense-pack our maritime pre-
positioning ships, so we cannot do a selective offload. So as
we replace the amphibs, we're looking at how LHA(R), LPD-17,
LHD, which is going to be around for some time, thank goodness,
and Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Future are going to
integrate with one another.
TILT-ROTOR PILOT TRAINING
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, last year's appropriations
bill and the accompanying report indicated the importance of
training student pilots in the same type aircraft that they
would eventually be called on to fly in the fleet after they
graduate from pilot training. The report required the
Department of the Navy to submit a tilt-rotor pilot training
roadmap to the committee prior to the submission of this year's
budget request, although this report has not been submitted. I
wonder if you have any information about whether we can expect
this report or whether you can share with us now what the
response of the Navy is to this provision in last year's bill
directing the Department to consider tilt-rotor pilot training
at an existing naval training site?
Mr. England. Senator, my apologies. The report is somewhat
late, because, frankly, it's gone through some revision. But we
are about to publish that report, and we should have that
report to you here, I would expect, in about 1 week. So we're
very close to having that out.
And if you don't mind, I'm going to defer the question to
General Hagee, since it's his V-22 and his pilots, I believe
he's probably better able to answer this question for you.
But we will have the report to you in about 1 week, sir.
[The information follows:]
Information Paper
Subject: V-22 Tilt-rotor pilot training roadmap
1. Purpose
The Defense Appropriations Bill, 2004, directed the Secretary of
the Navy to submit a Tilt-rotor pilot training roadmap before the
presentation of the fiscal year 2005 budget estimate.
2. Key Points
The MV-22 Student Undergraduate Pipeline Training and Fleet
Replacement Squadron Analysis, Final Report, 1999, was conducted by
Logicon, Inc.
The purpose of the study was to examine the MV-22 pilot, aircrew
and maintainer training pipelines and determine if the planned training
could meet the demands of an increased aircraft delivery rate. If the
planned training was insufficient to meet the demand, alternatives must
be developed to increase the throughput. If the demand could be met
with planned resources, the recommendations for improving the training
in order to produce more capable personnel in the most efficient and
cost effective manner must be provided.
The study's recommendations have been included and expanded on in
the V-22's training plan. Interactive Media Instruction (IMI), state of
the art procedural trainers and simulators as well as the activation of
an Aircrew Training Systems (ATS) command to address the intricacies of
the training continuum are some examples.
The current tilt-rotor pilot training roadmap represents a non-
material solution to implement the study's recommendations. A powered
lift trainer for Undergraduate Pilot Training would address the
inefficiencies in the current roadmap, increase the number of trainable
tasks, and decrease time to train while increasing throughput.
The current tilt-rotor pilot training roadmap has three major
elements: Primary, Advanced and Fleet Replacement training (Figure 1).
Each element contains academics, simulator and aircraft phases.
--Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT).--UPT for tilt-rotors begins
with primary flight training in the TC-34C. Pipeline selection
occurs upon completion primary training.
--Students selected for the tilt-rotor training pipeline will
continue advanced training in the TC-12B.
--Following training in the TC-12B tilt-rotor UPT students will
complete their advanced training in the TH-57B/C.
--Upon completion of the advanced training students are designated
Naval aviators and are assigned to the Fleet Replacement
Squadron for training in the MV-22.
--Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS).--Provides combat capable tilt-
rotor training for selected aircrews.
--Combat capable training consists of the completion of the 100
level training tasks listed in Marine Corps Order P3500.34A
(Aviation Training and Readiness Manual, MV-22).
--Advanced Tilt-rotor Training Unit (ATTU). The ATTU is resident in
the FRS and trains selected aircrew in advanced tactics
instruction (200 level and above as specified in the Marine
Corps Order P3500.34A). The ATTU provides transitioning
squadrons the experience base to complete the transition as
a core capable squadron per the MV-22 T&R.
The Deputy Commandant for Aviation has submitted a Universal Needs
Statement (UNS) for a powered lift trainer for Undergraduate Pilot
Training. Successful incorporation of the UNS in the requirements
generation process will form the basis for an Analysis of Alternatives
at Milestone A.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Senator Cochran. Okay.
General Hagee, do you have any comments?
General Hagee. Yes, sir, I do. First off, we are absolutely
committed to having a joint training site. Any service that's
going to fly the MV-22, we think we could get a lot of synergy
by having one training site. We have initially stood up the
training squadron down at New River, North Carolina. But I can
tell you, Senator, we are open to looking at any and all sites
that might work better.
MISSILE DEFENSE
Senator Cochran. Admiral Clark, we've talked before about
the plans that you envision for the Navy participation in
missile defense. We have the near-term ballistic missile threat
to the homeland that has attracted the attention of planners.
Could you update the committee on the progress the Navy is
making in the area of ballistic missile defense and how it fits
in your overall sea-shield strategy?
Admiral Clark. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator. That's a very
important question for the future, and clearly the kind of
things that General Hagee and I envision the Navy/Marine Corps
team doing in the future requires our ability to climb in the
ring with an enemy, and to be able to defend ourselves, and
project defense and offense. And so ballistic missile defense
capability is crucial to the future, no doubt about it.
The way, of course, as you well know, it is unfolding, the
acquisition--the development responsibility and acquisition
responsibility, has been given to the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA). What that suggests is that--General Kadish has been
given the responsibility to develop what's best for the Nation.
And this year has been an exciting year in the Navy. Under MDA,
we have participated in several tests this year. All but one
have been fully--completely successful, and one had a problem
in a late-guidance phase of the test. But what that suggests to
us is this, sea-based missile defense is going to be a part of
the interim missile defense capability that has been called
down by the President. That will stand up in fiscal year 2005,
this budget year that we're talking about here this morning.
And I would just also report to you, Senator, that during
Operation Iraqi Freedom, we had prototype capability
functioning in the Arabian Gulf, and operating from one of our
Aegis DDGs. They experienced significant success tracking
missiles that were fired by the Iraqis at our forces, and we
were connected in an integrated way. We could not--we were not
equipped to fire, but detect and track; and that detect and
track algorithm functioned very successfully.
And so the bottom line of the status report is that we
anticipate modifying a number of our Aegis destroyers to bring
this kind of capability to the Nation by the end of this
calendar year, and we will be a part of that interim
capability.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have--
I've already submitted my statement. And thank you, gentlemen,
for your service to your country and for coming today.
I will probably focus on some of the things that interest
me. My main interest is the troops on the ground, our enlisted
people that are in harm's way, and especially like an operation
like we have in Iraq, who are most vulnerable to being hurt
very badly, and most vulnerable in a hostile action.
SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM
But I wanted to ask Admiral Clark--since you've increased
the funds on shipbuilding from the $4.7 billion to the $11.1
billion, with what has happened in the world and the changing
landscape, have you changed the thrust of your investment to
meet those times? And could you give me an example on the
challenges you face, now that the landscape does change from
time to time?
Admiral Clark. Well, absolutely.
Here's the way I would lay it out. And Senator Inouye asked
this question of the Secretary, do we have the numbers right?
And, you know, where do we need to go? This morning, we have
295 ships in the Navy. Is this enough? I don't believe it is. I
have said that for 3 years and 8 months.
Having said that, I believe we're on the right track. We
can't undo history. And we didn't buy enough ships in the
1990s. Over the decade of the 1990s, our shipbuilding budget
averaged just slightly over $6 billion a year. And in order to
have the Navy--when I got to this job, the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) had just put out a study that said you had to
invest $12 billion a year to sustain yourself, and that's why
$12 billion was my target.
How does it stack out in priorities? And, by the way, I
have said I think we need about 375. I've never said it's
exactly 375. We have to move toward the capability of the
future, and capability is more important than numbers. But
there's a fact here--is that--we've studied this long and hard,
Senator; I haven't figured out how to defy the laws of physics
and make a ship be in more than one place at a time. You know,
it's a fundamental reality.
I want to say that the Secretary has allowed me to speak to
that number. It's not a number that has been sanctioned by the
Department. It is the CNO's view. My view this morning is that
we're continuing to learn.
Let me give you an example. We are completing, as I speak,
an experiment that I've had going on for 2 years. I have had a
destroyer, forward deployed, has been in Operation Iraqi
Freedom every step of the way, for 2 years. I have been
rotating crews to that ship. That's a Pacific-based ship, and a
Pacific-based ship spends at least one-third of its
deployment--because it's a vast area, of course--one-third of
its 6-month deployment, is spent in transit. I've had it over
there 2 years, rotated four crews. It'll be home soon. We're
going to put the technical people onboard, and we're going to
learn the lessons from that. But I'll tell you what it's
already shown me is that that's a concept I need to exploit. It
gives me more operational availability for the investment.
What have I learned about the priorities? Senator Cochran
asked about missile defense. It absolutely is a requirement for
the future. We do not have money in the budget yet, but I have
spoken openly, and it's in my written testimony, that CG(X), a
ship designed from the ground up to do that missile-defense
mission, is going to have to be built. It has to be built when
we know exactly what the size and shape of the future missile
defense systems are going to be.
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS)
More importantly, the Littoral combat ship that is at the--
down-select--in the next 2 months, this new class ship is
designed to do one principal thing: take on the enemies where
they're going to take us on. No Navy is going to take us on toe
to toe. We are too big and too strong. They're going to come
after us in the littorals, they're going to come after us
asymmetrically. Senator, I need that ship tomorrow morning. I
cannot get it fast enough. I need the ability to take on the
way they're going to come at us, anti-submarine warfare in the
near-land arena, anti-surface attacks, mine warfare. And we're
going to build this ship from the ground up to be optimized to
handle unmanned vehicles, and we're going to change the
calculus on the enemy. This is going to be a much smaller ship,
and we're going to have to build it in numbers. And I think we
need 50 or 60 of them. But the reason I don't know the exact
number is that I'm still working the manning concept, and am I
going to be able to keep them forward, like I've just done with
this ship for 2 years. And if I can, I will need not as many as
if I had to rotate them every time. So those are the way I see
the priorities. Coupled with what we described with General
Hagee in the new Navy/Marine Corps team and the capability that
we will project with MPF Future, which I believe should be
considered as an integral part of the fighting force. Today's
MPF maritime pre-positioned ship is a warehouse, floating
warehouse. Tomorrow's MPF isn't going to be like that. It will
have command and control spaces in it, it will have aviation
decks on it to surge aircraft forward and so forth. That's the
way I see the future, Senator.
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Senator Burns. General Hagee, give me an idea--recruitment
and retention of our troops, are you making your quotas? Are
you getting the kind of people that you want? I would ask all
three of you that. Are there areas of concern or--how are we
doing?
General Hagee. Sir, thank you for that question. I am happy
to report to you that we are doing very well in both areas.
Last November, we had 100 straight months of meeting mission,
recruiting, and we are getting the right type of young American
man and young American woman, and I think you saw that in
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Unbelievable quality. Just had a
report yesterday, we are on track to make mission this month.
But we are doing very well on recruiting.
As far as retention is concerned, for this fiscal year we
are about 80 percent of attaining our first-term re-enlistment
goal, and we are about 85 percent of achieving our second-term
re-enlistment goal. And, of course, we have all the way to
September to accomplish those two missions.
So I am very happy with where we are right now. I have to
be--I'll be frank with you, sir, we are putting a lot of
demands on our marines. The sun never sets on the Marine Corps.
It is around the world, and they are doing a magnificent job.
And I have asked all the commanders to keep a good feel on the
pulse of the marines and their families for any indication that
retention or recruiting is going to turn in the wrong
direction. Right now, we do not have those signals, sir.
Senator Burns. Admiral Clark, do you want to comment about
that?
Admiral Clark. Yes, I sure do. Highest retention in the
history of the Navy, ever, 38 or 39 straight months. Quality,
we have increased quality 4 percent, to the 94 percent level
last year, and our goal was 95 percent high-school graduates.
Quality is high. It's fundamentally because of the things the
Congress has done. And at the end of my opening statement, I
said that they're reading the signals of the citizens of
America. They're listening. They're watching. And the support
that America is sending to our people is resonating with them.
They believe in their cause, and they're committed to making a
difference.
Now, here's one concern I have. Because we're successful,
please don't take my tools away. The tools that I've got are
the things that are allowing me to reshape my force, and I need
them. And our people are responding to this challenge we're
giving them. ``We're going to give you a chance to make a
difference, and we're going to invest in your growth and
development,'' and that's what they're responding to, Senator.
Senator Burns. Mr. Secretary, do you want to make a
comment? Because I have another question and comment.
Mr. England. Just one comment. When I first testified, we
were recruiting 58,000 a year, in terms of sailors, and now we
are recruiting about 40,000 because our retention is so high.
So it's an indication, just in terms of numbers that we're
recruiting, much lower than we were in the past.
AIRSPACE AVAILABILITY FOR TRAINING
Senator Burns. We lost our ability to train into--at
Vieques, as you well know, down in Puerto Rico. It continues to
be a problem among all our services that have a flight wing to
them, or whatever. And I noticed that, in your statement, you
mention Eglin as a joint place where you're training. I would
just make a comment that we, in Montana, are--when you look at
this country, and the airspace that we have in which to train,
it continues to shrink. And I think we should look at some
areas where we have airspace in which to train, and also the
infrastructure in which to hold those people that are in
training, and their aircraft. So we would visit with you about
that.
IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED)
And then I have some other questions about detecting these
explosives in Iraq. I know--you know, that's why I say, our men
and women are in a most vulnerable position. They are the
target, and they're unprotected, and I'm concerned about body
armor. Are they protected? Can we detect those roadside bombs,
General Hagee? And is there new technology which allows us to
do that? And if not, are we looking into maybe some
unconventional areas to gain that technology?
General Hagee. Yes, sir. That is, without a doubt, our
highest priority right now, is to ensure that all of our
servicemen and women overseas are protected. I can tell you
that the 25,000 marines and sailors that are going into
Operation Iraqi Freedom, they all have the so-called Small Arms
Protective Inserts (SAPI) plates. Everyone will be wearing it.
There is no magic answer, there is no one solution for the
improvised explosive device. It is a combination of
technologies and tactics and procedures. We have worked very
closely with the United States Army to learn everything that we
can from them. The Army has stood up a task force called Task
Force IED, improvised explosive device. It is a joint task
force that is focused on this particular problem. What
technologies we can bring to bear, what are the tactics,
techniques, and procedures that we need to use on the
battlefield, and, probably most importantly, where do we have
gaps? Because every time that we come up with a solution, the
opposing side is looking for a way to get around that
particular solution. So we are working very hard in those
particular three areas.
We're going to have about 3,000 vehicles of various kinds--
Humvees, 5 ton, 7 ton--on the road and in harm's way. Every one
of those vehicles, before it goes out on patrol in Iraq, will
be hardened. We have a few of the so-called up-armored Humvees,
but not very many of those. So what we have done is, we have
purchased kits, we have cut steel, and we have sufficient
quantity to harden every single one of those vehicles.
We have done the same with our aircraft. We have put on the
most modern aircraft survivability equipment that this Nation
has produced. We have also taken our pilots, every single one
of them that will be going over there, they've gone through a
2-week very intensive training course down in Yuma, Arizona,
flying against the type of threat that we believe is over
there. Once again, marrying the technology and the tactics,
techniques, and procedures.
Once again, to be frank, sir, it's still a dangerous place
over there. We are aware of that, and all of us are working
very hard in that area.
Senator Burns. Well, you know, my father was always
criticized for working mules. You know, everybody else worked
horses. This was back in the old days, and they said, ``Why do
you work them darn mules? You know, they'll kick you, bite you,
and everything else.'' And Dad would kind of say, under his
breath--he said, ``Well, you've got to be smarter than the
mule.'' So we've got to be a little bit smarter, too, and a
jump ahead. And I thank you for your thoughts.
Senator Stevens. Senator McConnell.
MK45
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by thanking all three of you for your
extraordinary contributions to the war on terrorism, which has,
so far, been successful beyond anyone's expectations. It's been
a great American success story, and it continues.
Mr. Secretary, despite the efficiencies and cost savings
achieved by the privatization of the Louisville Naval Ordnance
Station, the Navy has relied heavily on congressional add-ons
in order to meet its requirements for overhauls and for
procurement of large-caliber guns. This committee has provided
sufficient additional funding for the MK45 gun overhaul orders
to extend the life of this important weapon. And several of us
have sought funding for modifications that allow the Navy to
modernize this gun so that it can bridge the gap between the
Navy's budget for this program and its requirements until the
Navy's cruiser modernization and DD(X) destroyer programs
actually begin production.
It's my understanding the Navy's request today contains no
provision for MK45 gun modifications to support cruiser
modernization, and despite Congress' efforts to restore this
program last year and this committee's expression of the
importance of the MK45 gun modernization. The so-called cost
savings associated with this move are not particularly
impressive with cutting these modifications, particularly given
the negative impact this will have on the Navy's industrial
base, the Marine Corps' requirement for naval surface-fire
support, and the costs associated with restarting the
production line for the DD(X) advanced gun system.
That having been said, General Hagee, it's my understanding
that the Marine Corps supports the modernization of the MK45
gun to improve its capacity for precision fire support. Would
reinvesting in the modernization of this gun improve the Navy's
ability to provide the kind of fire support you need for your
marines onshore?
General Hagee. Sir, I think Admiral Clark and I have
discussed this. We like that gun. But it's an affordability
issue, as you mentioned. And what we have to do is balance the
weapon systems that we have out there with the risks. We've got
DD(X) coming on, which is going to have a significant
capability. The aviation fires is, of course, a part of this
particular equation, and moving the lightweight 155 and the
expeditionary fire-support system ashore is also a part of the
fires equation. So it's integrating all of the fires that we're
going to have.
I would repeat, would we like to have that gun? Yes, sir.
But when you look at the affordability, the risk, and then look
at all the other fire systems that we have out there, I support
Admiral Clark in his decision.
Senator McConnell. So then are you telling me that the
marine's near-term need for precision naval surface fire
support is adequate?
General Hagee. No, sir, I'm not. It is not.
Senator McConnell. Therefore, Secretary England, I hope you
will reconsider the decision to cut funding for this important
modification to the MK45 gun system. It seems to me, clearly,
you need this, at least on an interim basis, until you get to
the next weapon. Do you have any observations about this?
Mr. England. Just one, and then I would turn it over to the
CNO--all right, go ahead----
Admiral Clark. Why don't I----
Senator McConnell. Jump right in.
Admiral Clark. All right. We're excited about the extended
range guided munition (ERGM) development, and the round that is
going to give us extended-range precision capabilities for the
marines. Senator, General Hagee's got it exactly right. When I
sit down at the end of the day, I don't have all the resources
I'd like to have; I've got more than I've ever had before, but
technology costs money. And so I made this judgement that, with
the cruisers, who would be primarily focused on operations near
the carrier, and not in the near-land scenario supporting the
marines, I would not do the modification for the cruisers, but
I would focus that money on the DDGs. So that's the decision
that we made. If we had unlimited resources, we absolutely
would have procured this modernization for every one of the
guns that we have. We would.
We expect this--even though AGS, the advanced gun system,
is coming, we expect that this gun is going to be around for a
long time. And, frankly, when you look at future warfare, the
ability to provide precision on the battlefield to the Marine
Corps is what is going to help us transform the way we fight.
So it's an affordability issue. We made the judgement based
upon where the cruisers will spend most of their life, and
that's, you know, more in the deep-blue environment instead of
the near-land brown-water environment.
Senator McConnell. Summing it up, if you had the resources,
you'd like to do what I suggest.
Admiral Clark. That is correct.
Senator McConnell. I thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CG(X)
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Admiral, I went to the archives to look up the CG(X) that
you presented in May 2003, a long-range shipbuilding plan, that
indicated that those would be procured sometime after the end
of this first decade. As a matter of fact, it looks like the
first procurement would be 2018. The description you just gave
it indicates that it probably is going to be needed sooner. Are
you going to revise the plan?
Admiral Clark. I would tell you that the far-out plan
doesn't have great granularity to it yet, Mr. Chairman. I
believe that this is contingent totally upon the way the
technology develops and the size missile system that MDA
decides that this platform is going to have to carry--all of
that work is still ongoing.
I do believe that 2018 is likely to be too far away. I have
not refined it because we're outside the FYDP--this platform I
expect to be fundamentally built upon the hull and the
technology that exists in DD(X), so that we will spiral the
technology from DD(X) to CG(X). And I would like to tell you
that I don't have great confidence in the date that is in that
extended projection, and it is one of the issues that we have--
that we are analyzing as we move forward with the Missile
Defense Agency.
Senator Stevens. Well, is the DD(X) to be designed so that
it could be evolved into the CG(X)?
Admiral Clark. It is my intention to recommend that we do
just that, and that is what our intent has been. But I would
reserve this point, Mr. Chairman, that it might have to be
scaled up to do the kinds of things that may be required. So
what I'm really trying to say is, we will spiral the technology
in DD(X), and that's all of the pieces, including all electric
and the hull form. You know, we kind of stopped talking about
how advanced this platform really is. I mean, let me just give
you one fact as an example. This ship, in its size, is going to
have the radar cross-section of a fishing boat because of the
advanced design, stealthy design, of the platform. That's the
kind of technology we want for the future. We want the
technology that gives us the ability to man it with fewer
people.
So I expect it to be built upon the frame of a DD(X). It
might have to be made a little bit larger.
Senator Stevens. Do you have money in the research budget
now for that CG(X)?
Admiral Clark. I do not have that money in the budget yet.
No, sir, I do not.
Senator Stevens. Is any additional money needed for the
DD(X) to evolve into the CG(X)?
Admiral Clark. We have placed the emphasis on the research
and development to do the risk mitigation that I spoke about in
my earlier answer, to develop DD(X). And, you know, when we're
2 to 3 years into this, into the construction, I believe we're
going to know the things that we need to know, where we need to
put the follow-on research and development.
It is fundamentally going to be an issue of the hull form,
and scaling it up, and we do need to get started on that
development.
ADVANCED RADAR TECHNOLOGY
Senator Stevens. What about the development of the radar
suite and the other air-to-air missile defense research? Is
that in the budget?
Admiral Clark. There are resources against advanced radar
technology. We have resources against digitalizing the new
Aegis architecture. I could take, for the record, the specifics
to--I want to make sure I'm telling you that we've got the
right levels there, because, frankly, this interfaces with MDA
and their budget, and I need to go check that out.
[The information follows:]
The Navy is already conducting solid-state S-Band
prototyping and we have requested $220 million in additional
research and development funding in the fiscal year 2005
budget. This solid-state active phased array radar would allow
increased capability against cruise missile and air-breather
threats, as well as simultaneous performance of long-range
Ballistic Missile Defense missions.
Our current plan puts us on a path for initiation of radar
system development in fiscal year 2008 and ultimately,
integration with the CG(X) platform in the 2020 timeframe. It
is important to note that we are continually analyzing the rate
and evolution of future threats to refine the pace of our own
capabilities development. As we gain fidelity in the timeline
for CG(X), we will likely need to adjust future budget
submissions to appropriately align the schedules.
The nexus of this capability will greatly enhance the
forward, credible, assured access of our Naval forces through
mid-century.
Senator Stevens. Well, I was just going to ask whether that
interface has taken place yet. The National Missile Defense
System has a substantial amount of research money. Are you
included in that?
Admiral Clark. Absolutely. For example, I indicated that by
the end of this year I expect to have 15 ships modified to our
existing Aegis systems, with advanced algorithms in the
software to do the detect and track, and the funds for that
activity are coming from MDA.
Senator Stevens. Well, I think we'd like to visit with you
later, in a classified situation, to discuss this. At least I
would. Because I would like to make sure, during our watch,
that this thing is moving forward as rapidly as possible.
Admiral Clark. Yes, sir. We'd be very--I absolutely believe
that would be very helpful.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
General Hagee, you have a significant contingent of marines
in Haiti, and this deployment was not accounted for in fiscal
year 2004. And now you are going to be deploying a large
contingent to Iraq. Can you fund this without a supplemental?
General Hagee. Sir, as you know, the Department did receive
a supplemental for fiscal year 2004, and we are capturing those
costs, both the costs that we're starting to incur with the
deployment of marines down into Haiti, and we are most
definitely capturing those costs of deployment into Iraq. And
we are reporting those costs up to the Office of the Secretary
of Defense (OSD), and we expect to be reimbursed for those
funds.
BODY ARMOR
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, Senator Burns brought up a
very interesting, but tragic, matter. Unofficially, I've been
advised that in Operation Iraqi Freedom, there are
disproportionately more amputees than chest or stomach
injuries. For one thing, you have body armor that cover your
chest and stomach area, but nothing for the legs and arms. Are
we doing any research to, for example, protect the foot and
ankle or the hands and wrists?
Mr. England. Senator, there's a lot of work underway. And
I'd like to, if I can, get together with you separately on this
subject, because there is work, but I'd rather not discuss it
here, if we can. But there's definitely work underway to expand
the type of coverage we have, in terms of protection for our
men and women in combat. But, if we can, we can bring some
people in and have that discussion with you, sir.
Senator Inouye. All right. I appreciate that, sir.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
AMPUTEE MEDICAL TREATMENT
Senator Stevens. On that subject, Mr. Secretary, I was
talking to some of the surgeons out at Walter Reed, and they
tell me that a lot of the people that they need to deal with,
the problems that Senator Inouye is discussing, are in theater,
but are really not used there, because people are injured with
this type of situation, in arms and legs, are being brought
home. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. England. I'm not familiar with that subject at Walter
Reed. No, sir, I'm not.
Senator Stevens. I would ask that you look into it, because
they tell me that they have not enough at Walter Reed, and
there are people that are over there, that are reservists that
have been called up, and they don't have the facilities to do
the work. It's long-term work, and not emergency work, in
theater. I would urge you to take a look at that. That, from
one of the most senior and trusted surgeons in Walter Reed,
tells me that they're hard-pressed. I'd like to see if you'd
look into that, please.
Senator Cochran.
Mr. England. We will do so, Senator.
[The information follows:]
The Department of the Navy is not in a position to comment
on the staffing of Army medical treatment facilities, or their
concept of operating and staffing medical treatment facilities
in direct support of operating forces.
What Naval Medicine can comment on is its current
deployment status as relates to orthopedic surgeons and its
ongoing process of tracking medical services in the military
treatment facilities. Currently, there are 4 orthopedic
surgeons deployed with U.S. Marine Corps Surgical Companies in
Iraq. On a monthly basis, or more frequently as required, the
Naval medical treatment facilities provide a Medical Service
Availability Report that details the services that they can
offer to their beneficiaries. Should an event like this
deployment interrupt a military treatment facility's ability to
provide specific services, it is determined early so that the
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) can apply mitigating
strategies utilizing resources from across all of Naval
Medicine to minimize the impact from the loss of services. In
this case, no Naval medical treatment facilities have reported
an inability to provide orthopedic services.
The Department of the Navy would respectfully defer comment
on the level of staffing at Walter Reed Army Medical Center to
the Army Surgeon General.
MARITIME NORAD CAPABILITY
Senator Cochran. Admiral Clark, you've indicated that
you're convinced of the necessity to build a maritime aerospace
defense command for North America. I understand that the
littoral surveillance system, which is part of the distributed
common-ground station, may already be able to accomplish many
of these mission requirements. I also understand that Northern
Command and the Pacific Command are looking at this capability
for separate initiatives in the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Rim.
In your opinion, is there an opportunity to leverage existing
capabilities of the littoral surveillance system to reduce
research and development costs and to expedite delivery of a
maritime NORAD capability?
Admiral Clark. Well, I absolutely believe--while I'm not
expert on the system, I absolutely believe that there's
potential to help us have a system with much better information
in it, that would be akin to what I have dubbed the Maritime
North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). And here's
the way I look at it--and, by the way, I have discussed this
extensively with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, who, I
believe, fundamentally has this responsibility, but that we
understand that we've got to be a great partner to the Coast
Guard. And I believe that we are partnering better than we ever
have before. We, just the other day, completed another
headquarters-level cooperation talk so that we can better align
our efforts.
Having said that, and that the littoral surveillance system
will improve the process, I do believe that ultimately--and I
would say that the Commandant of the Coast Guard agrees with
me--that what makes the NORAD system so effective is the
transponder system that exists in aircraft, so that they are
actively transmitting who they are and where they are. The
reason I believe that this is the kind of capability that we're
going to have to have, is that people that don't have anything
to hide are going to be anxious to tell you that they don't
have anything to hide, and here they come.
I believe we have the technology today to advance our
knowledge to better protect ourselves. Where I had an
opportunity to talk about ways that we could better defend the
United States of America, I made these recommendations. I'm
happy to report to you that the Commandant of the Coast Guard
is working through his channels in Homeland Security--and this
is an international challenge, of course--that they are
actively working toward how we would put together such a
capability.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAV)
Senator Cochran. As we all know, unmanned aerial vehicles,
such as Global Hawk, are proving to be very valuable to current
operations. I'm informed that the Navy broad-area maritime
surveillance UAV is not scheduled for operational capability,
until fiscal year 2010, but the Air Force's Global Hawk program
is on track for fiscal year 2006 for initial operating
capability. It seems there is an opportunity to achieve the
desired capability ahead of schedule with interoperability with
the Air Force. Can you tell us what the likelihood is that the
Navy may choose to delay a decision on the Navy broad-area
maritime surveillance UAV and to accelerate the program by
selecting a joint platform?
Admiral Clark. Well, I cannot talk about the acquisition
decision, because the acquisition authority rests with the
Secretary and the Assistant Secretary, who make those
decisions. But let me just say what I can talk about.
I agree with the foundation of your question. Your question
suggests, well, you know, ``Admiral Clark, why aren't you
exploiting what the Air Force is doing?'' And that's where we
are. We laid money in the budget this last year and this year,
in execution--to get started in this direction, because we
desperately need this kind of capability. And so we funded and
let the contract recently to buy Global Hawks as initial
demonstrators for us to then mature this capability in the
maritime domain.
I'm happy to report to you, Senator, that we'll get our
first platform about 1 year from now. I believe it's scheduled
for April 2005. And then we will get the second platform in
late 2005. The acquisition executive will have to make a
determination if we can build upon that or if we will be
required to compete from that point, and I can't--I will not be
the one that makes a decision on that.
We have taken this direction because I want to be as joint
as I can, I want to partner and capitalize on the research and
development of the United States Air Force in this case every
time I get an opportunity, instead of spending R&D of my own,
of our own. And so I'm very excited about the rapid
introduction of this capability. And, frankly, what we looked
at is--we redefined that program in the 2005 submit to you,
because we said--we had more money in the demonstration phase
of it, and said, ``The Air Force has already done a lot of this
demonstration, so why do we need to do that?'' And, in the
process, we saved several million dollars. And so the future--
the decision is that in the future, I'm very happy with where
we are in buying these two demonstrator vehicles, which will
deliver 1 year from now.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, do you have any comments, views on that
subject?
Mr. England. Only, Senator, that there are some competition
issues as we go forward, in terms of, do we sole-source? Do we
have competition? But what the CNO said is right, we are buying
some Global Hawks. As we go forward, though, the discussion
we're having now is, Is there going to be a competition for
follow-on vehicles, and what will that be?
SEABEES
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, I understand that Seabees
have played a very important role during our combat operations
in Iraq, and they continue to be an important resource. In
fact, I think there were two individuals from the Navy
construction regiment, based down in Gulfport, the Navy
Construction Battalion Center, that were awarded Bronze Star
Medals for their recent actions. Could you tell us something
about the work that Seabees have performed and the important
contributions that they've made in Iraq?
Mr. England. Senator, thanks for the opportunity to
recognize the Seabees, because I can tell you, we are
tremendously proud of the men and women in the Seabees. They
have served with distinction in Operation Enduring Freedom,
supporting the Marine Corps, and also the Navy, ashore. They
were deployed with the IMEF. There were approximately 5,000
Seabees, and almost 2,000 from the reserve, that supported that
effort. And today we have well over 500 Seabees, active duty,
and about 500 Seabees, reserved, who are deploying with the
marines on this deployment to Iraq. And they will be tasked
with force protection, doing structures and facilities, and
also for reconstruction of some of the civilian infrastructure
in Iraq. So the Seabees have been very important, very
instrumental. Like I say, we're tremendously proud of their
effort.
UPARMORED HUMVEES
Senator Cochran. There has already been a question about
the problem with the improvised explosive devices. I understand
that, in the case of the marines, there is an effort being made
to upgrade the deployment of Humvees with armor that would
provide additional protection. And I know there are other
things that are being done in this area that can't be discussed
in open session. But will the Marine Corps have adequate
numbers of up-armored Humvees to help deal with this situation?
General Hagee. Sir, we won't have the up-armored Humvees.
As I mentioned, we're going to have about 3,000 vehicles in
Iraq, a combination of Humvees, 5 tons, 7 tons, and other
moving stock. Any of those vehicles that will go in harm's way
on patrol will be hardened. They're not the M1114, which is the
up-armored Humvee, but they will be hardened, either with kits
or with steel that we have cut to fit the platforms.
LIGHTWEIGHT 155 HOWITZER PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. There is a request in the budget for funds
for 97 Lightweight 155 Howitzers. Could you provide us with
your assessment of how this program is progressing?
General Hagee. Sir, the Lightweight 155 is going very well.
There was a minor problem here a month or so ago with the weld
on the tail of the 155. That's been resolved. We are very
confident that we'll be able to go to a full-rate production,
and we'll have a positive decision in January 2005.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GLOBAL HAWK
Senator Stevens. Secretary England, I noted the comments of
the Senator from Mississippi about the Global Hawk. And,
Admiral Clark, we have done some work with the Coast Guard in
trying out the Predator for long-range activities along the
maritime border off Alaska. And they've reported that that has
been fairly successful. I do hope there's going to be some
competition, because I see the Global Hawk as one platform; the
Predator and some of these other smaller ones are different
platforms, and they have different utilities as we go along.
Are you exploring all of these possibilities for competition
with the Global Hawk?
Mr. England. Yes, we are. That was really the gist of my
comment, that we're now talking specific platforms. We are
specifically looking at the competitive environment and who
should compete in this. But we will definitely compete if there
are systems that meet the requirements, Senator.
Senator Stevens. As a matter of fact, I was out at Stanford
Research Institute recently, and one of them you could hold in
your hand. Very interesting derivation of the concept of
unmanned aircraft. But I do think the future is in utilizing a
whole series of them, and I hope we stay current with the whole
concept, and not just one.
Mr. England. No, actually, we agree. I mean, this is not
only in the air, but this is on the surface of the Earth, it's
on the surface of the water, it's undersea. We're working a
wide variety of unmanned, across a full spectrum of utility in
combat. And, Senator, I agree with you, I think there's far
more utility in the future than we expect.
Senator Stevens. Not that I have anything against Global
Hawks. They're a very sound platform. But it's high-altitude,
long-range, and long-endurance. I think it's a very vital
portion of our system, but there are other challenging areas
where it just cannot fit in. And so I hope we pursue them all.
Yes, Admiral?
Admiral Clark. If I can add, Mr. Chairman, I think this is
really something for us to collectively consider. The
technology is moving so fast. We are going to send the marines
over, and, at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), we have
developed a hand-launched UAV that they're taking with them.
It's called Silver Fox. The marine will launch it like this. It
will link directly to him. The marine will be carrying a
computer. He won't be bothering with the satellites and all
this stuff. We've got to have mechanisms to be able to tap into
this technology and turn it in a hurry. And by the time we
finish our demonstrations, it's impossible to say today how
much the technology is going to have moved in this area. And so
we need the acquisition system to be agile enough for us to be
able to exploit.
This is our asymmetric advantage, Mr. Chairman. We'd like
to think of this enemy that we're fighting, that they're the
ones with the asymmetric advantage; ours is that we can turn
technology faster than anybody in the world. And the marines
are going with this brand-new system.
General Hagee. If I could pile on for a minute, Mr.
Chairman. I could not agree more with both the Secretary and
Admiral Clark. We're also bringing a UAV called Dragon Eye,
which is a hand-launched UAV, that can give the company
commander visibility over the next hill. And, of course, we
have Pioneer.
To me, what is critical is the ability to link all of these
platforms--whether they're tactical, whether they're
operational, or whether they're strategic--that we have the
communication architecture down there to where that company
commander, battalion commander, or ship driver, can get that
information, and it's not stove-piped down to one ground
station. I think that's where our concentration needs to be.
Senator Stevens. And it's going to be linked up to the
cockpit of the manned aircraft, too. So I think this is the
future, and I hope you are doing what we're doing, and that is,
visiting some of those people in graduate school who are
thinking out of the box and trying to really push the
envelope----
Mr. England. Actually----
Senator Stevens [continuing]. On the whole subject.
Mr. England. I'm sorry, Senator. But, you know, a lot of
this is operational. I mean, even in the war that we're
conducting, in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and, before,
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), we actually had unmanned tied in
with manned aircraft. And it's interesting, when you listen to
the conversation, you don't know if the pilot's on the ground
or in the airplane. So it's quite interesting how this all ties
together. We have made, I think, giant strides in this area.
Senator Stevens. Well, the three of you make us proud.
Do you have any further questions, Senator?
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Without any question, we've seen a lot of teams at that
witness table, in my time on this subcommittee; I think you're
the finest we've seen, and we appreciate what you're doing.
You've got a grand group of young men and women serving our
country under your command. So we couldn't be more pleased with
the way you're conducting your activities. And I do hope that
we can find ways to work together and make sure that we deliver
the funds to you in the areas that they're needed.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Gordon R. England
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM
Question. Mr. Secretary, as you know the Office of Naval Research
(ONR) has begun a water purification research program in southern New
Mexico.
The goal of this program is to study techniques in reverse osmosis
that will lead to the production of a transportable water purification
unit.
In turn, these units would be used by Marines engaged in
humanitarian and disaster relief efforts. They would also help meet the
water demands of our expeditionary war-fighters.
What is the schedule to produce the first water purification system
with the upgraded technology being developed by the Navy?
Answer. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) is the program
coordinator for the Expeditionary Unit Water Purification (EUWP)
program. The EUWP program is in the near term building state of the art
demonstrators, and for the long term is investing in significant
science and technology enhancements.
In the near term, the EUWP program is designing a 100,000 Gallon
Per Day (GPD) system. This system is transportable by C-130 aircraft
and encompasses state of the art commercially available technology. It
will ultimately be fielded to the Tularosa Basin National Desalination
Research Facility (TBNDRF), Alamogordo, New Mexico, and is on schedule
with delivery planned for January 2005.
NAVY HIGH ENERGY LASER TESTING
Question. What is the status of the Navy high energy laser testing
against anti-ship missiles at White Sands?
Answer. The Navy is in the process of upgrading the Sea-Lite Beam
Director (SLBD) acquisition and tracking systems from its circa 1970s
technology to more state of the art technologies. The name of this
program is High Energy Laser Precision Acquisition and Track (HEL-PAT).
At present, two new cameras, mid wave infrared, and long wave infrared,
have been purchased and are on site. A new Automatic Aimpoint Selection
and Maintenance (AUASM) telescope and Hot Spot Tracking (HST) optics
are being manufactured. A new Tracking Processor Unit (TPU) has been
procured and the associated tracking software is being developed. The
new TPU will allow object oriented tracking as opposed to edge tracking
currently employed.
Starting in April 2004, the TPU and one of the new cameras are
being installed and integrated with the SLBD using a surrogate AUASM
telescope. This will ensure that the TPU can properly control the SLBD
for tracking. First tests will be on a stationary target board. Later
tests will track military aircraft. The goals of the SLBD upgrades are
to allow the tracking and engagement of low contrast targets against a
clutter background and to maintain the high energy laser beam on
target. In addition, tracking through the full aperture will be
utilized. Low power laser engagements will begin in June 2004 and high
power engagements in November 2004.
Question. Is the Navy interested in developing laser weapons for
the all-electric ship?
Answer. The Navy is interested in high-energy lasers as a future
concept, but does not consider the technology to be mature enough for
inclusion in an acquisition program. Adequate power generation is a
limiting factor in the development of these weapons. We continue to
invest in Science and Technology programs to attain methods for
generating the required power levels. One example is the ongoing
program in free electron laser development sponsored by the Office of
Naval Research. Additionally, we continue to coordinate with other
Services and Agencies on related high energy laser development
projects.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Question. The success of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is
vital to the future of tactical aviation of all the services,
especially the fighter bases in New Mexico.
What is the status of the JSF program, especially the problem of
being over-weight? Do you expect any significant impact on the
schedule?
Answer. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has completed two
years of an 11-year development program. To date, the development of
all three variants has gone very well in propulsion, subsystems,
avionics, and autonomic logistics areas. The Air System Preliminary
Design Review was completed in June 2003, and the F-135 First Engine to
Test was successfully completed in October 2003.
The Department does have concerns regarding the aircraft's airframe
design. At this time, the airframe design is heavier than the
established goal. Reducing the weight of the airframe is an important
step in meeting performance requirements. We believe current weight
issues are solvable within normal parameters of design fluctuation, and
we are re-planning JSF System Development and Demonstration (SDD) to
make sure we succeed. Specifically, our SDD plan recognizes that Short
Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) performance is absolutely vital
and is focusing upfront efforts to ensure STOVL viability for our war
fighters. In addition, we are aggressively pursuing trade studies to
improve performance by reducing weight, as well as aggressively
pursuing propulsion enhancements to improve performance. Additionally,
the Department has formed an independent review team to look at the
entire program, including a near-term engineering view, assessing the
present design, with specific emphasis on weight, aircraft structural
design, and other technical risk areas.
Additional design work required to address technical issues,
primarily weight projections, will result in an SDD schedule delay and
a one-year slip to starting Low Rate Initial Production to fiscal year
2007 vice fiscal year 2006. In addition, Initial Operational Capability
(IOC) dates will be extended as a result of adjusting the program with
the STOVL variant's IOC moved from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year
2012, the Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) variant moved from
fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013, and the Carrier Variant (CV)
moved from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013.
______
Question Submitted to General Michael W. Hagee
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
M4 CARBINES
Question. General Hagee, I noted with some concern an unfunded
requirement of $4.9 million for the procurement of 5,400 M-4 Carbines
to be used by forward deployed Marines. Also, I recently became aware
of a new technology for coating weapons that could enable weapons such
as the M4 Carbine to operate without lubrication. I understand that
this technology could greatly improve the reliability of the weapons
concerned while decreasing the workload of the Marine.
Could you update the Committee on your small arms shortfall, and
are you aware of this technology? If so, are you investigating the
feasibility of its application to Marine Corps weapons?
Answer. As the result of lessons learned in recent operations,
certain Marines are inappropriately armed with the M9 pistol or the
M16A4 rifle. The M4 carbine is a shorter, lighter version of the
standard M16A2 service rifle and is deemed a better weapon for specific
applications due to its smaller profile. Therefore, the Marine Corps
recently established a 10,119 Table of Equipment (T/E) requirement for
the M4 carbine variant of the Modular Weapon System (MWS). The M4
carbine replaces some of the current M16A2 rifles and M9 pistols. This
increase of 4,420 weapons raises the MWS requirement to 69,883 weapons.
This is comprised of 59,764 M16A4 rifles and 10,119 M4 carbines. The
$4.9 million will procure 5,400 M4 carbine variants.
The Marine Corps Infantry Weapons and Weapons Maintenance program
is actively investigating coating technology for small arms. A
Universal Chemical Technologies, Inc. product will increase wear and
corrosion resistance and reduce friction. The Marine Corps will
continue to investigate coating technology sources to reduce weapons
lifecycle costs.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Stevens. Our next Defense Subcommittee meeting is
scheduled for Wednesday, March 24, at 10 a.m.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
March 24.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Inouye, Leahy, Dorgan,
and Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force
STATEMENTS OF:
HON. JAMES G. ROCHE, SECRETARY
GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER, CHIEF OF STAFF
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. I apologize, Mr. Secretary and General. I
was Chair of the Senate, and my relief did not show up. But
we're happy to have you here this morning. It's an important
time for all of us, very important hearing concerning the
future of the Air Force.
As you know, some of us just returned from a trip to Iraq
and Afghanistan, and I know you're confronted with the
difficult task of modernizing the Air Force. We're pleased to
have your leadership.
I'll put my statement completely in the record because I am
late.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
Secretary Roche, General Jumper, it is good to welcome you
back before the subcommittee at this time of importance for the
nation and the Air Force. As we meet here today, the Air Force
continues to support the nation's forces committed to
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time you are
both confronted with the difficult task of modernizing the Air
Force. The country is fortunate to be able to call upon your
leadership.
The committee has begun its review of the fiscal year 2005
Defense budget. Clear from the President's request is the Air
Force effort to modernize fighters by investing in the F/A-22
and the Joint Strike Fighter, and to commit the Department to
the next generation of space capability.
We look forward to hearing today of your priorities in the
budget request.
We will make your full statements a part of the committee's
record.
Before you proceed, I would like to ask my colleague from
Hawaii if he has any opening remarks.
Senator Stevens. All of your statements are completely in
the record, by the way.
Senator Inouye, our co-chairman, do you have a statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Yes, I did want to put the rest of my
statement in the record. Mr. Chairman, I wish to begin by
congratulating the Secretary and the General for the
performance of the men and women in the Air Force in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other places around the world. And I'd like to
thank all of you and your command, because we are in your debt.
Thank you very much for your service.
And may I ask that the rest of the statement be made part
of the record?
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Secretary Roche, General Jumper thank you for being here
today to testify before this subcommittee on your fiscal year
2005 budget request.
Gentlemen, I want to begin by congratulating you on the
performance of the men and women in the Air Force in Iraq,
Afghanistan and around the world.
The last few years have been very demanding on our military
with frequent family separations from overseas deployments,
periods of intense combat which heighten concern for our loved
ones, and the stress that comes from knowing that we are living
in a very dangerous era.
Particularly at times like these, it is critical that we
demonstrate our support and express our thanks to these fine
officers and airmen, and their families.
I look forward to hearing from you today about how the
fiscal year 2005 budget request will accomplish this task.
Mr. Chairman, I want to note also that there are several
important issues in this budget request. The Air Force is
recommending changes in its aviation force structure, with the
retirement of ten F-117s. Furthermore, many other adjustments
are being contemplated.
For instance, I am told you are considering buying
additional F-15 and F-16 fighters, retiring C-5as, and
restoring B-1 bombers back to the fleet.
Some of these might prove controversial, and I encourage
you to include us in the decision making process as you
proceed.
Gentlemen, the proposed budget includes an increase of over
$4 billion in your investment accounts, while the other
services did not fare as well. I understand that some of your
increase is due to classified activities, but I would like you
to address the unclassified increases for space and other
programs today and why they are priorities at this juncture.
I look forward to hearing your remarks today on these and
other topics as we review the state of the Air Force.
Finally, Mr. Secretary, General Jumper I want to thank each
of you for your service to the Air Force and the country. We
are in your debt.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan, do you have a statement?
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I do intend to ask some
questions today about a number of things, but let me, again,
echo your comments and the comments of Senator Inouye. I
appreciate the work that the Secretary does, and General
Jumper's, and the men and women of the Air Force.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, sir.
I have a statement from Senator Burns for the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Secretary
Roche and General Jumper for coming to brief this Committee on
the Air Force budget, and I thank you for your service to our
great Nation. Your airmen are critical to winning this global
war on terror. I intend to honor our men and women serving and
those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country by
ensuring that our forces have the resources they need. With
16,000 airmen deployed to 25 locations in southwest Asia,
including 12 new bases, our Air Force is fully committed to
support the Global War on Terror.
Members of the 120th Fighter wing of the Montana Air
National Guard were one of many Air Guard units mobilized and
deployed to Saudi Arabia last year in support of the war. As
part of the Air and Space Expeditionary Forces (AEF), they have
performed superbly. I urge you to ensure the Air National Guard
units called to active duty have the most current equipment
available. We must depart from the cold war premise that equips
the Air Guard with older generation equipment transitioned from
Active Duty Air Force units. Today, our Air Force Guard and
Reserve components fight beside their active counterparts. I
urge you to ensure that all units deployed overseas are
equipped with the best technology our country can provide.
We have witnessed the successful employment of unmanned
aircraft within our forces. We have seen an increase in the
number of Unmanned Air Vehicles in use by our forces at all
echelons. Feedback I have seen from the soldiers on the ground
is that they wish they had more of these systems, not less. I
urge the Air Force to consider expanding the force structure of
unmanned aircraft into the Air National Guard. The Air Force
would benefit from retention of a strategic reserve of this
capability as operational tempo subsides in the coming years,
and the Air National Guard would benefit from force structure
that could support homeland security or disaster relief
missions. I will be interested to hear whether or not you have
plans for achieving this balance between the active Air Force
and Air National Guard.
I am encouraged by Air Force investments in advanced
technology that enables us to maintain superiority in sensor
coverage and the ability to provide rapid, precise application
of force. This investment is critical to our continued success
in operations under our new operational model, which relies on
precision engagement weapons and rapid identification of
targets to augment traditional firepower and maneuver
formations. I would hope that the Air Force continues its
investment in the development of cutting edge, creative
applications for the warfighter of today and the future.
The key to future combat is knowledge provided by rapid
processing of data from pervasive sensors, empowered with quick
response precision engagement capability. Air Force programs
like satellite communications and space based radar support the
growth in bandwidth required of our combat network resulting
from integration of high resolution multi-spectral sensors,
precision weapons, and maneuver formations.
I read daily of our forces in the field using American
ingenuity to develop unconventional solutions to solve the many
unconventional problems they face. I appreciate your efforts as
the leaders of the Air Force to seek innovation in technology,
acquisition processes, and doctrine to meet the challenges of
the evolving battlefield.
Again, I thank you for being here today and look forward to
the discussion this morning. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming the
distinguished Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force,
and commend them on the outstanding leadership they're
providing to the Air Force at this very important time.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Maybe I should be late every morning, Mr.
Secretary.
We'd get to you quicker this way.
I thank the Senators for their courtesy, and we'd be
pleased to hear your statement.
Dr. Roche. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We very much appreciate
the comments you made about our wonderful airmen. They really
are spectacular young men and women, and we're terribly proud
of them.
So, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and members of the
committee, it is our great pleasure to appear before this
distinguished committee and to represent the 700,000 Active,
Guard, Reserve, and civilian airmen who are engaged in
defending our Nation. General John Jumper and I are extremely
proud of their achievements and service this past year and the
years before that. They have contributed significantly to our
Nation's global fight against terrorism, to our military
successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to our homeland defense
mission. They are devoted servants to our Nation, and have our
utmost respect and confidence.
And, sir, I would also want to point out how honored I am
to serve alongside such an outstanding leader as General John
Jumper, a wonderful officer, a superb gentleman, a renaissance
man, and a good friend.
Our highest priority continues to be warfighting through
delivering capabilities that enable us to remain decisive in
combat. Through the efforts of this committee, your colleagues
in the Congress, and the dedicated professionals of the
Department, we are proud to report we are meeting these
objectives.
As highlighted in our written testimony, we continue
adapting the Air Force to realize the President's and Secretary
Rumsfeld's view of transformation. Our strategy is to exploit
the sources of strength that give us the military advantages we
enjoy today. Our goal is to build a portfolio of advantages,
one that uses operational concepts to guide investments that's
relevant to the joint character of warfare and is useful in the
increasingly asymmetric conduct of warfare. With the support of
this committee, we have delivered combat effects never before
imaginable on the battlefield, and we'll sustain this dominance
in the future. The portfolio of capabilities, which I will be
speaking of, will continue to provide joint force air and space
dominance, enable battlefield operations, and produce decisive
joint-combat effects.
F/A-22
Let me start with the F/A-22, Mr. Chairman. Today, the F/A-
22 is not just a program on a piece of paper, but a real
aircraft, a revolutionary aircraft that is moving to the field
now. Ten jets assigned to Edwards Air Force Base, California,
are completing developmental tests, and they're well into
operational tests. At Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, five
Raptors are developing operational tactics and techniques. And
at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, four jets, and counting,
are training pilots.
I recently visited our airmen at Tyndall--I've been to all
of the facilities, but most recently at Tyndall Air Force
Base--and heard firsthand the glowing reports of this
transformational weapons system, from the airmen who maintain
it and operate it. In fact, as I departed, two Raptors were
taxiing back from another successful mission. Later, I was told
that both aircraft landed Code 1, which means they'd be ready
to go for its next mission after routine servicing.
With these aircraft in the inventory, we are now focusing
on operational testing, expanding the flight envelope,
integrating more weapons, and improving our maintenance
processes. One year ago, we had completed 16 missile shots.
Today, after 5,000 flight test hours, we've had 47 successful
missile shots, and major elements, flight envelope and weapons
envelope, are cleared for Initial Operational Test and
Evaluation (IOT&E) start. In fact, as General Jumper will tell
you, pilots flying the aircraft today believe that if war were
to break out, they would like to take the aircraft to war
today.
Additionally, through your commitment, stable production of
the F/A-22 program is producing cost savings. Earlier this
year, we exercised an option to add one F/A-22 aircraft to our
LOT-3 contract, increasing our buy to 21 planes for the price
of 20. While such dramatic savings won't be available every
year, this is happening because of gains in supplier
confidence, which led to reduced costs. With 65 percent of
aircraft costs associated with over 1,400 suppliers in 46
States, a firm commitment to program stability is absolutely
essential to create conditions where suppliers view efficiency
gains as a path to increased orders. Again, your commitment to
F/A-22 program stability is what has allowed this to happen,
and we thank you.
At the same time as we strive for program stability, we are
transforming the F/A-22's capabilities. Through deliberate
spiral development, we are integrating new avionics and weapons
to make it a premier air-to-ground strike system, as well. In
addition to obtaining and sustaining air dominance, the F/A-22
will counter existing and emerging threats, such as advanced
surface-to-air missile systems of the SA-20 and the SA-400
family, time-sensitive targets, moving targets, and cruise
missiles, protecting our Navy colleagues, our deployed soldiers
and airmen, or, God forbid, even our homeland, to a greater
fidelity than anything we have in our legacy systems.
And we just completed Defense Acquisition Board the day
before yesterday, and it was characterized by all members as
very encouraging. Members were satisfied. We expect to enter
into an initial operational test and evaluation near the end of
April, but it'll be event-driven. As of now, we see no
impediments to enter.
Also as part of a test, we were required to do a test
against the F-15, because there had been requirement that the
F/A-22 demonstrate that it was at least twice as good as the F-
15 in air-to-air combat. The head of the Air Force test
organization tells General Jumper and me that, in fact, the F/
A-22 proved to be roughly five times as good as the F-15.
We have also just completed LOT-4 negotiations for 22
aircraft. That means that we are at a position where the
recurring cost--not including research and development, but the
recurring cost of each airplane is under $110 million a copy.
We are on the price curve, as we had wished to be. And, again,
we thank you for the stability that's allowed us to do that.
Our F/A-22 budget request continues much needed program
stability and supports its transition from development to
operational tests with Initial Operational Capability (IOC) at
the end of calendar year 2005. The $4.8 billion request
includes funding for production of 24 aircraft, and continues
our smooth ramp-up to 32 jets per year. As you recall from last
year, Mr. Chairman, we have decided not to try and go beyond 32
because it would require additional facilities and other
things. We much prefer to have something that's stable, because
when you have a stable production line, you can work very hard
at finding efficiencies in order to get costs down and get
reliability up.
We look forward to the delivery of the first F/A-22 to
Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, this November as part of the
first operational squadron. IOC is clearly within sight, and
the Air Force is postured to deliver this transformational
capability, as anticipated, to the Joint Warfighter.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER--F-35
With respect to the Joint Strike Fighter, a complementary
capability to the F/A-22 should be provided by the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter. This aircraft is expected to provide a
sustainable, focused close air-support platform for the Joint
Force commander. The benefits potentially to be gained from the
F-35 commonality across services and major allies will have no
comparison to any system in the fleet today.
With the F-35 only in its second year now of an 11-year
development program, we can effectively apply the production
quality and Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) lessons that
we learned on the F/A-22. In fact, every time there's a Defense
Acquisition Board meeting on the F/A-22, we require the F-35
team to be there to learn any lessons so that they don't repeat
any mistakes we might have made.
Together, these aircraft will be integral to our support of
ground forces in various environments flying different
profiles. They are not the same aircraft; they are very
different aircraft. They are not substitutes; they are
complements.
We, in the Air Force, are in the process of improving our
commitment to close air-support capability by planning to
acquire Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) and STOVL
variants of the F-35 to better support land forces, be they
Marine, Army, Coalition, or special operators.
In moving our Air Force into the STOVL world, with an
emphasis on the short takeoff for air support, we will look to
gain training efficiencies by working jointly with the Marine
Corps on facility use and course development. Additionally, we
are pressing for the early development of STOVL capability in
the program cycle to reduce risk.
Right now, there's a weight problem in the F-35 program,
and it most greatly affects the STOVL variant. We are working
with the Navy and with the people in Acquisition and the
Program Office to change the program so that risk reduction on
the STOVL becomes one of the paramount things to do in the
short-term, because if we cannot build a STOVL aircraft, then
we really don't--we should not proceed with the F-35 program.
A STOVL is key for a number of reasons--commonality with
the Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL), the fact that the
Marine Corps are very dependent on it, the fact that we will
become dependent on it. If we were merely to be designing a
plane to replace the F-16, we would probably have taken a
different route.
We believe this is doable, and we believe it is what you
would want us to do, which was to find the toughest part of the
program and to demonstrate to you that, in fact, the program is
a viable program. Since the Air Force will be taking over this
program sometime in June, end of May or June, we are committed
to being as transparent as possible to you about the program--
when there's a problem, tell you about the problems; when
there's something good, tell you about something good. Right
now we think what we owe you most is to prove that, in fact,
the short takeoff and landing aircraft can be developed from
this design, and can do it with the amount of weight that's
reasonable.
BOMBERS
With respect to our bombers, Mr. Chairman, during Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom we continue to
demonstrate our ability to link air and ground forces with our
airmen combat controllers, turning the battlefield air
operations from a concept into a reality, and giving Joint
Forces the tools they need to bring devastating fires to bear.
These young airmen, who operate on the ground, sometimes to the
back of forces in remote locations, have proven their worth to
our country, and they and their colleagues, as part of our
battlefield airmen field, will only be developing over time.
And we are working with the United States Army--in particular,
General Jumper and General Schoomaker--to assure that, as the
Army reorganizes and has smaller maneuver combat units, that we
will have the airmen for each of those units to be able to
bring air power to bear to support those ground forces.
B-52
A decade ago, we were concerned with the relevance of the
B-52. And, as John has pointed out, General LeMay never would
have predicted we'd employ B-52s from 39,000 feet in a close
air-support mission with such precision, but he would be proud.
And last year, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, reserve B-52
units from Louisiana figured out how to incorporate the
Litening II sensor pod on a ``BUFF'', and conducted the first
combat laser-guided employment. We were able to drop Laser-
Guided Bombs (LGBs) from a B-52. The first time the crew saw
the targets, they were actually attacking, and it became--these
planes became the two weapons of choice for the Combined Forces
Air Component Commander (CFACC) in the area, because they could
do so much more with them. We are now expanding that to cover
about 14 of the B-52s.
At one point, there were those who were writing off the B-
1, but we adapted the fleet. Today, we are using it in ways
never conceived. We removed the stores bay fuel tank to give it
increased carriage capability, and we developed tactics that
make it useful for new missions. With increased range and
duration over a target area measured in hours because of the
changed way we employ this aircraft, and the capability of
stacking aircraft in benign areas for execution of time-
sensitive or emerging targets, the B-1 and our whole bomber
force--have become theater weapons of choice, and we're
especially proud of the men and women who have made the B-1 so
effective.
Our bomber fleet of B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s are combat-
proven. Thanks to this committee, increased spare-parts funding
and your commitment to platform modernization and fleet
consolidation have resulted in record mission-capable rates and
a fleet that is more lethal and survivable. We truly have
achieved something together, sir.
B-1
Our B-1s achieved their highest mission-capability rate in
history thanks to a smaller fleet, improved availability of
spares, and the concentration on two bases with the best
maintainers split between those two bases, instead of five.
We've done well.
B-2
The B-2 fleet story is similar. We currently have 21 B-2
aircraft achieving their best mission-capable rate since its
IOC in 1997. With congressional support, shelters are now
available to support global B-2 expeditionary operations.
Today, we are investing in future technologies for enabling
long-range strike for 2025 and beyond. Over the next year or
so, we will determine what form that long-range strike
capability will take. Our long-range strike strategy and
investment plan will sustain our legacy force and provide a
future stealthy, possibly regional bomber to deliver combatant
commanders combat effects. When we say ``regional bomber'', we
mean a bomber that is big enough to carry a number of weapons,
and stealthy, able to fight or to evade a fight and, thereby,
be able to be daytime stealth, because right now all our
stealthy systems can only be operated at night. The exact range
is to be determined, but could be something like three-quarters
that of a B-2 or, for certain design, might even exceed that of
a B-2.
C-17
C-17 next, sir. Another warfighting success story rests
with a key enabler of our strategic mobility, the C-17, and
this committee has been heavily involved in it from the very,
very beginning. Therefore, we're proud to say that we have a
fleet that now includes 116 aircraft, of which 79 are available
for immediate global mobility with a mission-capable rate of
86.7. This is the highest mission-capable rate in our manned-
aircraft fleet.
Combat employment of the C-17 has been even more
impressive, and would not have been possible without the
support of you and your colleagues, Mr. Chairman. For instance,
while we were constrained from access by land, 15 Air Force C-
17s airdropped over 950 paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne
Brigade, and 23 airmen, into Northern Iraq. This successful
mission opened Bashur airfield and assured the United States
(U.S.) ground forces could be resupplied in the northern part
of Iraq. As of today, the C-17 has flown the bulk of U.S.
airlift missions supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom flying over 40 percent of all
aircraft sorties, delivering 260,000 tons of cargo. The
additional 60 C-17s approved in the multi-year buy is a
continued step in the right direction to support this nation's
airlift requirements. With your committee's support, the C-17
program and the multi-year funding profile provides the
stability and maximizes production, while enabling suppliers to
gain efficiencies, providing cost savings. We still believe
that the 60 multi-year, as you've allowed us to do it, sir,
enables us to save at least $1 billion over the course of the
program. That's equal to four more planes. We are getting 60
planes for roughly the price of 56.
TANKERS
Tankers, Mr. Chairman. As you know, our tanker
recapitalization initiative is on hold. The initiative is
complicated enough, as you know, so I am in complete agreement
with Secretary Rumsfeld's desire to review the program and
ensure that it is not tainted in any way.
Meanwhile, we are programming money, starting at fiscal
year 2006, to conduct a KCX tanker replacement program, and
that has been our plan all along. As a critical joint enabler
of U.S. power projection, our global aerial refueling fleet
serves Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coalition aircraft.
Recapitalization of the KC-135 fleet, over 540 aerial refueling
aircraft, will clearly take years to complete, and their
average age, as you are well aware, is roughly 43 years. The
Air Force is committed to an acquisition approach for this
program that brings the best capability to the Joint Warfighter
at the lowest possible cost and in the most efficient manner.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
If I may now, I'll just touch on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAVs). We, again, would like to thank this committee for its
contribution to our UAV force and remotely piloted aircraft. I
know, personally, a number of you were interested in this
subject long before the services were, and now I think you can
point with pride to your early positions.
Since beginning operations with these transformational
systems, you have enabled us to make this a valuable asset in
the conduct of modern-day warfare and the prosecution of time-
sensitive targets. In just 2 years, these aircraft have evolved
from intelligence platforms used to see over the next hill,
into systems that can now provide Joint and Coalition Forces
with intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, target
acquisition, and, in the case of the armed Predator, direct
attack.
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
During Operation Iraqi Freedom, we further refined Predator
capabilities, as well as Global Hawk capabilities, sending
realtime Predator feeds to other airborne platforms and to
ground forces. Now, in fact, we have 20-some of these units we
call Rover 2's, which are the--to downlink instruments from the
Predator to the ground forces, that they're going to use in
Iraq.
Being able to run five simultaneous combat orbits through
advanced technology and tactics development was also
demonstrated. Innovations in our laser Hellfire operation saved
lives and refined the standards for time-sensitive targeting.
Last year, we used Predators, as well as our Global Hawk UAV,
to assist in the effort to preclude Scud launches from the
western desert of Iraq. Integrated with special operations and
other air assets, these unmanned aircraft allowed small teams
to own and control 6 million acres of territory that had been
the launching points for dozens of Scud missiles during the
1991 gulf war. With small teams, with that kind of air
surveillance, backed up by attack aircraft, we suppressed the
western part of Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, I know you know that we, in fact, were able
to practice with the same people, the leaders of this, in the
western part of the United States night after night after
night, quite secretly. Our range is the size of Connecticut.
Two Connecticuts make the size of western Iraq. We moved that
identical team right over, and these were our Army folk, some
Navy, Air Force, some Coalition allies, special operators, who
had trained night after night together, and then we moved them.
Working with other intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance
assets, the Predator also provided target acquisition and
conducted direct attacks on targets where the chances of
collateral damage were high. We loved the story of a pilot
named Yvanna, and she took her Predator to remove Baghdad Bob
off the airwaves. She had to destroy his satellite dish,
antennae, and generator, and it was set up only a few yards
away from international media antennaes, and very close to a
mosque. She operated the Predator slowly, as she said. As you
know, Mr. Chairman, this thing only can go 70 knots, at best.
But she came in slowly, to be very quiet. She coordinated with
the Combat Air Operations Center (CAOC) in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. She was flying the vehicle from the United States. She
flew over downtown Baghdad. She found the target, made sure
that the laser beamed exactly the right spot, and blew it away,
and the other media never even noticed. It was a beautiful job,
and there was no collateral damage.
GLOBAL HAWK
Another example that we're very proud of is the work of the
Global Hawk with our Joint Surveillance Targeting Attack Radar
System (JOINTSTARS) working against the Medina Division in the
midst of a sandstorm. As my colleague often points out, when
people talked about a lull in the war, I don't think they ever
asked the commander of the Medina Division, because he was
certainly not experiencing a lull, and he found that if he
moved, he could be identified, and his units were killed.
PREDATOR
Examples like these reinforce our current plan for a force
of 68 Predator A's. We expect many of our ongoing initiatives
in this platform to pay big dividends. Developing multi-
spectral sensors, improving our weapons integration and
communication links remain top priorities for our Predator
force.
For Predator B production, General Jumper and I have
directed a more deliberate acquisition program to ensure we
deliver an effective and sustainable hunter/killer capability
to the warfighter. And John just visited the Predator B
yesterday, and he may want to comment on it.
We have also reviewed the fielding strategy to get us up to
60 aircraft, the requisite sensors, and ground stations. This
will allow for early deliveries of interim combat capability,
support near-term requirements, while ensuring a disciplined
development program.
There's a lot we could go on about the Global Hawk, sir. We
are going to be ordering 34 of these over the Future Years
Defense Plan (FYDP). These were used differently than ever
intended during the Iraqi War. Our young teams taught us how
these things should be used in ways we never envisioned, and we
are just delighted that they have applied their brains and come
back with some wonderful new doctrine and tactics.
In space, sir, may I comment that the leadership--under the
leadership of Under Secretary of the Air Force Pete Teets, we
are working to put our space programs on track. Pete inherited
a number of ongoing programs that needed revitalizing. Besides
working programs, he has increased the unity of effort among
the Air Force, the National Reconnaissance Office, and
intelligence community in ways that we have never seen in the
past. I can think of no one more knowledgeable to lead our
space efforts and our space personnel. Recognizing these space
professionals as a segment of warriors requiring special
attention, Pete Teets has developed a roadmap designed to
develop more in-depth expertise in operational and technical
space specialties.
This evolving expertise served us well in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, where Air Force General Buzz Moseley was both the
CFACC and the senior space authority for all Joint and
Coalition space activities. These improvements will continue to
enhance space support for the warfighter, bring a joint
perspective to our Department of Defense's executive agents--
our role as the Department of Defense's executive agent for
space.
Our next step in space will be to focus on what we call
Joint Warfighting in space, a new initiative that General
Jumper and I are trying to undertake. This focus area strives
to develop rapidly launched, responsive, and survivable
Microsats that advances our ability to protect our space assets
and enhances our direct support to Joint Force commanders
throughout the globe. Part of that support includes Command and
Control (C\2\) networks. Using both air and space media, we
envision a C\2\ constellation that is robust, a protected
network, and globally based command and control system that
accomplishes all levels of the battle. This network is one that
allows machines to do the integration and fusion, but leaves
combat experience and judgement to leaders. It uses battlefield
management command and control that will consist of command
sensors--command centers, sensors, and systems, like space-
based radar (SBR), transformational satellite (TSAT)
communications, Global Hawk, Predator, other drones, airborne--
AMTI and GMTI--that's airborne moving target indicator and
ground moving target indicator--distribute a common ground
picture in our air operations centers, all geared towards
achieving the objectives of the joint battlefield commander. We
are at the very early stages, and now we're thinking through
what the architecture ought to be.
Mr. Chairman, our 2005 budget supports the Air Force's
joint focus. The $98.5 billion budget request invests in a
portfolio of military advantages, advantages that depend on our
ability to develop and maintain our airmen, maintain our
readiness, improve our infrastructure, and provide decisive
effects-based capabilities to the Joint Force commander
anytime, anyplace, under any condition. Our budget request
increases both Research Development Test and Evaluation (RTD&E)
and procurement to support our emphasis on transformation and
modernization, consistent with the strategy we discussed.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST
In the fiscal year 2005 budget request, we make a
significant investment in a number of critical joint systems--
14 C-17s, 11 C-130J's, seven Predators, A's and two B's, four
Global Hawks, and joint space capabilities, including
transformational communications, space-based radar, and
military satellite communications (SATCOM). We're also
investing in joint weapons, including more than 23,000 Joint
Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs). Our bottom line, Mr. Chairman,
is that we are committed to the joint fight. In fact, joint
enablers account for roughly 50 percent of the Air Force's real
budget growth.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Finally, we know there are concerns with respect to our
ability to continue operating without a supplemental. In the
Air Force, we have the ability to cash-flow into fiscal year
2005, preserving our ability of operating at home and abroad.
This assumes we get no additional bills in any kind of
rebalancing. Right now, we see ourselves about $2 billion
short, and that's because of some bills that have come, plus
some other changes inside the Air Force, and we are looking for
ways to reprogram to handle those.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am proud to be
a part of the finest Air Force in the world, and I'm honored to
be part of the joint team that has done so much to defend
America and our interests. With your continued support and the
investments--that this budget makes in adapting our force to
the demands of this new era, we will continue to deliver for
our Nation.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I look forward to your questions. Thank you so much for all
your support, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James G. Roche
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and distinguished 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.
Throughout our distinguished history, America's Air Force has
remained the world's premier air and space power because of our
professional airmen, our investment in warfighting technology, and our
ability to integrate our people and systems together to produce
decisive effects. These Air Force competencies are the foundation that
will ensure we are prepared for the unknown threats of an uncertain
future. They will ensure that our Combatant Commanders have the tools
they need to maintain a broad and sustained advantage over any emerging
adversaries.
In this strategic environment of the 21st century, and along with
our sister services, our Air Force will continue to fulfill our
obligation to protect America, deter aggression, assure our allies, and
defeat our enemies. As we adapt the Air Force to the demands of this
era, we remain committed to fulfilling our global commitments as part
of the joint warfighting team. In partnership, and with the continuing
assistance of the Congress, we will shape the force to meet the needs
of this century, fight the Global War on Terrorism, and defend our
nation.
The 2004 Posture Statement is our vision for the upcoming year and
is the blueprint we will follow to sustain our air and space dominance
in the future. We are America's Air Force--disciplined airmen, dominant
in warfighting, decisive in conflict.
INTRODUCTION
In 2003, U.S. and coalition military operations produced
unprecedented mission successes--across the spectrum of conflict and
around the globe. The joint warfighting team demonstrated combat
capability never previously witnessed in the history of conflict.
Integrating capabilities from air, land, sea, and space, the U.S. and
coalition allies achieved considerable progress in the ongoing Global
War on Terrorism. In our most recent engagements, our armed forces
fulfilled our immediate obligations to defend America, deter
aggression, assure our allies, and defeat our enemies.
The foundation of these achievements can be found in the Department
of Defense's (DOD) commitment to teamwork and excellence. Operation
IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) was a joint and coalition warfighting effort from
planning to execution. Air, ground, maritime, and space forces worked
together at the same time for the same objectives, not merely staying
out of each other's way, but orchestrated to achieve wartime
objectives. Our air and space forces achieved dominance throughout the
entire theater, enabling maritime and ground forces to operate without
fear of enemy air attack. Our airmen demonstrated the flexibility,
speed, precision, and compelling effects of air and space power,
successfully engaging the full range of enemy targets, from the
regime's leadership to fielded forces. When our ground and maritime
components engaged the enemy, they were confident our airmen would be
there--either in advance of their attacks, or in support of their
operations. And America's Air Force was there, disciplined, dominant,
and decisive.
These operational accomplishments illustrate the growing maturation
of air and space power. Leveraging the expertise of our airmen, the
technologies present in our 21st century force, and the strategies,
concepts of operation, and organizations in use today, the U.S. Air
Force continues to adapt to meet the demands of this new era, while
pursuing the war on terrorism and defending the homeland.
On September 11, 2001, the dangers of the 21st century became
apparent to the world. Today, the United States faces an array of
asymmetric threats from terrorists and rogue states, including a threat
that poses the gravest danger to our nation, the growing nexus of
radicalism and technology. As we continue our work in Afghanistan and
Iraq, we stand ready to respond to flashpoints around the world,
prepared to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to
unfriendly states and non-state entities.
We are adapting to new and enduring challenges. As we do, we are
exploiting the inherent sources of strength that give us the advantages
we enjoy today. It is a strategy predicated on the idea that, if we
accurately assess our own advantages and strengths, we can invest in
them to yield high rates of military return. This approach helps us
create a portfolio of advantages allowing us to produce and continue to
exploit our capabilities. Our goal is to create a capability mix
consistent with operational concepts and effects-driven methodology,
relevant to the joint character and increasingly asymmetric conduct of
warfare.
Since 1945, when General Henry ``Hap'' Arnold and Dr. Theodore von
Karman published Toward New Horizons, the Air Force has evolved to meet
the changing needs of the nation--with the sole objective of improving
our ability to generate overwhelming and strategically compelling
effects from air and now, space. It is our heritage to adapt and we
will continue to do so. During this comparatively short history, we
became the best air and space force in the world through our focus on
the development of professional airmen, our investment in warfighting
technology, and our ability to integrate people and systems to produce
decisive joint warfighting effects.
The Air Force is making a conscious investment in education,
training, and leader development to foster critical thinking,
innovation, and encourage risk taking. We deliberately prepare our
airmen--officer, enlisted, and civilian--with experience, assignments,
and broadening that will allow them to succeed. When our airmen act in
the combined or joint arena, whether as an Air Liaison Officer to a
ground maneuver element, or as the space advisor to the Joint Force
Commander (JFC), this focused professional development will guide their
success.
We are also investing in technologies that will enable us to create
a fully integrated force of intelligence capabilities, manned, unmanned
and space assets that communicate at the machine-to-machine level, and
real-time global command and control (C\2\) of joint, allied, and
coalition forces. Collectively, these assets will enable compression of
the targeting cycle and near-instantaneous global precision-strike.
As we cultivate new concepts of global engagement, we will move
from analog to digital processes and adopt more agile, non-linear ways
of integrating to achieve mission success. This change in thinking
leads to capabilities including: networked communications; multi-
mission platforms which fuse multi-spectral sensors; integrated global
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); robust, all-
weather weapons delivery with increased standoff; small smart weapons;
remotely-piloted and unattended aircraft systems; advanced air
operations centers; more secure position, navigation, and timing; and a
new generation of satellites with more operationally responsive launch
systems.
Investment in our core competencies is the foundation of our
preparation for future threats. They ensure we have the tools we need
to maintain strategic deterrence as well as a sustained advantage over
our potential adversaries. Ultimately, they ensure we can deliver the
dominant warfighting capability our nation needs.
Potential adversaries, however, continue to pursue capabilities
that threaten the dominance we enjoy today. Double-digit surface-to-air
missile systems (SAMs) are proliferating. China has purchased
significant numbers of these advanced SAMs, and there is a risk of
wider future proliferation to potential threat nations. Fifth-
generation advanced aircraft with capabilities superior to our present
fleet of frontline fighter/attack aircraft are in production. China has
also purchased, and is developing, advanced fighter aircraft that are
broadly comparable to the best of our current frontline fighters.
Advanced cruise missile technology is expanding, and information
technology is spreading. Access to satellite communications, imagery,
and use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) signal for navigation
are now available for anyone willing to purchase the necessary
equipment or services. With this relentless technological progress and
the potential parity of foreign nations, as well as their potential
application in future threats, the mere maintenance of our aging
aircraft and space systems will not suffice. Simply stated, our current
fleet of legacy systems cannot always ensure air and space dominance in
future engagements.
To counter these trends, we are pursuing a range of strategies that
will guide our modernization and recapitalization efforts. We are using
a capabilities-based planning and budgeting process, an integrated and
systematic risk assessment system, a commitment to shorter acquisition
cycle times, and improved program oversight. Our goal is to integrate
our combat, information warfare, and support systems to create a
portfolio of air and space advantages for the joint warfighter and the
nation. Thus, we continue to advocate for program stability in our
modernization and investment accounts.
The principal mechanisms that facilitate this process are our Air
Force Concepts of Operation (CONOPS). Through the CONOPS, we analyze
problems we'll be asked to solve for the JFCs, identify the
capabilities our expeditionary forces need to accomplish their
missions, and define the operational effects we expect to produce.
Through this approach, we can make smarter decisions about future
investment, articulate the link between systems and employment
concepts, and identify our capability gaps and risks.
The priorities that emerge from the CONOPS will guide a reformed
acquisition process that includes more active, continuous, and creative
partnerships among the requirement, development, operational test, and
industry communities who work side-by-side at the program level. In our
science and technology planning, we are also working to demonstrate and
integrate promising technologies quickly by providing an operational
``pull'' that conveys a clear vision of the capabilities we need for
the future.
We are applying this approach to our space systems as well. As the
DOD's Executive Agent for Space, we are producing innovative solutions
for the most challenging national security problems. We have defined a
series of priorities essential to delivering space-based capabilities
to the joint warfighter and the Intelligence Community. Achieving
mission success--in operations and acquisition--is our principal
priority. This requires us to concentrate on designing and building
quality into our systems. To achieve these exacting standards, we will
concentrate on the technical aspects of our space programs early on--
relying on strong systems engineering design, discipline, and robust
test programs. We also have many areas that require a sustained
investment. We need to replace aging satellites, improve outmoded
ground control stations, achieve space control capabilities to ensure
freedom of action, sustain operationally responsive assured access to
space, address bandwidth limitations, and focus space science and
technology investment programs. This effort will require reinvigorating
the space industrial base and funding smaller technology incubators to
generate creative ``over the horizon'' ideas.
As we address the problem of aging systems through renewed
investment, we will continue to find innovative means to keep current
systems operationally effective. In OIF, the spirit of innovation
flourished. We achieved a number of air and space power firsts:
employment of the B-1 bomber's synthetic aperture radar and ground
moving target indicator for ISR; incorporation of the Litening II
targeting pod on the F-15, F-16, A-10, and the B-52; and use of a
Global Hawk for strike coordination and reconnaissance while flown as a
remotely piloted aircraft. With these integrated air and space
capabilities, we were able to precisely find, fix, track, target, and
rapidly engage our adversaries. These examples illustrate how we are
approaching adaptation in the U.S. Air Force.
Ultimately, the success of our Air Force in accomplishing our
mission and adapting to the exigencies of combat stems from the more
than 700,000 active, guard, reserve, and civilian professionals who
proudly call themselves ``airmen.'' In the past five years, they have
displayed their competence and bravery in three major conflicts: the
Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. They are a formidable warfighting
force, imbued with an expeditionary culture, and ready for the
challenges of a dangerous world.
Poised to defend America's interests, we continue to satisfy an
unprecedented demand for air and space warfighting capabilities--
projecting American power globally while providing effective homeland
defense. This is the U.S. Air Force in 2004--we foster ingenuity in the
world's most professional airmen, thrive on transitioning new
technologies into joint warfighting systems, and drive relentlessly
toward integration to realize the potential of our air and space
capabilities. We are America's Airmen--confident in our capability to
provide our nation with dominance in air and space.
AIR AND SPACE DOMINANCE IN A NEW ENVIRONMENT
The U.S. Air Force ensures a flexible, responsive, and dominant
force by providing a spectrum of operational capabilities that
integrate with joint and coalition forces. To sustain and improve upon
the dominance we enjoy today, the Air Force will remain engaged with
the other services, our coalition partners, interagency teams, and the
aerospace industry. As we do, we will incorporate the lessons learned
from rigorous evaluation of past operations, detailed analyses of
ongoing combat operations, and thoughtful prediction of the
capabilities required of a future force.
The pace of operations over the past year enabled us to validate
the function and structure of our Air and Space Expeditionary Forces
(AEFs). Operations in 2003 demanded more capability from our AEFs than
at any time since their inception in 1998. However, for the first time
we relied exclusively on our AEFs to present the full range of our
capabilities to the Combatant Commanders. Through our 10 AEFs, our AEF
prime capabilities (space, national ISR, long range strike, nuclear,
and other assets), and our AEF mobility assets, we demonstrated our
ability to package forces, selecting the most appropriate combat ready
forces from our Total Force, built and presented expeditionary units,
and flowed them to the theaters of operation in a timely and logical
sequence. We rapidly delivered them to the warfighters, while
preserving a highly capable residual force to satisfy our global
commitments.
More than three-fourths of our 359,300 active duty airmen are
eligible to deploy and are assigned to an AEF. Through much of the past
year, Total Force capabilities from 8 of the 10 AEFs were engaged
simultaneously in worldwide operations. The remaining elements were
returning from operations, training, or preparing to relieve those
currently engaged. By the end of 2003, more than 26,000 airmen were
deployed, supporting operations around the world.
In 2004, we will continue to use the AEFs to meet our global
requirements while concurrently reconstituting the force. Our number
one reconstitution priority is returning our forces to a sustainable
AEF battle rhythm while conducting combat operations. Attaining this
goal is about revitalizing capabilities. For most airmen, that will
include a renewed emphasis on joint composite force training and
preparation for rotations in the AEF. Through the AEF, the Air Force
presents right-sized, highly trained expeditionary units to JFCs for
employment across the spectrum of conflict.
Global War on Terrorism
The year 2003 marked another historic milestone for the United
States and the Air Force in the Global War on Terrorism. Since
September 11, 2001, air and space power has proven indispensable to
securing American skies, defeating the Taliban, denying sanctuary to al
Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and most recently, removing a
brutal and oppressive dictator in Iraq. This Global War on Terrorism
imposes on airmen a new steady state of accelerated operations and
personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO), as well as a demand for unprecedented
speed, agility, and innovation in defeating unconventional and
unexpected threats, all while bringing stability and freedom to
Afghanistan and Iraq. The Air Force and its airmen will meet these
demands.
Operation NOBLE EAGLE
High above our nation, airmen protect our skies and cities through
air defense operations known as Operation NOBLE EAGLE (ONE). The Total
Force team, comprised of active duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force
Reserve airmen, conducts airborne early warning, air refueling, and
combat air patrol operations in order to protect sensitive sites,
metropolitan areas, and critical infrastructure.
This constant ``top cover'' demands significant Air Force assets,
thus raising the baseline of requirements above the pre-September 11
tempo. Since 2001, this baseline has meant over 34,000 fighter, tanker,
and airborne early warning sorties were added to Air Force
requirements.
This year the Air Force scrambled nearly 1,000 aircraft, responding
to 800 incidents. Eight active duty, eight Air Force Reserve, and 18
Air National Guard units provided 1,300 tanker sorties offloading more
than 32 million pounds of fuel for these missions. Last year, over
2,400 airmen stood vigilant at air defense sector operations centers
and other radar sites. Additionally, in 2003, we continued to
institutionalize changes to our homeland defense mission through joint,
combined, and interagency training and planning. Participating in the
initial validation exercise DETERMINED PROMISE-03, the Air Force
illustrated how its air defense, air mobility, and command and control
capabilities work seamlessly with other agencies supporting NORTHCOM
and Department of Homeland Security objectives. The integration and
readiness that comes from careful planning and rigorous training will
ensure the continued security of America's skies.
Operation ENDURING FREEDOM--Afghanistan
Operation ENDURING FREEDOM--Afghanistan (OEF) is ongoing. Remnants
of Taliban forces continue to attack United States, NATO, coalition
troops, humanitarian aid workers, and others involved in the
reconstruction of Afghanistan. To defeat this threat, aid coalition
stability, and support operations, the Air Force has maintained a
presence of nearly 24,000 airmen in and around the region. Having
already flown more than 90,000 sorties (over 72 percent of all OEF
missions flown), the Air Force team of active, Guard, and Reserve
airmen continue to perform ISR, close air support (CAS), aerial
refueling, and tactical and strategic airlift.
While fully engaged in ONE and OIF, the men and women of the Air
Force provided full spectrum air and space support, orchestrating
assets from every service and ten different nations. Of these, Air
Force strike aircraft flying from nine bases flew more than two-thirds
of the combat missions, dropped more than 66,000 munitions (9,650 tons)
and damaged or destroyed approximately three-quarters of planned
targets. In 2003 alone, Air Force assets provided more than 3,000
sorties of on-call CAS, responding to calls from joint and/or coalition
forces on the ground.
Last year, the Air Force brought personnel and materiel into this
distant, land-locked nation via 7,410 sorties. Over 4,100 passengers
and 487 tons of cargo were moved by airmen operating at various Tanker
Airlift Control Elements in and around Afghanistan. To support these
airlift and combat sorties and the numerous air assets of the coalition
with aerial refueling, the Air Force deployed over 50 tankers. In their
primary role, these late 1950s-era and early 1960s-era KC-135 tankers
flew more than 3,900 refueling missions. In their secondary airlift
role, they delivered 3,620 passengers and 405 tons of cargo. Without
versatile tankers, our armed forces would need greater access to
foreign bases, more aircraft to accomplish the same mission, more
airlift assets, and generate more sorties to maintain the required
duration on-station.
Operations in Afghanistan also highlight U.S. and coalition
reliance on U.S. space capabilities. This spanned accurate global
weather, precise navigation, communications, as well as persistent
worldwide missile warning and surveillance. For example, OEF relied on
precision navigation provided by the Air Force's GPS constellation,
over-the-horizon satellite communications (SATCOM), and timely
observations of weather, geodesy, and enemy activity. To accomplish
this, space professionals performed thousands of precise satellite
contacts and hundreds of station keeping adjustments to provide
transparent space capability to the warfighter. These vital space
capabilities and joint enablers directly leveraged our ability to
pursue U.S. objectives in OEF.
Operations NORTHERN WATCH and SOUTHERN WATCH
During the past 12 years, the Air Force flew over 391,000 sorties
enforcing the northern and southern no-fly zones over Iraq. With the
preponderance of forces, the Air Force, along with the Navy and Marine
Corps, worked alongside the Royal Air Force in Operations NORTHERN
WATCH (ONW) and SOUTHERN WATCH (OSW). Manning radar outposts and
established C\2\ centers, conducting ISR along Iraq's borders,
responding to almost daily acts of Iraqi aggression, and maintaining
the required airlift and air refueling missions taxed Air Force assets
since the end of Operation DESERT STORM. Yet, these successful air
operations had three main effects: they halted air attacks on the
ethnic minority populations under the no-fly zones; they deterred a
repeat of Iraqi aggression against its neighbors; and they leveraged
enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Throughout
this period, our airmen honed their warfighting skills, gained
familiarity with the region, and were able to establish favorable
conditions for OIF. For more than a decade, American airmen rose to one
of our nation's most important challenges, containing Saddam Hussein.
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM
On March 19, 2003, our airmen, alongside fellow soldiers, sailors,
marines and coalition teammates, were called upon to remove the
dangerous and oppressive Iraqi regime--this date marked the end of ONW/
OSW and the beginning of OIF. OIF crystallized the meaning of jointness
and the synergies of combined arms and persistent battlefield
awareness.
In the first minutes of OIF, airmen of our Combat Air Forces (USAF,
USN, USMC, and coalition) were flying over Baghdad. As major land
forces crossed the line of departure, Air Force assets pounded Iraqi
command and control facilities and key leadership targets, decapitating
the decision-makers from their fielded forces. Remaining Iraqi leaders
operated with outdated information about ground forces that had already
moved miles beyond their reach. As the land component raced toward
Baghdad, coalition strike aircraft were simultaneously attacking Iraqi
fielded forces, communications and command and control centers,
surface-to-surface missile launch sites, and were supporting special
operations forces, and ensuring complete air and space dominance in the
skies over Iraq. Due to these actions and those during the previous 12
years, none of the 19 Iraqi missile launches were successful in
disrupting coalition operations, and not a single Iraqi combat sortie
flew during this conflict. Twenty-one days after major combat
operations began, the first U.S. land forces reached Baghdad. Five days
later, the last major city in Iraq capitulated.
The Air Force provided over 7,000 CAS sorties to aid land forces in
the quickest ground force movement in history. Lieutenant General
William S. Wallace, Commander of the U.S. Army V Corps said, ``none of
my commanders complained about the availability, responsiveness, or
effectiveness of CAS--it was unprecedented!'' As Iraqi forces attempted
to stand against the integrated air and ground offensive, they found a
joint and coalition team that was better equipped, better trained, and
better led than ever brought to the field of battle.
Training, leadership, and innovation coupled with the Air Force's
recent investment in air mobility allowed U.S. forces to open a second
major front in the Iraqi campaign. Constrained from access by land, Air
Force C-17s airdropped over 1,000 paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne
Brigade into northern Iraq. This successful mission opened Bashur
airfield and ensured U.S. forces could be resupplied.
Before 2003, the Air Force invested heavily in the lessons learned
from OEF. Shortening the ``kill chain,'' or the time it took to find,
fix, track, target, engage, and assess was one of our top priorities.
This investment was worthwhile, as 156 time-sensitive targets were
engaged within minutes, most with precision weapons. The flexibility of
centralized control and decentralized execution of air and space power
enabled direct support to JFC objectives throughout Iraq. Coalition and
joint airpower shaped the battlefield ahead of ground forces, provided
intelligence and security to the flanks and rear of the rapidly
advancing coalition, and served as a force multiplier for Special
Operations forces. This synergy between Special Operations and the Air
Force allowed small specialized teams to have a major effect throughout
the northern and western portions of Iraq by magnifying their inherent
lethality, guaranteeing rapid tactical mobility, reducing their
footprint through aerial resupply, and providing them the advantage of
``knowing what was over the next hill'' through air and space-borne
ISR.
The Air Force's C\2\ISR assets enabled the joint force in
Afghanistan as well. This invaluable fleet includes the RC-135 Rivet
Joint, E-8 JSTARS, and the E-3 AWACS. This ``Iron Triad'' of
intelligence sensors and C\2\ capabilities illustrates the Air Force
vision of horizontal integration in terms of persistent battlefield
awareness. Combined with the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle and
Predator remotely piloted aircraft, spaced-based systems, U-2, and
Compass Call, these invaluable system provided all-weather, multi-
source intelligence to commanders from all services throughout the area
of responsibility.
OIF was the Predator's first ``networked'' operation. Four
simultaneous Predator orbits were flown over Iraq and an additional
orbit operated over Afghanistan, with three of those orbits controlled
via remote operations in the United States. This combined reachback
enabled dynamic support to numerous OIF missions. Predator also
contributed to our operational flexibility, accomplishing hunter-killer
missions, tactical ballistic missile search, force protection, focused
intelligence collection, air strike control, and special operations
support. A Hellfire equipped Predator also conducted numerous precision
strikes against Iraqi targets, and flew armed escort missions with U.S.
Army helicopters.
Space power provided precise, all-weather navigation, global
communications, missile warning, and surveillance. The ability to adapt
to adverse weather conditions, including sandstorms, allowed air, land,
and maritime forces to confound the Iraqi military and denied safe
haven anywhere in their own country. As the Iraqis attempted to use
ground-based GPS jammers, Air Force strike assets destroyed them, in
some cases, using the very munitions the jammers attempted to defeat.
As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld noted, this new era was
illustrated by the coalition's ``unprecedented combination of power,
precision, speed, and flexibility.''
During the height of OIF, the Air Force deployed 54,955 airmen.
Ambassador Paul Bremer, Chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority,
pronounced, ``In roughly three weeks [we] liberated a country larger
than Germany and Italy combined, and [we] did so with forces smaller
than the Army of the Potomac.'' Led by the finest officers and non-
commissioned officers, our airmen flew more than 79,000 sorties since
March of 2003. Ten thousand strike sorties dropped 37,065 munitions.
The coalition flew over 55,000 airlift sorties moved 469,093 passengers
and more than 165,060 tons of cargo. In addition, over 10,000 aerial
refueling missions supported aircraft from all services, and 1,600 ISR
missions provided battlespace awareness regardless of uniform, service,
or coalition nationality. This was a blistering campaign that demanded
a joint and combined effort to maximize effects in the battlespace.
Today, Air Force airmen continue to contribute to the joint and
coalition team engaged in Iraq. At the end of the year, 6,723 airmen
from the active duty, Reserve, and Air National Guard conducted a wide
range of missions from locations overseas, flying approximately 150
sorties per day including CAS for ground forces tracking down regime
loyalists, foreign fighters, and terrorists. On a daily basis, U-2 and
RC-135 aircraft flew ISR sorties monitoring the porous borders of Iraq
and providing situational awareness and route planning for Army patrols
in stability and support operations. Providing everything from base
security for 27 new bases opened by the coalition to the lifeline of
supplies that air mobility and air refueling assets bring to all joint
forces, Air Force airmen are committed to the successful accomplishment
of the U.S. mission in Iraq.
Other Contingency Operations
In 2003, the Air Force remained engaged in America's war on drugs
and provided support to NATO ground forces in the Balkans. Since
December 1989, Air Force airmen have been an irreplaceable part of the
interagency fight against illegal drug and narcotics trafficking.
Deployed along the southern United States, in the Caribbean, and
Central and South America, airmen perform this round-the-clock mission,
manning nine ground-based radar sites, operating ten aerostats, and
flying counter drug surveillance missions. The Air Force detected,
monitored, and provided intercepts on over 275 targets attempting to
infiltrate our airspace without clearance. Along with our interagency
partners, these operations resulted in 221 arrests and stopped hundreds
of tons of contraband from being smuggled into our country.
In the Balkans, airmen are fully committed to completing the
mission that they started in the 1990s. Today, Air Force airmen have
flown over 26,000 sorties supporting Operations JOINT GUARDIAN and
JOINT FORGE. These NATO-led operations combine joint and allied forces
to implement the Dayton Peace Accords in Bosnia-Herzegovina and enforce
the Military Technical Agreement in Kosovo. At the end of 2003,
approximately 800 airmen were supporting NATO's goal of achieving a
secure environment and promoting stability in the region.
Additionally, the Air Force engaged in deterrence and humanitarian
relief in other regions. While the world's attention was focused on the
Middle East in the spring of 2003, our nation remained vigilant against
potential adversaries in Asia. The Air Force deployed a bomber wing--24
B-52s and B-1s--to the American territory of Guam to deter North Korea.
At the height of OIF, our Air Force demonstrated our country's resolve
and ability to defend the Republic of Korea and Japan by surging bomber
operations to over 100 sorties in less than three days. This deterrent
operation complemented our permanent engagement in Northeast Asia. The
8,300 airmen who are stationed alongside the soldiers, sailors,
Marines, and our Korean allies maintained the United Nations armistice,
marking 50 years of peace on the peninsula.
Our strength in deterring aggression was matched by our strength in
humanitarian action. In response to President Bush's directive to help
stop the worsening crisis in Liberia, we deployed a non-combat medical
and logistics force to create a lifeline to the American Embassy and
provide hope to the Liberian people. An Expeditionary Group of airmen
provided airlift support, aeromedical evacuation, force protection, and
theater of communications support. Flying more than 200 sorties, we
transported and evacuated civilians and members of the Joint Task Force
(JTF) from bases in Sierra Leone and Senegal. The 300 airmen deployed
in support of JTF-Liberia reopened the main airport in Monrovia, and
ensured the security for U.S. military and civilian aircraft providing
relief aid.
Strategic Deterrence
The ability of U.S. conventional forces to operate and project
decisive force is built on the foundation of our strategic deterrent
force; one that consists of our nuclear-capable aircraft and
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile forces, working with the U.S. Navy's
Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines. In 2003, these forces as well as,
persistent overhead missile warning sensors and supporting ground-based
radars, provided uninterrupted global vigilance deterring a nuclear
missile strike against the United States or our allies. The dedicated
airmen who operate these systems provide the force capability that
yields our deterrent umbrella. Should that deterrence fail, they stand
ready to provide a prompt, scalable response.
Exercises
The Air Force's success can be attributed to the training,
education, and equipment of our airmen. Future readiness of our
operations, maintenance, mission support, and medical units will depend
on rigorous and innovative joint and coalition training and exercising.
This year we are planning 140 exercises with other services and
agencies and we anticipate being involved with 103 allied nations. We
will conduct these exercises in as many as 45 foreign countries.
Participation ranges from the Joint/Combined command post exercise
ULCHI FOCUS LENS with our South Korean partners to the tailored
international participation in our FLAG exercises and Mission
Employment Phases of USAF Weapons School. From joint search-and-rescue
forces in ARCTIC SAREX to Partnership for Peace initiatives, our airmen
must continue to take advantage of all opportunities that help us train
the way we intend to fight.
In addition to previously designed exercises, recent operations
highlighted the need for combat support training. During OEF and OIF,
the Air Force opened or improved 38 bases used by joint or coalition
forces during combat. Our Expeditionary Combat Support teams
established secure, operable airfields in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan,
Pakistan, and in Iraq. They also built housing, established
communications, and erected dining facilities that are still used by
other services and follow-on forces today. To prepare our airmen for
these missions, we have created EAGLE FLAG, an Expeditionary Combat
Support Field Training Exercise. During this exercise, combat support
personnel apply the integrated skills needed to organize and create an
operating location ready to receive fully mission capable forces within
72 hours. From security forces and civil engineers to air traffic
controllers and logisticians, each airman required to open a new base
or improve an austere location will eventually participate in this
valuable exercise.
Our ranges and air space are critical joint enablers and vital
national assets that allow the Air Force to develop and test new
weapons, train forces, and conduct joint exercises. The ability of the
Air Force to effectively operate requires a finite set of natural and
fabricated resources. Encroachment of surrounding communities onto Air
Force resources results in our limited or denied access to, or use of,
these resources. We have made it a priority to define and quantify the
resources needed to support mission requirements, and to measure and
communicate the effects of encroachment on our installations, radio
frequency spectrum, ranges, and air space. We will continue to work
with outside agencies and the public to address these issues. The Air
Force strongly endorses the Readiness Range and Preservation
Initiative. It would make focused legislative changes, protecting the
Air Force's operational resources while continuing to preserve our
nation's environment.
Lessons for the Future
As we continue combat operations and prepare for an uncertain
future, we are examining lessons from our recent experiences. Although
we are currently engaged with each of the other services to refine the
lessons from OIF, many of the priorities listed in the fiscal year 2005
Presidential Budget submission reflect our preliminary conclusions. The
Air Force has established a team committed to turning validated lessons
into new equipment, new operating concepts, and possibly new
organizational structures. Working closely with our joint and coalition
partners, we intend to continue our momentum toward an even more
effective fighting force.
One of the most important lessons we can draw was envisioned by the
authors of the Goldwater-Nichols Act. ONE, OEF, and OIF all validated
jointness as the only acceptable method of fighting and winning this
nation's wars. In OIF, the mature relationship between the Combined
Forces Land Component Commander (CFLCC) and the Combined Forces Air
Component Commander (CFACC) led to unprecedented synergies. The CFACC
capitalized on these opportunities by establishing coordination
entities led by an Air Force general officer in the supported land
component headquarters and by maintaining internal Army, Navy, Marine
Corps, and coalition officers in his own headquarters. Both of these
organizational innovations enabled commanders to maximize the
advantages of mass, lethality, and flexibility of airpower in the area
of responsibility.
Another lesson is the Air Force's dependence on the Total Force
concept. As stated above, September 11 brought with it a new tempo of
operations, one that required both the active duty and Air Reserve
Component (ARC) to work in concert to achieve our national security
objectives. The synergy of our fully integrated active duty, Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve team provides warfighters with
capabilities that these components could not provide alone.
Our reserve component accounts for over one-third of our strike
fighters, more than 72 percent of our tactical airlift, 42 percent of
our strategic airlift, and 52 percent of our air refueling capability.
The ARC also makes significant contributions to our rescue and support
missions, and has an increasing presence in space, intelligence, and
information operations. In all, the ARC provides a ready force
requiring minimum preparation for mobilization. Whether that
mobilization is supporting flight or alert missions for ONE, commanding
expeditionary wings in combat, or orchestrating the Air Force Special
Operations roles in the western Iraqi desert, the ARC will remain
critical to achieving the full potential of our air and space power.
A third lesson was validation of the need for air and space
superiority. Through recent combat operations, the Air Force maintained
its almost 50 year-old record of ``no U.S. ground troops killed by
enemy air attack.'' Without having to defend against Iraqi airpower,
coalition commanders could focus their combat power more effectively.
In addition, air and space superiority allowed airmen to dedicate more
sorties in support of the ground scheme of maneuver, substantially
reducing enemy capability in advance of the land component.
We also need to continue to advance integration and planning--
integration of service capabilities to achieve JFC objectives,
interagency integration to fight the war on terrorism, and information
integration. Integration of manned, unmanned and space sensors,
advanced command and control, and the ability to disseminate and act on
this information in near-real time will drive our combat effectiveness
in the future. Shared through interoperable machine-to-machine
interfaces, this data can paint a picture of the battlespace where the
sum of the wisdom of all sensors will end up with a cursor over the
target for the operator who can save the target, study the target, or
destroy the target.
Finally, there are three general areas for improvement we consider
imperative: battle damage assessment, fratricide prevention/combat
identification, and equipping our battlefield airmen. First, battle
damage assessment shapes the commander's ability for efficient
employment of military power. Restriking targets that have already been
destroyed, damaged, or made irrelevant by rapid ground force advances
wastes sorties that could be devoted to other coalition and joint force
objectives. Advances in delivery capabilities of our modern fighter/
attack aircraft and bombers mean that ISR assets must assess more
targets per strike than ever before. Precision engagement requires
precision location, identification, and precision assessment. Although
assets like the Global Hawk, Predator, U-2, Senior Scout, and Rivet
Joint are equipped with the latest collection technology, the Air
Force, joint team, and Intelligence Community must work to ensure that
combat assessments produce timely, accurate, and relevant products for
the warfighters.
We are also improving operational procedures and technology to
minimize incidents of fratricide or ``friendly fire.'' In OIF, major
steps toward this goal resulted from technological solutions. Blue
Force Tracker and other combat identification systems on many ground
force vehicles allowed commanders situational awareness of their forces
and enemy forces via a common operational picture. Still, not all joint
or coalition forces are equipped with these technological advances. We
are pursuing Fire Support Coordination Measures that capitalize on the
speed and situational awareness digital communications offer rather
than analog voice communications and grease pencils.
A third area we are actively improving is the effectiveness of the
airmen who are embedded with conventional land or Special Forces. With
assured access to Air Force datalinks and satellites, these
``Battlefield Airmen'' can put data directly into air-land-sea weapon
systems and enable joint force command and control. We have made great
progress in producing a Battlefield Air Operations Kit that is 70
percent lighter, with leading-edge power sources; one that will
increase the combat capability of our controllers. This battle
management system will reduce engagement times, increase lethality and
accuracy, and reduce the risk of fratricide. This capability is based
upon the good ideas of our airmen who have been in combat and
understand how much a single individual on the battlefield can
contribute with the right kit.
Summary
The airmen of America's Air Force have demonstrated their expertise
and the value of their contributions to the joint and coalition fight.
These combat operations are made possible by Air Force investments in
realistic training and education, superior organization, advanced
technology, and innovative tactics, techniques, and procedures. In the
future, our professional airmen will continue to focus advances in
these and other areas guided by the Air Force CONOPS. Their charter is
to determine the appropriate capabilities required for joint
warfighting and to provide maximum effects from, through, and in air
and space. This structure and associated capabilities-based planning
will help airmen on their transformational journey, ensuring continued
operational successes such as those demonstrated in 2003.
ENSURING AMERICA'S FUTURE AIR AND SPACE DOMINANCE
Air Force lethality, mobility, speed, precision, and the ability to
project U.S. military power around the globe provide Combatant
Commanders the capabilities required to meet the nation's military
requirements and dominate our enemies. Consistent with the DOD's focus
on Joint Operating Concepts, we will continue to transform our force--
meeting the challenges of this era, adapting our forces and people to
them, and operating our service efficiently. We will adopt service
concepts and capabilities that support the joint construct and
capitalize on our core competencies. To sustain our dominance, we
develop professional airmen, invest in warfighting technology, and
integrate our people and systems together to produce decisive joint
warfighting capabilities.
DEVELOPING AIRMEN--RIGHT PEOPLE, RIGHT PLACE, RIGHT TIME
At the heart of our combat capability are the professional airmen
who voluntarily serve the Air Force and our nation. Our airmen turn
ideas, tools, tactics, techniques, and procedures into global mobility,
power projection, and battlespace effects. Our focus for the ongoing
management and development of Air Force personnel will be to: define,
renew, develop, and sustain the force.
Defining our Requirements
To meet current and future requirements, we need the right people
in the right specialties. The post-September 11 environment has taxed
our equipment and our people, particularly those associated with force
protection, ISR, and the buildup and sustainment of expeditionary
operations. Our analysis shows that we need to shift manpower to
stressed career fields to meet the demands of this new steady state,
and we are in the process of doing this. We have realigned personnel
into our most stressed specialties and hired additional civilians and
contractors to free military members to focus on military specific
duties. We have also made multi-million dollar investments in
technology to reduce certain manpower requirements. We have redirected
our training and accession systems and have cross-trained personnel
from specialties where we are over strength to alleviate stressed
career fields, supporting the Secretary of Defense's vision of moving
forces ``from the bureaucracy to the battlefield.''
Since 2001, we've exceeded our congressionally mandated end
strength by more than 16,000 personnel. In light of the global war on
terrorism and OIF, DOD allowed this overage, but now we need to get
back to our mandated end strength. We are addressing this issue in two
ways: first, by reducing personnel overages in most skills; and second,
by shaping the remaining force to meet mission requirements. To reduce
personnel, we will employ a number of voluntary tools to restructure
manning levels in Air Force specialties, while adjusting our active
force size to the end strength requirement. As we progress, we will
evaluate the need to implement additional force shaping steps.
We are also reviewing our ARC manpower to minimize involuntary
mobilization of ARC forces for day-to-day, steady state operations
while ensuring they are prepared to respond in times of crisis. Since
September 11, 2001, we've mobilized more than 62,000 people in over 100
units, and many more individual mobilization augmentees. Today, 20
percent of our AEF packages are comprised of citizen airmen, and
members of the Guard or Reserve conduct 89 percent of ONE missions. We
recognize this is a challenge and are taking steps to relieve the
pressure on the Guard and Reserve.
In fiscal year 2005, we plan to redistribute forces in a number of
mission areas among the Reserve and Active components to balance the
burden on the Reserves. These missions include our Air and Space
Operations Centers, remotely piloted aircraft systems, Combat Search
and Rescue, Security Forces, and a number of high demand global
mobility systems. We are working to increase ARC volunteerism by
addressing equity of benefits and tour-length flexibility, while
addressing civilian employer issues. We are also looking at creating
more full-time positions to reduce our dependency on involuntary
mobilization.
We are entering the second year of our agreement to employ Army
National Guard soldiers for Force Protection at Air Force
installations, temporarily mitigating our 8,000 personnel shortfall in
Security Forces. As we do this, we are executing an aggressive plan to
rapidly burn down the need for Army augmentation and working to
redesign manpower requirements. Our reduction plan maximizes the use of
Army volunteers in the second year, and allows for demobilization of
about one-third of the soldiers employed in the first year.
Future Total Force
Just as in combat overseas, we are continuing to pursue seamless
ARC and active duty integration at home, leveraging the capabilities
and characteristics of each component, while allowing each to retain
their cultural identity. We continue to explore a variety of
organizational initiatives to integrate our active, Guard, and Reserve
forces. These efforts are intended to expand mission flexibility,
create efficiencies in our Total Force, and prepare for the future.
Today's Future Total Force team includes a number of blended or
associate units that are programmed or are in use. The creation of the
``blended'' unit, the 116th Air Control Wing at Robins Air Force Base,
Georgia, elevated integration to the next level. With an initial
deployment of over 730 personnel, and significant operational
achievements in OIF, we are now examining opportunities to integrate
active, Guard, and Reserve units elsewhere in order to produce even
more measurable benefits, savings, and efficiencies.
The reasons for this type of integration are compelling. We can
maximize our warfighting capabilities by integrating active, Guard, and
Reserve forces to optimize the contributions of each component.
Reservists and Guardsmen bring with them capabilities they have
acquired in civilian jobs, leveraging the experience of ARC personnel.
Integration relieves PERSTEMPO on the active duty force. Because ARC
members do not move as often, they provide corporate knowledge,
stability, and continuity. Finally, integration enhances the retention
of airmen who decide to leave active service. Because the Guard and
Reserve are involved in many Air Force missions, we recapture the
investment we've made by retaining separating active duty members as
members of the ARC.
Renewing the Force
To renew our force, we target our recruitment to ensure a diverse
force with the talent and drive to be the best airmen in the world's
greatest Air Force. We will recruit those with the skills most critical
for our continued success. In fiscal year 2003, our goal was 5,226
officers and 37,000 enlisted; we exceeded our goal in both categories,
accessing 5,419 officers and 37,144 enlisted. For fiscal year 2004, we
plan to access 5,795 officers and 37,000 enlisted.
In the Air Force, the capabilities we derive from diversity are
vital to mission excellence and at the core of our strategy to maximize
our combat capabilities. In this new era, successful military
operations demand much greater agility, adaptability, and versatility
to achieve and sustain success. This requires a force comprised of the
best our nation has to offer, from every segment of society, trained
and ready to go. Our focus is building a force that consists of men and
women who possess keener international insight, foreign language
proficiency, and wide-ranging cultural acumen. Diversity of life
experiences, education, culture, and background are essential to help
us achieve the asymmetric advantage we need to defend America's
interests wherever threatened. Our strength comes from the collective
application of our diverse talents, and is a critical component of the
air and space dominance we enjoy today. We must enthusiastically reach
out to all segments of society to ensure the Air Force offers a
welcoming career to the best and brightest of American society,
regardless of their background. By doing so, we attract people from all
segments of society and tap into the limitless talents resident in our
diverse population.
In addition to a diverse force, we also need the correct talent
mix. We remain concerned about recruiting health care professionals and
individuals with technical degrees. To meet our needs, we continue to
focus our efforts to ensure we attract and retain the right people. We
will also closely monitor ARC recruitment. Historically, the Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command access close to 25 percent
of eligible, separating active duty Air Force members with no break in
service between their active duty and ARC service.
Developing the Force
Over the past year, we implemented a new force development
construct in order to get the right people in the right job at the
right time with the right skills, knowledge, and experience. Force
development combines focused assignments and education and training
opportunities to prepare our people to meet the mission needs of our
Air Force. Rather than allowing chance and happenstance to guide an
airman's experience, we will take a deliberate approach to develop
officers, enlisted, and civilians throughout our Total Force. Through
targeted education, training, and mission-related experience, we will
develop professional airmen into joint force warriors with the skills
needed across the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of
conflict. Their mission will be to accomplish the joint mission,
motivate teams, mentor subordinates, and train their successors.
A segment of warriors requiring special attention is our cadre of
space professionals, those that design, build, and operate our space
systems. As military dependence on space grows, the Air Force continues
to develop this cadre to meet our nation's needs. Our Space
Professional Strategy is the roadmap for developing that cadre. Air
Force space professionals will develop more in-depth expertise in
operational and technical space specialties through tailored
assignments, education, and training. This roadmap will result in a
team of scientists, engineers, program managers, and operators skilled
and knowledgeable in developing, acquiring, applying, sustaining, and
integrating space capabilities.
Sustaining the Force
The Air Force is a retention-based force. Because the skill sets of
our airmen are not easily replaced, we expend considerable effort to
retain our people, especially those in high-technology fields and those
in whom we have invested significant education and training. In 2003,
we reaped the benefits of an aggressive retention program, aided by a
renewed focus and investment on education and individual development,
enlistment and retention bonuses, targeted military pay raises, and
quality of life improvements. Our fiscal year 2003 enlisted retention
statistics tell the story. Retention for first term airmen stood at 61
percent, exceeding our goal by 6 percent. Retention for our second term
and career airmen was also impressive, achieving 73 percent and 95
percent respectively. Continued investment in people rewards their
service, provides a suitable standard of living, and enables us to
attract and retain the professionals we need.
One of the highlights of our quality of life focus is housing
investment. Through military construction and housing privatization, we
are providing quality homes faster than ever before. Over the next
three years, the Air Force will renovate or replace more than 40,000
homes through privatization. At the same time, we will renovate or
replace an additional 20,000 homes through military construction. With
the elimination of out-of-pocket housing expenses, our Air Force
members and their families now have three great options--local
community housing, traditional military family housing, and privatized
housing.
Focus On Fitness
We recognize that without motivated and combat-ready expeditionary
airmen throughout our Total Force, our strategies, advanced
technologies, and integrated capabilities would be much less effective.
That is why we have renewed our focus on fitness and first-class
fitness centers. We must be fit to fight. And that demands that we
reorient our culture to make physical and mental fitness part of our
daily life as airmen. In January 2004, our new fitness program returned
to the basics of running, sit-ups, and pushups. The program combines
our fitness guidelines and weight/body fat standards into one program
that encompasses the total health of an airman.
TECHNOLOGY TO WARFIGHTING
The Air Force has established a capabilities-based approach to war
planning, allowing us to focus investments on those capabilities we
need to support the joint warfighter. This type of planning focuses on
capabilities required to accomplish a variety of missions and to
achieve desired effects against any potential threats. Our
capabilities-based approach requires us to think in new ways and
consider combinations of systems that create distinctive capabilities.
Effects Focus: Capabilities-Based CONOPS
The Air Force has written six CONOPS that support capabilities-
based planning and the joint vision of combat operations. The CONOPS
help analyze the span of joint tasks we may be asked to perform and
define the effects we can produce. Most important, they help us
identify the capabilities an expeditionary force will need to
accomplish its mission, creating a framework that enables us to shape
our portfolio.
--Homeland Security CONOPS leverages Air Force capabilities with
joint and interagency efforts to prevent, protect, and respond
to threats against our homeland--within or beyond U.S.
territories.
--Space and Command, Control, Communications, Computers,
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance CONOPS (Space
and C\4\ISR) harnesses the integration of manned, unmanned, and
space systems to provide persistent situation awareness and
executable decision-quality information to the JFC.
--Global Mobility CONOPS provides Combatant Commanders with the
planning, command and control, and operations capabilities to
enable timely and effective projection, employment, and
sustainment of U.S. power in support of U.S. global interests--
precision delivery for operational effect.
--Global Strike CONOPS employs joint power-projection capabilities to
engage anti-access and high-value targets, gain access to
denied battlespace, and maintain battlespace access for
required joint/coalition follow-on operations.
--Global Persistent Attack CONOPS provides a spectrum of capabilities
from major combat to peacekeeping and sustainment operations.
Global Persistent Attack assumes that once access conditions
are established (i.e. through Global Strike), there will be a
need for persistent and sustained operations to maintain air,
space, and information dominance.
--Nuclear Response CONOPS provides the deterrent ``umbrella'' under
which conventional forces operate, and, if deterrence fails,
avails a scalable response.
This CONOPS approach has resulted in numerous benefits, providing:
--Articulation of operational capabilities that will prevail in
conflicts and avert technological surprises;
--An operational risk and capabilities-based programmatic decision-
making focus;
--Budgeting guidance to the Air Force Major Commands for fulfilling
capabilities-based solutions to satisfy warfighter
requirements;
--Warfighter risk management insights for long-range planning.
Modernization and Recapitalization
Through capabilities-based planning, the Air Force will continue to
invest in our core competency of bringing technology to the warfighter
that will maintain our technical advantage and update our air and space
capabilities. The Capabilities Review and Risk Assessment (CRRA)
process guides these efforts. Replacing an outdated threat-based review
process that focused on platforms versus current and future warfighting
effects and capabilities, our extensive two-year assessment identified
and prioritized critical operational shortfalls we will use to guide
our investment strategy. These priorities present the most significant
and immediate Air Force-wide capability objectives.
We need to field capabilities that allow us to reduce the time
required to find, fix, track and target fleeting and mobile targets and
other hostile forces. One system that addresses this operational
shortfall is the F/A-22 Raptor. In addition to its contributions to
obtaining and sustaining air dominance, the F/A-22 will allow all
weather, stealthy, precision strike 24 hours a day, and will counter
existing and emerging threats, such as advanced surface-to-air
missiles, cruise missiles, and time sensitive and emerging targets,
including mobile targets, that our legacy systems cannot. The F/A-22 is
in low rate initial production and has begun Phase I of its operational
testing. It is on track for initial operational capability in 2005. A
complementary capability is provided by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,
providing sustainable, focused CAS and interservice and coalition
commonality.
We also recognize that operational shortfalls exist early in the
kill chain and are applying technologies to fill those gaps. A robust
command, control, and sensor portfolio combining both space and
airborne systems, along with seamless real-time communications, will
provide additional critical capabilities that address this shortfall
while supporting the Joint Operational Concept of full spectrum
dominance. Program definition and risk reduction efforts are moving us
towards C\4\ISR and Battle Management capabilities with shorter cycle
times. The JFC will be able to respond to fleeting opportunities with
near-real time information and will be able to bring to bear kill-chain
assets against the enemy. Additionally, in this world of proliferating
cruise missile technology, our work on improving our C\4\ISR
capabilities--including airborne Active Electronically Scanned Array or
AESA radar technology--could pay large dividends, playing a significant
role in America's defense against these and other threats. To create
this robust command and control network, we will need a flexible and
digital multi-service communications capability. We are well on our way
in defining the architecture to make it a reality. The capabilities we
are pursuing directly support the Department's transformational system
of interoperable joint C\4\ISR.
There is a need for a globally interconnected capability that
collects, processes, stores, disseminates, and manages information on
demand to warfighters, policy makers, and support people. The C\2\
Constellation, our capstone concept for achieving the integration of
air and space operations, includes these concepts and the future
capabilities of the Global Information Grid, Net Centric Enterprise
Services, Transformational Communications, the Joint Tactical Radio
System, and airborne Command, Control, and Communication assets, among
others.
One of the elements of a sensible strategy to maintain U.S. power
projection capabilities derives from a global aerial refueling fleet
that serves Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and coalition aircraft. Our
current fleet of aging tankers met the challenges of OEF and OIF but is
increasingly expensive to maintain. The fleet averages more then 40
years of age, and the oldest model, the KC-135E, goes back to the
Eisenhower Administration. Recapitalization for this fleet of over 540
aerial refueling aircraft will clearly take decades to complete and is
vital to the foundation and global reach of our Air Force, sister
services, and coalition partners. The Air Force is committed to an
acquisition approach for this program that will recapitalize the fleet
in the most affordable manner possible.
Capabilities-driven modernization and recapitalization efforts are
also taking place on our space systems, as we replace constellations of
satellites and ground systems with next generation capabilities. The
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle has completed six successful
launches. Using two launch designs, we will continue to seek
responsive, assured access to space for government systems. Space-Based
Radar will provide a complementary capability to our portfolio of radar
and remote sensing systems. We will employ internet protocol networks
and high-bandwidth lasers in space to transform communications with the
Transformational Satellite, dramatically increasing connectivity to the
warfighter. Modernization of GPS and development of the next-generation
GPS III will enhance navigation capability and increase our resistance
to jamming. In partnership with NASA and the Department of Commerce, we
are developing the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System, which offers next-generation meteorological
capability. Each of these systems supports critical C\4\ISR
capabilities that give the JFC increased technological and asymmetric
advantages.
Space control efforts, enabled by robust space situation awareness,
will ensure unhampered access to space-based services. Enhanced space
situation awareness assets will provide the information necessary to
execute an effective space control strategy. However, we must be
prepared to deprive an adversary of the benefits of space capabilities
when American interests and lives are at stake.
Additional capability does not stem solely from new weapon system
acquisitions. It results from innovative modernization of our existing
systems. One example is incorporating a Smart Bomb Rack Assembly and
the 500 lb. version of the Joint Direct Attack Munition into the
weapons bay of the B-2. In September of 2003, we demonstrated that the
B-2 bomber is now able to release up to 80 separately targeted, GPS-
guided weapons in a single mission. This kind of innovation reduces the
number of platforms that must penetrate enemy airspace while holding
numerous enemy targets at risk. The second order consequences run the
gamut from maintenance to support aircraft.
We will also address the deficiencies in our infrastructure through
modernization and recapitalization. Improvements to our air and space
systems will be limited without improvements in our foundational
support systems. Deteriorated airfields, hangars, waterlines,
electrical networks, and air traffic control approach and landing
systems are just some of the infrastructure elements needing immediate
attention. Our investment strategy focuses on three simultaneous steps:
disposing of excess facilities; sustaining our facilities and
infrastructure; and establishing a sustainable investment program for
future modernization of our facilities and infrastructure.
Finally, we need to continue to modernize and recapitalize our
information technology infrastructure. To leverage our information
superiority, the Air Force is pursuing a modernization strategy and
information technology investments, which target a common network
infrastructure and employ enterprise services and shared capabilities.
Science and Technology (S&T)
Our investment in science and technology has and continues to
underpin our modernization and recapitalization program. Similar to our
applied-technology acquisition efforts, the Air Force's capability-
based focus produces an S&T vision that supports the warfighter.
The Air Force S&T program fosters development of joint warfighting
capabilities and integrated technologies, consistent with DOD and
national priorities. We will provide a long-term, stable investment in
S&T in areas that will immediately benefit existing systems and in
transformational technologies that will improve tomorrow's Air Force.
Many Air Force S&T programs, such as directed energy, hypersonics,
laser-based communications, and the emerging field of nanotechnology,
show promise for joint warfighting capabilities. Other technology
areas, such as miniaturization of space platforms and space proximity
operations, also show promise in the future. Through developments like
these, the Air Force S&T program will advance joint warfighting
capabilities and the Air Force vision of an integrated air and space
force capable of responsive and decisive global engagement.
Capabilities-Based Acquisition/Transforming Business Practices
To achieve our vision of a flexible, responsive, and capabilities-
based expeditionary force, we are transforming how we conceive, plan,
develop, acquire, and sustain weapons systems. Our Agile Acquisition
initiative emphasizes speed and credibility; we must deliver what we
promise--on time and on budget. Our goal is to deliver affordable,
sustainable capabilities that meet joint warfighters' operational
needs.
We continue to improve our acquisition system--breaking down
organizational barriers, changing work culture through aggressive
training, and reforming processes with policies that encourage
innovation and collaboration.
Already, we are:
--Realigning our Program Executive Officers (PEOs).--By moving our
PEOs out of Washington and making them commanders of our
product centers, we have aligned both acquisition
accountability and resources under our most experienced general
officers and acquisition professionals.
--Creating a culture of innovation.--Because people drive the success
of our Agile Acquisition initiatives, we will focus on enhanced
training. Laying the foundation for change, this past year
16,500 Air Force acquisition professionals, and hundreds of
personnel from other disciplines, attended training sessions
underscoring the need for collaboration, innovation, reasonable
risk management, and a sense of urgency in our approach.
--Reducing Total Ownership Costs.--With strong support from the
Secretary of Defense, we will expand the Reduction in Total
Ownership Cost program with a standard model ensuring that we
have accurate metrics.
--Moving technology from the lab to the warfighter quickly.--
Laboratories must focus on warfighter requirements and
researchers need to ensure technologies are mature, producible,
and supportable. Warfighters will work with scientists,
acquisition experts, and major commands to identify gaps in
capabilities. With help from Congress, we have matured our
combat capability document process to fill those gaps. During
OIF, we approved 37 requests for critically needed systems,
usually in a matter of days.
--Tailoring acquisition methods for space systems.--In October 2003,
we issued a new acquisition policy for space systems that will
improve acquisitions by tailoring acquisition procedures to the
unique demands of space systems.
Transformation of our business processes is not limited to
acquisition activities. Our Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan
calls for financial and infrastructure capitalization to ensure Air
Force hardware is safe and ready to operate across the threat spectrum.
Our increased funding for depot facilities and equipment modernization
in fiscal year 2004-09, along with public-private partnerships, will
result in more responsive support to the JFC. We expect to maximize
production and throughput of weapon systems and commodities that will
improve mission capability.
Our logistics transformation initiative will revolutionize
logistics processes to improve warfighter support and reduce costs. The
goal of the Air Force's logistics transformation program, Expeditionary
Logistics for the 21st Century, is to increase weapon system
availability by 20 percent with zero cost growth. Our current
initiatives--depot maintenance transformation, purchasing and supply
chain management, regionalized intermediate repair, and improved
logistics command and control--will transform the entire logistics
enterprise.
Our depots have put some of these initiatives into place with
exceptional results. In fiscal year 2003, our depot maintenance teams
were more productive than planned, exceeding aircraft, engine, and
commodity production goals and reducing flow days in nearly all areas.
Implementation of ``lean'' production processes, optimized use of the
existing workforce, and appropriate funding, all contributed to this
good news story. In addition, our spares support to the warfighter is
at record high numbers. In 2003, supply rates and cannibalization rates
achieved their best performance since fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year
1995, respectively. Fourteen of twenty aircraft design systems improved
their mission capable rates over the previous year, with Predator
unmanned aerial vehicles improving by 11 percent, and B-1 bombers
achieving the best mission capable and supply rates in its history.
Thanks to proper funding, fleet consolidation, and transformation
initiatives, spare parts shortages were reduced to the lowest levels
recorded across the entire fleet.
Financing the Fight
An operating strategy is only as good as its financing strategy.
And similar to acquisition, logistics, and other support processes, our
finance capabilities are strong. We are taking deliberate and
aggressive steps to upgrade our financial decision support capability
and reduce the cost of delivering financial services. Our focus is on
support to our airmen, strategic resourcing and cost management, and
information reliability and integration. The initiatives that will get
us there include self-service web-based pay and personnel customer
service, seamless e-commerce for our vendor payment environment,
budgets that link planning, programming, and execution to capabilities
and performance, financial statements that produce clean audit opinions
while providing reliable financial and management information, and
innovative financing strategies.
INTEGRATING OPERATIONS
The Air Force excels at providing communications, intelligence, air
mobility, precision strike, and space capabilities that enable joint
operations. Our airmen integrate these and other capabilities into a
cohesive system that creates war-winning effects. Integration takes
place at three levels. At the joint strategic level, integration occurs
between interagencies and the coalition. Integration also takes place
within the Air Force at an organizational level. At its most basic
level, integration takes place at the machine-to-machine level to
achieve universal information sharing which facilitates true
integration at every level.
Integrating Joint, Coalition, and Interagency Operations
The ever-changing dynamics of global events will drive the need to
integrate DOD and interagency capabilities and, in most cases, those of
our coalition partners. Joint solutions are required to produce
warfighting effects with the speed that the Global War on Terrorism
demands. Fully integrated operations employ only the right forces and
capabilities necessary to achieve an objective in the most efficient
manner. We must also integrate space capabilities for national
intelligence and warfighting.
We are pursuing adaptations of our C\2\ organizations and
capabilities to support this vision. While the Air Force's global C\2\
structure has remained relatively constant, throughout our 57-year
history, the demands of a changing geopolitical environment have
stressed current C\2\ elements beyond their design limits.
We have conducted an extensive review of our C\2\ structures to
support the National Security Strategy objectives of assure, dissuade,
deter, and defeat as well as the SECDEF's Unified Command Plan. We will
enhance our support for the JFC and our expeditionary posture through a
new Warfighting Headquarters Construct. This will enable the Numbered
Air Forces to support Unified Combatant Commanders in a habitual
supported-supporting relationship. Working with their strategy and
planning cells on a daily basis will ensure that Air Force capabilities
are available to the JFC's warfighting staff. This new headquarters
will provide the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) with sufficient
staff to focus on planning and employment of air, space, and
information operations throughout the theater.
We are also adapting the capabilities of our CAOCs. The CAOCs of
each headquarters will be interconnected with the theater CAOCs, all
operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They will be operated as a
weapons system, certified and standardized, and have cognizance of the
entire air and space picture. This reorganization will increase our
ability to support our Combatant Commanders, reduce redundancies, and
deliver precise effects to the warfighters. As we near completion of
the concept development, we will work with the Secretary of Defense and
the Congress to implement a more streamlined and responsive C\2\
component for the Combatant Commanders and national leadership.
Integrated operations also depend on integrated training. We
continue to advance joint and combined interoperability training with
our sister services and the nations with which we participate in global
operations. The Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) will improve
our opportunities for joint training. The aim of the JNTC is to improve
each service's ability to work with other services at the tactical
level and to improve joint planning and execution at the operational
and strategic levels. The Air Force has integrated live, virtual, and
constructive training environments into a single training realm using a
distributed mission operations (DMO) capability. JNTC will use this DMO
capability to tie live training events with virtual (man-in-the-loop)
play and constructive simulations. Live training in 2004--on our ranges
during four Service-conducted major training events--will benefit from
improved instrumentation and links to other ranges as well as the
ability to supplement live training with virtual or constructive
options. These types of integrated training operations reduce overall
costs to the services while providing us yet another avenue to train
like we fight.
Integrating Within the Air Force
The Air Force is continuing to strengthen and refine our AEF. The
AEF enables rapid build-up and redeployment of air and space power
without a lapse in the Air Force's ability to support a Combatant
Commander's operations. The Air Force provides forces to Combatant
Commanders according the AEF Presence Policy (AEFPP), the Air Force
portion of DOD's Joint Presence Policy. There are ten AEFs, and each
AEF provides a portfolio of capabilities and force modules. At any
given time, two AEFs are postured to immediately provide these
capabilities. The other eight are in various stages of rest, training,
spin-up, or standby. The AEF is how the Air Force organizes, trains,
equips, and sustains responsive air and space forces to meet defense
strategy requirements outlined in the Strategic Planning Guidance.
Within the AEF, Air Force forces are organized and presented to
Combatant Commanders as Air and Space Expeditionary Task Forces
(AETFs). They are sized to meet the Combatant Commander's requirements
and may be provided in one of three forms: as an Air Expeditionary Wing
(AEW), Group (AEG), and/or Squadron (AES). An AETF may consist of a
single AEW or AEG, or may consist of multiple AEWs or AEGs and/or as a
Numbered Expeditionary Air Force. AETFs provide the functional
capabilities (weapon systems, expeditionary combat support and command
and control) to achieve desired effects in an integrated joint
operational environment.
One of our distinctive Air Force capabilities is Agile Combat
Support (ACS.) To provide this capability, our expeditionary combat
support forces--medics, logisticians, engineers, communicators,
Security Forces, Services, and Contracting, among several others--
provide a base support system that is highly mobile, flexible, and
fully integrated with air and space operations. ACS ensures responsive
expeditionary support to joint operations is achievable within resource
constraints--from creation of operating locations to provision of
right-sized forces. An example of this capability is the 86th
Contingency Response Group (CRG) at Ramstein Air Base, organized,
trained, and equipped to provide an initial ``Open the Base'' force
module to meet Combatant Commander requirements. The CRG provides a
rapid response team to assess operating location suitability and
defines combat support capabilities needed to establish air
expeditionary force operating locations.
Another example of ACS capability is the light and lean
Expeditionary Medical System (EMEDS) that provides the U.S. military's
farthest forward care and surgical capability. Air Force medics jump
into the fight alongside the very first combatants. Whether supporting
the opening of an air base or performing life saving surgeries, these
medics bring an extraordinary capability. They carry backpacks with
reinforced medical equipment, permitting them to perform medical
operations within minutes of their boots hitting the ground.
Complementing this expeditionary medical capability is our air
evacuation system that provides the lifeline for those injured
personnel not able to return to duty. The other services and our allies
benefited greatly from this capability in OEF and OIF. The Army and
Navy are now developing a similar light and lean capability. The
success of EMEDS is also apparent in the reduction of disease and non-
battle injuries--the lowest ever in combat.
Horizontal Machine-to-Machine Integration
We also strive to increasingly integrate operations at the most
basic level--electron to electron. Victory belongs to those who can
collect intelligence, communicate information, and bring capabilities
to bear first. Executing these complex tasks with accuracy, speed, and
power requires assured access and the seamless, horizontal integration
of systems, activities and expertise across all manned, unmanned, and
space capabilities. Such integration will dramatically shorten the kill
chain.
Machine-to-machine integration means giving the warfighter the
right information at the right time. It facilitates the exchange of
large amounts of information, providing every machine the information
it needs about the battlespace and an ability to share that
information. In the future, we will significantly reduce the persistent
challenges of having different perspectives or pictures of the
battlefield. Examples would be to ensure that the A-10 could see the
same target as the Predator or to guarantee that the F-15 has the same
intelligence about enemy radars as the Rivet Joint.
We want a system where information is made available and delivered
without regard to the source of the information, who analyzed the
information, or who disseminated the information. It is the end product
that is important, not the fingers that touch it. The culmination of
the effort is the cursor over the target. It is an effect we seek, and
what we will provide.
The warfighters' future success will depend on Predictive
Battlespace Awareness (PBA). PBA relies on in-depth study of an
adversary before hostilities begin in order to anticipate his actions
to the maximum extent possible. We can then analyze information to
assess current conditions, exploit opportunities, anticipate future
actions, and act with a degree of speed and certainty unmatched by our
adversaries. PBA also relies on the ability of air and space systems to
integrate information at the machine-to-machine level and produce high-
fidelity intelligence that results in a cursor over the target. The
result--integrated operations--is our unique ability to conduct PBA and
impact the target at the time and place of our choosing. This machine-
to-machine integration will include a constellation of sensors that
create a network of information providing joint warfighters the
information and continuity to see first, understand first, and act
first.
The C\2\ Constellation is the Air Force capstone concept for
achieving the integration of air and space operations. Our vision of
the C\2\ Constellation is a robust, protected network infrastructure, a
globally based command and control system to encompass all levels of
the battle and allow machines to do the integration and fusion. It uses
Battle Management Command and Control and Connectivity and consists of
command centers, sensors, and systems like the U-2, Space Based Radar,
the Distributed Common Ground System, and our CAOCs. Given the C\2\
Constellation's complexity, the Air Force recognizes the need for an
architecture to address myriad integration issues--methodically--so all
elements work in concert.
SECURING AMERICA'S NEXT HORIZON
Armed with the heritage of air and space power in combat, the
lessons learned from our most recent conflicts, and the powerful
advances in technology in the 21st century, we stand ready to deliver
decisive air and space power in support of our nation. Whether called
to execute a commanding show of force, to enable the joint fight, to
deliver humanitarian assistance, or to protect our nation from the
scourge of terrorism, we will deliver the effects required. Our ability
to consistently answer the call is our dividend to the nation, a result
of our sustained investment in people, technology, and integration.
Our portfolio of advantages provides dividends on the battlefield.
We bring to bear a diversified collection of capabilities, which answer
the needs of a spectrum of combat and humanitarian operations. As one
would with any investment, we will monitor, maintain, and adjust our
investments as needed to reflect the demands of a dynamic environment.
Transformational initiatives in the way we organize, train, and equip
reflect such adjustments, changes that will result in significant gains
for our force, for the joint team, and for our nation. Yet, we will not
shift our focus from the core competencies that have provided the
foundation for our success and continue to do so. The success of the
Air Force resides in the airmen who employ the technology of
warfighting through integrated operations with our joint and coalition
partners. This is our heritage and our future. This is America's Air
Force.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN P. JUMPER
Senator Stevens. General Jumper.
General Jumper. Well, I would like to make a statement. Mr.
Chairman, Senator Inouye, members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to sit here. It's a pleasure to sit here
with Dr. Roche and to work for a boss who spends so much energy
caring for our people and helping us all make sure that we do
the right thing as an Air Force for our Nation.
I'd also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the committee, who take the time to go out and see our airmen,
soldiers, sailors, and marines personally throughout the world
when they are deployed. It's one thing for me to go out there
and tell them how important they are. It's much more effective
when we have the representatives of the people go out and send
that message. I cannot tell you how important that is, and I
thank you, sir, for your efforts to do that. I've watched you,
Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, for many years, and I know
that wherever there's a crisis, you all show up, and usually
together, and it's a very powerful message that you send.
AEROSPACE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
Sir, the Air Force, over the last 10 years, has recreated
itself from a contingent--from a cold war operation coming out
of the cold war years into a contingency-based operation that
we work with our Aerospace Expeditionary Forces (AEF). We have
10 Aerospace Expeditionary Force packages that we actually used
for the first time in 1999 in the air war over Serbia. But to
prosecute Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom, we had to call 8 of 10 of these packages forward in
order to completely deal with the situation.
We opened 36 bases in the process of this. Sixteen of those
bases continue to be open today. At the height of operations,
we had over 72,000 American troops and Coalition partners
living in Air Force tents throughout the ADR. Today, that
number is about 17,000 at bases where we have support
responsibilities. We continue to engage across the spectrum of
conflict, as you know, from the counter-drug mission to
patrolling the skies over America, to those deployed operations
that I mentioned.
We are now in the process of reconstituting our force. It
will take some time to get us completely reconstituted, but,
just this month, we've started back in a normal rotation cycle
with most of our people, even as we have two-plus AEF packages
still deployed forward, dealing with the Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
Sir, even though you know that our AEF packages are serving
us well, we can't do this, any of it, without a Total Force and
a joint team effort. Secretary Rumsfeld has challenged us to
make sure that everyone we have in uniform is doing the job
that's required of someone in uniform. I can report to you,
sir, that daily, 47 percent of our active-duty force is
committed directly to the mission of the combatant commanders
throughout the world. As you know, we're still flying 150
sorties a day over Iraq, and some 50 sorties a day over
Afghanistan, to include mobility sorties, strike sorties, air-
refueling sorties, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance,
and close air-support missions.
For our mobility forces, the tempo remains about 50 percent
above the pre-9/11 activity. We owe the success of these
mobility missions to the great contribution that we get out of
our Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. They make up more
than 50 percent of this mission-area capability.
In the skies--or in the Aerospace Expeditionary Force
packages that we deploy, each one of those packages consists of
20 to 25 percent of the Air National Guard or the Air Force
Reserve. We put our Total Force to good use, and it works for
us very well. In Operation Noble Eagle, patrolling the skies
over the United States, which we've been doing now for 2\1/2\
years, over 80 percent of that effort is borne by the Air
National Guard or the Air Force Reserves.
GUARD AND RESERVE
Since 9/11, we have mobilized some 36 percent of our total
Guard and Reserve. Today, about 6 percent remain activated,
mobilized, and serving throughout the world. We integrate the
Guard and Reserve with our daily activity, as the boss
mentioned--with blended wings. We have the 116th Air Control
Wing at Robins Air Force Base, which is our JOINTSTARS unit,
that is a combination of Air National Guard and Active Duty Air
Force in the same unit. The command of that unit rotates.
Today, it happens to be commanded by an Air National Guard
officer. This is working very well, although we still have work
to do in trying to get the laws synchronized that will allow us
to have common judicial standards and other standards. We will
continue to work with you to get that achieved.
Again, I want to thank the employers of our Nation who
allow these Guard and Reserve members to come on active duty
and to deploy. They, too, serve, because they give up probably
the most capable part of their work force to come on active
duty, put on the uniform and deploy, and they do a magnificent
job for us. So we are very grateful to the employers in all the
States who allow this to happen.
As we look to the future, I worry about capabilities that
we have to deal with. Secretary Roche spoke of the F/A-22,
which is going to be necessary as we look forward to the threat
of cruise missiles, as we look forward to new generations of
surface-to-air missiles that in some places of the world are
being deployed today, as we look at a new generation of fighter
aircraft, such as the Su-37.
Mr. Chairman, today we brought along three members that
belong to you, sir. These are members of the fighter wing in
Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, and I'll ask them to
stand, Colonel Greg Neubeck, Captain Mark Snowden, and Captain
Pete Fesler. These three gentlemen are F-15 pilots. They have
just returned from an exercise in a country we haven't
exercised with for some years, and they were able to fly their
F-15s against some of these new fighters that we talk about. We
can't discuss it here today, but in closed session I'd enjoy
the opportunity at some point in the future to come and talk to
you about the results of their trip. I think you would find the
information very revealing. The Secretary and I are proud to
bring along these three great young Americans who serve this
country so well. Thanks, guys.
Senator Stevens. Welcome gentlemen, and thank you, General.
They obviously come from the top of the world and have a very
fine home.
General Jumper. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. I'm going to have to ask you, General, if
you can summarize pretty quickly. I've got to tell you that we
have a vote starting at 10:30. We'll stay here until--or
11:30----
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
General Jumper [continuing]. I will do that, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say that as far as our retention and
recruiting, we're meeting all of our goals, not only in the
active, but in the Guard and Reserve, and it's truly a great
Air Force team.
Sir, I appreciate the opportunity to sit before you here
today, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
We do thank you very much. And those are wonderful
statements.
Gentlemen, because of the timeframe--I've discussed this
with Senator Inouye--we'll take 5 minutes each, and then we'll
see what questions we might have in the second round. We'd urge
you to keep your responses as short as possible.
TANKERS
I congratulate you, Secretary Roche, in being willing to
talk about the tankers. We all have, you know, sort of, lash
marks across our back because of the fact we tried to
accelerate the IOC for those tankers. What is the IOC going to
be under the current situation?
Dr. Roche. IOC, I don't have it exact in my head. The first
one will show up--if we do the normal KCX, the first one won't
show up until 2010, so it'll be a few years after that before
we have IOC. Had we been able to effect release in the first
year that it was made available to us by the Congress, we would
have had something like 80 planes available by 2010, and we
would have had IOC.
Senator Stevens. And the average age is somewhere about 43
years today----
Dr. Roche. Forty-three years. And, remember, the Secretary
of Defense has the program in a pause, so it's not that we've
rejected the lease that the Congress agreed to last time; it's
in a pause.
Senator Stevens. Well, the net result is, we delay the IOC,
and we engender the growth of foreign-constructed tankers to
meet our needs. I think that we will have done a disservice to
this country. I hope that--pray to God that we'll solve this
problem soon. It is just a jurisdictional fight between Members
of the Senate, as far as I'm concerned. But I do think that
you've taken too much heat on the subject.
SPACE PROGRAMS
Let me go to the basic problem of this budget, as I see it.
You've got budget requests for three Air Force space programs,
transformational communications, the Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle (EELV) launch--space launch--space-based radar more
than doubles in fiscal year 2005. Those programs alone would
grow about additional 30 percent by 2006, and we plan to go
ahead and move into full-rate production of the F/A-22. Can all
those programs survive under the trend line of the budget
today?
Dr. Roche. We have not been optimistic about the trend line
and it is one of the reasons that I brought down the production
rate from 22 to 32 per year, instead of going up to 56. I did
this in order to smooth things out so we could address other
subjects.
The space programs of the United States are old, sir. They,
too, need to be recapitalized. We don't talk about them as
often as we probably should. A number of those systems have
done very well because they have just been built so
beautifully, but they need to be recapitalized. Space-based
radar, as a part of a portfolio of sensors that can be used for
intelligence and for tactical operations, is a necessary thing.
We believe that, as we see our budget, we can smooth these in.
Yes, sir.
F/A-22
Senator Stevens. What's the IOC now for the F/A-22?
Dr. Roche. It should be the end of calendar year 2005, sir.
Senator Stevens. Someone asked me the other day why we're
building the F/A-22. What's the threat?
Dr. Roche. I would like to meet in a closed session and
tell you about some of the new aircraft, but certainly there
are existing surface-to-air missile systems now that, if not
dealt with by something like the F/A-22, will deny airspace to
us for land operations, for any other support operations. There
are emerging threats, like cruise missile threats, that only
the F/A-22 can handle because of its super-cruise. Its
capabilities are such that it replaces a number of other
aircraft. We will become far more efficient in the use of our
airmen by having far more capable airplanes. We'll have fewer
of them, but we'll be able to use the crews much more often. So
it's a combination of the threat, the efficiency, and the move
into new technology, which enables you to not have to spend the
kind of funds we have to spend now on maintenance, the fact
that our F-15 fleet is roughly 22-plus years old, and the F-
15Es are the young part of that. We have flight restrictions on
some of our F-15Cs because of some problems in the vertical
stabilizers.
Senator Stevens. Well, I thank you. This committee did save
the C-17. We saved the Predator. We saved the V-22. And as far
as I'm concerned, we're going to save the F-22.
Senator Inouye?
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I concur with you.
Mr. Secretary, on the F/A-22, about 20 months ago, you
added a new, robust air-to-ground capability. And, as such, the
Secretary of Defense suggested that the cost could go up by
$11.7 billion over a 10-year period. Has that been factored
into the budget?
Dr. Roche. Sir, the Secretary of Defense didn't do it; it
was the General Accounting Office, if I'm not mistaken, Senator
Inouye. They took an honest-to-goodness wish list from our Air
Combat Command that goes until the plane is dead. Now, we're
going to keep this plane for 30 years, so there will be things
that one might think of doing 20 years into the future. The
work that we are doing to make--to enhance the capability of
this airplane for air to ground--it already has some
capabilities--will actually, in some cases, save money. We'll
put a new radar on that's 40 percent cheaper than the existing
radar. We'll incorporate the smaller-diameter bomb, which will
be done for lots of other reasons. So the amount of money that
we have planned that we will actually spend is budgeted, and is
less than $3.5 billion, and that's for all the aircraft that
come after it.
Now, just as a comparison, sir, over the same FYDP period
we'll invest $2.5 billion in just doing upgrades to the B-2
bomber. There are only 21 of them.
Senator Inouye. Has the change made the full-rate
production decision a little later now? You were going to do it
in December 2004.
Dr. Roche. The full production decision for the F/A-22,
sir, will be, again, a function of how well we do in initial
operational test and evaluation (IOT&E). We have worked out
every problem we can think of. We have issues associated with
IOT&E sortie generation and meantime between maintenance hours
that are really an attempt to interpolate from what our
measures after 100,000 hours of flight (which won't happen
until 2008) to what they ought to be today. We believe that,
barring something we can't see now, we should enter IOT&E at
the end of April. That's in 2004. The full-rate production
decision would be at some point thereafter; again, it will be
event driven. But we are ramping up slowly, with your help. We
went to 20 airplanes, 22 airplanes; this budget, 24 airplanes,
to get to 32 without incurring additional cost by rushing.
BOEING CORPORATION
Senator Inouye. As a result of certain alleged incidents by
Boeing employees, Senator Rudman was asked to conduct an
investigation, and, as a result of that, he said that despite
problems that have occurred, ``We believe it would be both
unfair and incorrect to conclude that the company treats ethics
and compliance matters lightly.'' And then he further went on
to say that, ``Boeing programs are robust and confirm that the
company pays significant attention to ethics and compliance
matters.''
Have these results or findings had any impact on the
progression of replacing the tanker fleet?
Dr. Roche. I'm certain that they've been an input to the
Inspector General's review. There is an Inspector General
review. There's also a Defense Science Board look, across the
board. There's a group from the Industrial College of the Armed
Forces who were looking at, ``How innovative was our approach?
And what lessons are to be learned?'' We, clearly, can't take
action based on Senator Rudman's report, but I know that that
has been an input to the Inspector General's thinking.
END STRENGTH
Senator Inouye. I believe you're planning to downsize your
force end strength. How do you propose to do that?
Dr. Roche. We are, at this point, Senator, a little under,
sir--about 16,000 over and above our end strength, and it is--
we're suffering from riches, Senator. We just took stop-loss
off last July. We had anticipated that our airmen would return
to the normal sequence, which is: we lose 37,000 a year, we
recruit 37,000 a year. With a lot that you have done, in terms
of benefits, 100 percent housing, a whole series of things, we
are exceeding our retention rates, we have pilots coming back,
and we finished 40 percent of our recruiting for this fiscal
year last year. So we're having to see if some of our airmen
would like to transition earlier into the Guard and Reserve, to
get on with, maybe, their academic life. We are trying to not
lose faith with any of these men and women who have had faith
in us, but they like serving our Air Force, and there is a
sense of esprit that I know you've seen when you've dealt with
them over in the Area of Responsibility (AOR). They have a
sense of self worth, that they're doing something terribly
important, and they want to stay. We're trying to adjust this
so maybe we can have more of them migrate to our Guard and
Reserve.
John?
General Jumper. Senator, we do not want to kick anybody out
of the Air Force that wants to stay. And we lived through--in
the late 1980s and early 1990s, we lived through involuntary
separations. It was destructive for the morale of the service.
We will ask your help to make sure that we don't have to kick
out anybody that doesn't want to go, even as we try to get down
to our authorized numbers as quickly as we can.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
First, let me say to the Secretary that I'm really pleased
that you're not moving over to the Army. I know that was a long
and tortured period for you, but, frankly, I think you've done
a wonderful job, and I appreciate your commitment to the United
States Air Force and to this country's security.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
Let me ask a question about base closing, if I might. The
base closing commission proposition that has everyone nervous,
I expect. And let me ask whether--as you understand it, whether
this base closing round is going to look at nearly every Air
Guard and Reserve facility. The reason I ask that question is,
in the 1995 background only a handful of Air Guard and Air
Force Reserve facilities were actually evaluated. What's your
impression of what will happen in this base closing commission
round?
Dr. Roche. We really believe in the Total Force. We would
like everyone to be looked at. We are doing it slightly
differently. We're doing it in accordance with the
congressional law and regulation, but we're starting out taking
that very seriously, in terms of what is the force structure we
expect to see around 2020-2025. Because we've always noted that
we'll be replacing 750 F-15-like aircraft with roughly 400 F/A-
22s. Our Air Force will be getting smaller. What are the
systems we think we'll need for the contingencies in the
future? What are those capabilities? Where are they best
deployed inside the United States? How much overseas basing
will we have to do? Just go through the capabilities. Then
we're going to look at things like ranges. As you know,
supersonic range is a critical to us. Other air ranges are
critical to us. Then keep working our way down, in terms of
what kinds of systems tend to be for the Atlantic-Pacific.
Which are swing systems? How do we deal with Operation Noble
Eagle?
We believe as we go through that, plus the work that's
being done by the joint staff of where is there commonality of
training, hospitals, other things, that the answer will start
to come out pretty obviously.
Guard is working on its own, doing some very innovative
thinking about how they can better integrate with the Active
Force, or complement it.
Senator Dorgan. As you know, my State houses two air bases,
one at Minot, one at Grand Forks--one B-52, one a tanker base--
as well as an Air Guard Base in Fargo.
Dr. Roche. And missiles.
B-52
Senator Dorgan. And missiles in the Minot base, as well--at
the Minot base. Let me ask you how you see the role for the B-
52 and also the role for the core tanker base as we move
forward.
Dr. Roche. I can't speak of any specific base with respect
to the systems.
Senator Dorgan. Yeah.
Dr. Roche. We see the B-52 as a system that we fly very
differently. We fly slower, higher. We picked 90 of the best of
the 700 that were built. These are the planes that did not
fight in Vietnam. Some of the tankers that were associated with
those B-52s are also in good shape, even though they're old,
and they would be the tankers we would expect to fly when
they're roughly 70 years old, even if we began recapitalizing
now. We see the B-52 having a future for the next, say, 10, 20
years. But we now are looking at how to replace the platform.
Senator Dorgan. Well, the B-52 is estimated to be out 30
years, is it not?
Dr. Roche. It is, and we'll track both the costs of it and
how many we'll use, how many we'll use for standoff jammers.
But bomber capabilities are located where they are in the
United States for very good reasons; it's because they swing.
Originally, the northern States had them, because we went over
the top.
B-2
Now we've found that when we place the B-2, it is wise to
put a bomber facility in the center of the United States so it
can swing to the Atlantic or the Pacific. For example, Dyess
Air Force Base in Texas, just to name one that's not in your
State, sir, needs ranges nearby. These are important things for
us to take into account as we look at placement.
TANKER FLEET
Senator Dorgan. Will your ability to maintain the tanker
fleet be substantially affected by the 767 issues?
Dr. Roche. We think that we will not replace the full 550
KC-135s with 550 new wide-body tankers. We'd like to--it may
not all be 767s by the time you go over 20-so years to do it,
but it'll still be, we think, something above 400, sir.
GLOBAL HAWK
Senator Dorgan. And have you--when will you describe a
basing plan for the Global Hawk, the full contingent of Global
Hawks?
Dr. Roche. Right now--you remember, in Iraq our Global Hawk
fleet consisted of one airplane.
General Jumper. That's correct.
Dr. Roche. And as these come in, we will be trying to do
that. We have been showing the members as many of our roadmaps
as we have finished. So we've shown a tanker roadmap, we've
shown a C-130 roadmap, lifter roadmap. We would continue to do
that, to share our thinking early with various members.
In terms of Global Hawk, right now, Beale Air Force Base is
the right place for them to be, because of their closely
associated mission with the U-2. Over time, as we use these--
and there will be other remotely-piloted aircraft, the UAVs--we
will be picking locations for them.
F/A-22
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me make one additional
comment. First of all, I agree with the Chairman's comment
about the F/A-22. I think that's a critically important weapons
program for us to maintain air superiority long into the
future. I think Global Hawk and Predator programs have been
extraordinarily valuable, and I would commend the Air Force and
the men and women who run those systems.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
And then I finally want to say, again, many of us are very,
very nervous about this base closing commission process. I
looked to the report that was issued today by the Pentagon.
It's very hard for us to quite understand exactly where the
magnifying glass is placed here, but we've got some great
bases. And I'm not altogether sure, having watched the Pentagon
plan in the long term, that we know what's going to happen 5
and 10 years from now with respect to our needs. And to be
talking about a commission that sizes the military for 20
years, I'm not all that convinced that we ought to move as
aggressively as you think, Mr. Secretary, and others in the
Pentagon think. But, you know, again, I think we'll work
through that, and I appreciate very much your appearance here
today.
Dr. Roche. Thank you for your thoughts. I would say we are
trying to factor in the fact that we cannot predict the future.
So we're trying to hedge, and we're trying to hedge in many
ways.
Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before this started, I had a chance to talk with the
Secretary and General Jumper before the hearing, and, it's
interesting, we were referencing back to the Secretary's time
when he was here with ``Scoop'' Jackson. I'm looking around the
committee. You and I and Senator Inouye and, I believe, Senator
Cochran all served here when Senator Jackson was here. He was
one of the giants, the real giants, of the Senate, and one who
did, as you do, Mr. Chairman, formed those bipartisan
coalitions that are so very, very necessary in these defense
bills. And I mean that as a compliment to both you and Senator
Jackson and, of course, to Secretary Roche, who's tried the
same way; I think one of the reasons why the Air Force is doing
so well and why it has such support up here. I've also had some
of these discussions with General Jumper, and we--our
discussions have ranged everywhere from what it's like growing
up in small-town America to where the Air Force is going to be
well into the 21st century with the kind of threats and the
unpredictability--as you said, Mr. Secretary, the
unpredictability of the future.
General Jumper, if I might--this is probably one of those
rare times that a parochial question has ever come out from a
member of the Appropriations Committee, but I am the co-chair
of the U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus, along with Senator
Kit Bond of Missouri, and we have close to 90 Members of the
Senate, most of the Senate. We strongly support your effort to
transform the Guard's and the entire Air Force capability to
meet the Nation's needs. I think, probably more than any time
since I've been in the Senate, we see the integration and the
need of using the Guard with our regular forces, certainly in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and being prepared in that second, third,
and fourth wave if we need it.
I talked with you about a proposal I've been working on
with the Air National Guard unit in my home State of Vermont,
the F-16 unit. This F-16 unit, Mr. Chairman, is the one that,
immediately after--now, by ``immediately,'' I mean immediately
after--the attack on New York City, in September 11, they were
flying cover, and flew cover for weeks on end, around the
clock, over New York City. Flying based out of Vermont, it
doesn't take them very long to get to New York City. And, of
course, you had tankers basically parked up there, and they
just ran around the clock.
Under our proposal, the Active Force would send many of its
pilots and maintenance personnel to the Vermont Guard for a
tour that would increase integration among the Guard and the
Active Force, allow the Active Force to take advantage of the
high level of experience we have up there. I understand it
would actually save money, in the long run. I'd also mention
that the Burlington area is a very nice place to live, having
lived there all my life--all my life, so far. It would be a
great retention tool. And I'm wondering, General, if you'd give
me an update of where this proposal stands in the Air Force.
GUARD AND RESERVE
General Jumper. Well, Senator Leahy, as you are aware, we
currently have a great number of initiatives going on with the
Guard and Reserve especially the Air National Guard, as the
Secretary mentioned. This notion of bringing active duty and
National Guard units together is working very well for us in
Georgia right now. It's only proper we also look at it the
other way not only consider bringing the Guard and Reserves to
the active units, but look at it the other way around. As we
also look at what makes sense with regard to consolidations of
units that are in close proximity to one another and other such
ideas that you're aware of that we're actively pursuing in the
Air Force.
So, sir, I think that this idea has merit. It is certainly
worth us considering and taking advantage of the great
opportunity to live in some of our cities around the world that
we don't normally have access to. So it's under consideration
right now, sir.
Senator Leahy. General, will you or your staff keep me
posted on how it goes? Because I want to--I really do have a
very strong interest in this, and not just from a parochial--I
go to bat for the Vermont Guard, because they do a superb job
there, always at the top level of preparedness, fitness, and
all the rest. And I would--I'm a typical enough Vermonter, I
wouldn't go to bat like that unless they were that good. I just
think it can work well. I also think that, from our--the east
coast still is a danger area. I'll put this--other questions in
the record for both of you.
But I'm just curious, is this in the budget?
General Jumper. Sir, this would--as far as I understand it,
it would have to be a part of a BRAC consideration to talk
about how we adjust forces if it's in any significant numbers.
But it's part of the overall consideration, under military
value, that we are dealing with, as part of that process.
Dr. Roche. If I may, sir, I think it's a legitimate----
Senator Stevens. The gentleman's time has expired.
Senator Leahy. Could I just hear his answer to just that
one question, Mr. Chairman?
Dr. Roche. Very briefly. The Guard is looking at a number
of innovative things, and they're all being listed. And General
``Danny'' James is doing a terrific job of working with his
colleagues to be part of the solution to this problem, not part
of the problem.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
COLUMBUS AIR FORCE BASE
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, General Jumper, I'm fresh back from a trip
to my State, where I had the pleasure of cutting a ribbon at
Columbus Air Force Base for a new facility, a radar approach
control facility, part of a control-tower facility, as well,
that will be ensuring that we'll have one of the most modern
training facilities for pilots in the country. We already are
very proud of the fact that, at Columbus, one-third of the Air
Force pilots are trained there. Over 468 during fiscal year
2003. And not long ago, we participated in a ceremony in
Jackson, where the Air National Guard received the first C-17,
and training is underway there. We're really proud of the fact
that that's occurring in our State, as well, and also that
Keesler Air Force Base continues to train, I guess, as many
people as any Air Force base training facility anywhere, 40,000
students each year. We have the largest medical facility,
medical group in the Air Force--is also located at Keesler Air
Force Base. So we're very interested in the Air Force's budget
request. We're very interested in your requirements and helping
make sure that this committee responds to your needs.
C-17
I think that it's very clear that you're embarking on some
important new modernization efforts. The C-17 is one example.
And we hope that--the procurement schedule, as I understand,
may be going up from your earlier expectations of your needs.
Could you tell us what your expectation of a procurement
schedule is for the C-17? Is your budget sufficient to give you
what you need?
Dr. Roche. Senator, we have this multi-year for 60 that
we're involved in at this time, and that will give us a total
of 180. There are two things that will drive the follow-on
decision. One is, the joint staff is looking at what the
mobility needs are for our Total Force--all Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marines--to update what was done a number of years
ago, in terms of how much lift is required. They will finish
that at some point here in the not-too-distant future. That
will then feed into us, in terms of what we need to be able to
do in million ton miles per day (MTMS/DAY).
The second issue that we are attempting to resolve is
whether or not the C-5As can be modernized through the
Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP). We're
going to do it for all the B models, which are the newer C-5s.
We're going to do the avionics for all of the A models. And the
issue is, if the A's are in good enough shape to be able to
have service life extension, then that would then compensate.
If the number of MTMS/DAY required goes up, if the C-5As are
not worth investing in, then clearly the other thing we'd do is
get more C-17s. But this is in flux right now. We have an Air
Force Fleet Viability Board, which is independent, looking at
the A's, as we speak. We expect that report to come to John and
me by the end of April, end of the month. We'll start to then
get a sense of what the condition of the A's are. We're waiting
for U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) to finish with the
joint staff, its desires for lift. Then, from that, we'll come
and make a decision on the follow-on procurement. We have a few
years before we have to get to that.
GLOBAL HAWK
Senator Cochran. One other procurement item that you
mentioned was the Global Hawk. You said you were going to ask
for funds for four of those. That sounds like just a few. Do
you have any question about the effectiveness or the importance
of it in the recent Iraqi Operation?
Dr. Roche. It's four in the budget; it's 34 in the Future
Years Defense Plan (FYDP).
Senator Cochran. I see.
Dr. Roche. And, in fact, as we often point out, General
Tommy Franks was very kind to John and me. He allowed us to put
systems into Afghanistan that were really not ready for prime
time. We had a couple of Global Hawks, as you know, auger in.
We had a couple of Predators auger in. But we learned so much
that by the time Iraqi Freedom came, we had terrific
responsiveness from the Global Hawk. It's done beautifully, and
we anticipate it being part of our inventory for a great deal
of time.
AIRBORNE LASER
Senator Cochran. One of your defensive missile programs is
the airborne laser program; the primary mission, knocking down
ballistic missiles during the initial boost phase of flight,
and using, as I understand it, an Air Force platform for that
purpose. What is the status of that, and what is the outlook?
Do you have anything you can tell us about the progress being
made in that program?
Dr. Roche. John has had a personal interest for a long
time, and I'd like to let him answer.
General Jumper. Sir, we've purchased the first airplane
that will be the test bed for the laser, and the laser system's
scheduled to fire on the ground, I believe, by the end of this
year. Then it will be disassembled, put into the airplane, and
further tested.
There have been problems with the airplanes, or with the
system, as you can imagine, something this complex. When I talk
to the scientists and engineers that are dealing with this,
there is still great confidence that this thing is going to
work. So it's funded appropriately to complete the engineering,
to do the demonstrations, and to make sure that we are
successful in what we have done so far, and it will all revolve
around our ability to get a successful shot out of this thing
in the next year or so. So I'm very confident, and I appreciate
your interest in it.
Dr. Roche. And, as you know, it's in the Missile Defense
Agency's budget, it's not in ours, sir. We view it like uncles
looking at it. It's the experiment that ought to be done.
Senator Cochran. Yeah.
Dr. Roche. If it works, it's going to be fantastic.
Senator Cochran. Yeah.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Roche, General Jumper, thank you for joining us
today, and thank you for your service to our country.
I'd like to ask you another parochial question, which you
can certainly expect from members of the panel from time to
time, and it's one of interest to me, as well as Speaker
Hastert, Congressman Costello, and Congressman Shimkus. In
fiscal year 2004, Congress provided $12.2 million to continue
the C-9 mission at Scott Air Force Base for an additional year
while a study was being completed on the mission of the 932nd
Airlift Wing. In January, that study was released, and
concluded that the men and women of the 932nd could meet the
increased operational support aircraft, (OSA), requirements of
the Air Force. And I know other studies are going on, but I
wanted to ask you what your plans are to meet OSA requirements
since the C-9As are scheduled to retire very soon, in fiscal
year 2005, and it appears that we've not provided any funding
to continue the mission. I know you have C-40s on your unfunded
requirements list, but what do you plan to do between now and
fiscal year 2007, when the C-40s reach----
Dr. Roche. I'll ask John to see if my memory is shaky on
this, Senator. We believe that the C-9's at Scott ought to be
retired. We'd like to flow the C-9C aircraft from Andrews to
Scott, and then backfill Andrews with new C-40s. That's the
plan. We'd like to be able to get that more defined over the
next couple of years.
We have found that the medical evacuation planes,
especially--we have so many other systems that do that well
that that's not the purpose, but we still need, in the center
of the country, the kind of capabilities that were contained in
the C-9 fleet at Scott, and we'd like to maintain it by flowing
aircraft to Scott from Andrews.
C-40S
Senator Durbin. Should you receive funding, how many C-40s
will you acquire, at what cost?
Dr. Roche. Oh, sir, may I get back to you----
Senator Durbin. Certainly.
Dr. Roche [continuing]. For the record?
[The information follows:]
Secretary of the Air Force,
Washington, May 10, 2004.
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Durbin: Thank you for your continued support of the
United States Air Force and particularly the men and women of Scott Air
Force Base (AFB). During my testimony before the Defense Subcommittee
on March 23, 2004, you asked me to explain what the Air Force plan is
for Scott AFB once the C-9s leave.
The Air Force has identified a requirement for three C-40s at Scott
AFB IL on our fiscal year 2005 Unfunded Priority List. If funding were
appropriated for these aircraft, the Air Force Reserve Command's 932d
Airlift Wing, along with an Associate Active Duty unit, would operate
them. To facilitate a transition from the C-9A to the C-40, we have
developed a bridge plan using C-9Cs.
C-9As would remain at Scott until replaced with C-9Cs from Andrews
AFB MD. Beginning in fiscal year 2005 the Air Force will transfer C-9Cs
to Scott AFB. As a C-9C arrives at Scott, a C-9A would retire. The
intent is to continue to operate at least three C-9s until C-40Cs
arrive.
According to the plan, two C-40Cs would deliver in fiscal year 2007
and one in fiscal year 2008, though we will make every effort to
deliver the first C-40C in fiscal year 2006. As a C-40C arrives at
Scott, a C-9C would retire.
I trust this response clarifies our intent for C-40s and the 932 AW
mission. On behalf of the men and women of the Air Force, let me convey
my gratitude for your interest and support.
Sincerely,
James G. Roche.
Should the Air Force receive fiscal year 2005 funding it would
acquire three C-40C aircraft for Scott AFB, IL.
Total cost for purchasing and establishing the C-40C operation at
Scott follows. The cost includes sustaining the current C-9A operation
at Scott during fiscal year 2005.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft purchase (3xC-40C)............................. 225.0
C-9A Fiscal Year 2005 Sustainment....................... 8.3
C-40C Site Activation................................... 12.4
O&M..................................................... 3.8
MILCON.................................................. 6.0
---------------
Total............................................. 255.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Roche. I believe the number of planes is three, and
I'm----
General Jumper. We need to get back to you on that, sir.
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. That's fine.
When would the Air Force be able to assume the operation
and maintenance costs for those aircraft?
General Jumper. For the new C-40s?
Senator Durbin. Right.
General Jumper. Sir, I think that once we got them, we'd be
able to--it would probably be a part of a contract that would
come with the airplanes, and we'd be able to assume it right
away.
Dr. Roche. The beginning of it would be a warranty period.
There might be some----
General Jumper. Right.
Dr. Roche [continuing]. Some contract logistics support,
because we don't have a big fleet of these. Anything we have a
big fleet of, we have a strategy to migrate eventual
maintenance to our depots.
Senator Durbin. And I want to make sure--maybe you've
answered this, but I want to make certain I understand it--
where will the C-40s be stationed, and what unit will they be
assigned?
Dr. Roche. They will replace C-9Cs at Scott Air Force Base
assigned to the 932nd Airlift Wing.
Senator Durbin. C-40s at Andrews?
C-9AS
What is the bridge plan, since the C-9As will be retiring
soon?
Dr. Roche. To move planes from Andrews to Scott.
Senator Durbin. Do you know what the cost will be for
fiscal year 2005?
Dr. Roche. Sir, I'm sorry, not off the top of my head.
Senator Durbin. Are there any C-9Cs that are noise
compliant?
General Jumper. No, sir, there are not.
Senator Durbin. What will it take----
General Jumper. Sir----
Senator Durbin [continuing]. Will it take to make them----
General Jumper [continuing]. It's not only noise compliant,
it's compliant with all the avionics restrictions that are
coming down the road. I don't have a number, but it would be
huge. We can get you that number.
[The information follows:]
None of our C-9Cs are stage III noise compliant. The Air
Force plans to primarily use the C-9Cs for CONUS travel, where
hush kits are not currently required.
Based on the USMC experience with equipping their two C-9B
aircraft with hush kits, it would cost approximately $2.5
million per aircraft. The cost to equip the three C-9Cs and
spare engines ($2 million) is estimated at approximately $9.5
million.
Due to increase weight of the hush kits (approximately 300
lbs.), the C-9C will experience reduced range and/or reduced
capacity (cargo and passenger loads).
GUARD AND RESERVE
Senator Durbin. May I ask you another question? Because I
note that you're not only responsible for the active Air Force,
but have responsibilities for the Guard and Reserve. What are
your projections about recruitment and retention for Guard and
Reserve units, based on current activations?
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir. We're delighted to answer this one.
These are fabulous people. Only about 35 percent, or less, of
our Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve have been
mobilized in these conflicts. We have something like 6 percent
mobilized at this time. When we asked them about recruiting,
because we were worried, and we had a conscious plan after
Operation Enduring Freedom to make sure that our commands did
not hold on to guardmen and reservists more than they needed to
be. We said we had an ethical requirement to return these
colleagues back to their normal lives. We created the program
of thanking every single employer. We sent a pin, replicating
something that was done in World War II, to each employer to
say, ``Thank you for what you've done for these fighters.''
Their recruiting seems to be doing fine. Sometimes you
scratch your head and say these are people who are so dedicated
and so patriotic that they go through all kinds of family
disruptions in order to serve their country. They're truly
wonderful.
We are also trying to have our excessive active duty
members, who we can, migrate to the Guard and Reserve to
complete their obligated service, a program we call Palace
Chase, which we're thinking of expanding. So we very much worry
about the Guard and Reserve because we're so dependent on them.
General Jumper. Right now, sir, we're meeting 100 percent
of our goals in both Active, Guard, and Reserve, for both
recruiting and retention.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, I'm glad to
hear that. That's great information. It says quite a lot about
the men and women serving us in the Guard and Reserve, as well
as our active duty. It is unfortunate, and I hope to change
soon, the fact that activated Guard and Reserve Federal
employees don't receive the same type of consideration from
their employer as many in the private sector.
Dr. Roche. And the States.
Senator Durbin. And States. Some States do, some don't.
But, clearly, we should set an example. Ten percent of the
Guard and Reserve in America are Federal employees, and, once
activated, they don't receive the same helping hand that many
private employers are providing activated Guard and Reserve.
Dr. Roche. It's a mixed bag, Senator. There are some
private employers, who, after 2 months, don't support. There
are others, who are very patriotic, who have borne the cost.
Every time I find one of them, I thank them. When I find a
particularly outrageous case of a private employer, I've been
known to pick up the phone and call the Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) and have a chat.
Senator Durbin. Oh, I'm glad you do. I just hope the
Federal Government will set an example. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, we have 10 minutes left, and we're going to set
a clock for 3 minutes for each one of us to ask questions, if
you'll agree.
Let me just make a statement and ask one question. I'm told
that the tankers flew 6,193 tanking sorties in Iraq alone
during this past period, and that they've off-loaded over 417
million pounds of gas to be used in the ground vehicles. That
shows how critical those tankers are to us. And I do hope that
we can proceed further.
F/A-22
My question is, Is it possible, in this open session, to
talk about the sorties that have been flown by the F/A-22s,
sorties in this testing period, routinely against adversaries
like souped-up F-15s? Can you tell us what happened, and give
us a little description of that?
Dr. Roche. If I may, just put----
Senator Stevens. John, can you do that?
Dr. Roche. 12,000 tanker sorties out of 99,000--12,000 are
tankers.
General Jumper. Sir, we've got more than 5,000 hours of
testing on the F/A-22 airplane now. The guys that are flying
against it are our very best. And the testimony that comes back
to me is, ``When we fly against the F/A-22, we never see a
thing, and we're dead before we know it.'' Like Dr. Roche said,
we have received testimony from the guy who has been commanding
our test efforts, and is a seasoned fighter pilot of many
years. He said, ``If we went to war today, this is the airplane
I'd want to take.'' It goes on and on. So it's very, very
positive, sir.
Senator Stevens. These guys behind you, were they part of
that group?
General Jumper. Sir, these are F-15 pilots. There's no
doubt that they'll be flying F/A-22s someday, and they know
what the airplane can do. They talk to their buddies, and they
know what the airplane can do.
Senator Stevens. Just being a little provincial, I hope you
stick around. I have asked for a photographer. I'll send a
picture home with you----
General Jumper. Yes, sir. You bet.
Senator Stevens [continuing]. Here.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I'm curious to know what
progress we are making in the protection of our aircraft in the
Iraqi theater. I know there's an infrared laser capability
that's being developed and tested. Is this an effective defense
against missiles that are aimed at our aircraft that are in
tankers and other similar aircraft?
MISSILE WARNING RECEIVER
Dr. Roche. There are a number of levels of protection.
There's the--we basically have a warning receiver, missile
warning receiver, that tells you something's shot at you, and
then you have a countermeasure you deploy. You can have
difficulties with both. The countermeasures that are the most
widespread are flares. There's a system called directional
infrared countermeasures (DIRCM), which is on our special
operating C-130s. There's a derivative of it, called LAIRCM,
which is large aircraft infrared countermeasure system. Given
the fact that there are components of this that are produced by
a series of companies, there's only so much that can be done in
a period of time, we are spreading these out over a number of
our C-17s, C-130s, and Special Operations aircraft. We have a
classified number now installed. We are doing it in such a way
that we can put some capability on almost all of our large
aircraft C-5s, as well. As we get enough of these systems,
we'll start adding systems to each airplane. They have been
extensively tested down at White Sands over and over and over.
They were retested again most recently when we had concerns
about Iraq. When those systems are installed, the result, so
far, is they've been very, very effective.
SPACE-BASED RADAR
Senator Cochran. There's also an effort to move forward
with a space-based radar system. Could you give us a report on
the status of that?
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir. It's in its architectural phase. One
of the issues that we're trying to work out is to--how much
money do you want to have in the space-based radar part, as
compared to how much do you want to have in atmospheric
systems. There are things that space-based radar can do that
clearly you could otherwise not do--circle the world in a short
period of time, look deep inside a denied territory. But there
are certain technical things that can be done by systems like
JOINTSTARS or the upgrade to JOINTSTARS, called multi-platform
radar technology insection program (MP-RTIP), which is a module
improved radar that would go on E-10A command and control
aircraft, that can do for the ground forces what space-based
radar cannot do. Therefore, we believe this is a portfolio, and
the portfolio to have some space-based radar, but we would not
want to have all our eggs in that basket; you'd want to go
across, so that you can do both synthetic aperture radar
imagery, as well as moving target indicators, as well as large
sweeps of the globe. So it's complementary.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)
Senator Cochran. The Joint Strike Fighter, multi-role
fighter, that is under development, I understand the aircraft
has been experiencing some development problems, the most
widely publicized having to do with the overall weight of the
aircraft. You mentioned this. You touched on this in your
statement. What is the outlook for this program?
Dr. Roche. The first point I'd like to make, Senator, is
that this is an airplane. It's one of our complicated
airplanes. If you look at the history of our aircraft, we
demand enormous amounts from them, and they are never what the
viewgraphs say. The JSF is going from the viewgraph stage of an
airplane to real drawings, real weight measurements, real
component measurements, en route to being developed. It's only
completed two of what was originally a 10-year development
program. Now it's two of an 11-year development program. Weight
has come up. You would expect that about this time. I can sit
here and predict what kinds of problems we're going to see in
2008, because they're natural in the development of these
systems.
Is the weight a terminal problem? We don't think so. But
because it most severely affects the short-takeoff and landing
airplane, we believe it prudent and right in our
responsibilities to work that problem soonest, without
disrupting the program, and to put all the attention on risk
reduction of the STOVL version. If we can get the weight down,
more thrust out of the engine, and possibly flying it slightly
differently; you don't have to keep every constraint the same
so that it's an effective weapons system, then we would like to
proceed with the program.
But we are very attentive to it, especially now that the
Air Force wants to purchase some of the STOVL units. So we and
the Marines are joined at the hip on this.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. I do hope you'll mobilize, as much as you
can, the support for the F/A-22. I recall that the B-1, the B-
2, the 117, C-17, you think of any new system that was right on
the line of becoming right up to IOC, it's been just attacked
viciously. But they're always in favor of the systems that are
over the horizon. Okay? Now, this system is needed, and I hope
we can get the support we need, here in Congress, to maintain
it.
I thank you all for what you're doing, and I do really
commend you for what we saw when we went into Iraq and
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Kuwait. Our generation was
called--what? The----
Dr. Roche. The Greatest Generation.
Senator Stevens [continuing]. Greatest Generation. Well, we
spawned a greater generation. Those kids that are out there now
are much better than we ever were, and they're doing a
wonderful job, men and women now. And, I'll tell you, it's just
an absolute privilege to be able to visit them. So we thank you
for giving us a lift over.
Dr. Roche. I repeat what John Jumper said, these young
people are thrilled when you take the time in your schedule to
spend some time with them.
Senator Stevens. Both Dan and I wish we could be
reincarnated right now and see some of these systems and be
able to fly them. You know?
I did fly the V-22, yes.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
If there are any additional questions, they will be
submitted to you for your response.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted to Hon. James G. Roche
Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
F-117 STEALTH FIGHTER
Question. The F-117 Stealth Fighter has provided the United States
with a low-observable first strike capability for nearly 20 years. On
day-one, hour-one of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, Stealth Fighters
delivered precision munitions on an Iraqi leadership target. F-117s
also struck highly valuable, heavily defended targets during the
conflict in Serbia. The F-117 has proven itself to be the ``tip of the
spear'' of America's military might. The fiscal year 2005 Air Force
budget proposes to reduce 20 percent of the Stealth Fighter force. (10
of 50 aircraft) It is my understanding that the Air Force has performed
a risk-analysis of the proposed retirement. I am concerned, however,
that this Committee has not had sufficient time to review this
important Air Force decision.
Given the F-117's proven capability, do you think it might be
prudent to delay this retirement decision so Congress has more time to
gather further information?
Answer. As you well know the F-117 has served our Nation well for
many years. We believe it is prudent and timely to retire a specific
portion of them enabling the Air Force to fully support and sustain the
remaining aircraft and capitalize on other Air Force transformational
capabilities. Therefore, we would prefer to act now as outlined in the
fiscal year 2005 President's Budget. As always, we welcome discussion
on this and other subjects of interest to you.
______
Questions Submitted to General John P. Jumper
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete. V. Domenici
F-117 STEALTH FIGHTER
Question. The F-117 Stealth Fighter has provided the United States
with a low-observable first strike capability for nearly 20 years. On
day-one, hour-one of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, Stealth Fighters
delivered precision munitions on an Iraqi leadership target. F-117s
also struck highly valuable, heavily defended targets during the
conflict in Serbia. The F-117 has proven itself to be the ``tip of the
spear'' of America's military might. The fiscal year 2005 Air Force
budget proposes to reduce 20 percent of the Stealth Fighter force. (10
of 50 aircraft) It is my understanding that the Air Force has performed
a risk-analysis of the proposed retirement. I am concerned, however,
that this Committee has not had sufficient time to review this
important Air Force decision.
Given the F-117's proven capability, do you think it might be
prudent to delay this retirement decision so Congress has more time to
gather further information?
Answer. As you well know the F-117 has served our Nation well for
many years. We believe it is prudent and timely to retire a specific
portion of them enabling the Air Force to fully support and sustain the
remaining aircraft and capitalize on other Air Force transformational
capabilities. Therefore, we would prefer to act now as outlined in the
fiscal year 2005 President's Budget. As always, we welcome discussion
on this and other subjects of interest to you.
SUPERSONIC TRAINING STUDY
Question. As you know, the fiscal year 2003 DOD Authorization bill
began a process of evaluating airspace at Cannon Air Force Base for
supersonic flight training. The purpose of this study is to provide
more realistic training for our pilots by allowing them to fly
supersonic speeds at lower altitudes.
Can you provide me with an update on the progress of the
Environmental Impact Study associated with this supersonic training
initiative?
Answer. On December 31, 2003, the Air Force began the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) process by having the Notice of Intent published
in the Federal Register. That was followed by a series of public
scoping meetings in late January 2004. In December 2004, after
extensive AF and FAA coordination and review, we expect to publish the
Draft EIS for public and agency review. Hearings will then be held to
receive comment on the Draft EIS. A Record of Decision is expected in
fall 2005.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Stevens. We're going to reconvene on March 31 to
consider the President's request for the intelligence
community.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., Wednesday, March 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Wednesday,
March 31.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Bond, Burns,
Inouye, Leahy, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
National Guard Bureau
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL H. STEVEN BLUM, CHIEF
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Generals. I am sorry
to be a little late. We welcome you all so we can review the
National Guard and Reserve programs.
There are two panels scheduled this morning, I would say to
the members of the committee. First, we will hear from the
National Guard leadership, followed by the leadership of the
four Reserve forces. Our first panel, obviously, is General
Steven Blum, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau; Lieutenant
General Roger Schultz, Director of the Army National Guard;
Lieutenant General Daniel James, Director of the Air National
Guard. We thank you gentlemen for joining us this morning.
There is no question that the Guard and Reserve have been
asked to perform beyond the normal call of duty and you have
taken on your missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere
around the world in great fashion. Despite the burden and
stresses that each of the Guard and Reserve service members
have had to assume since 9/11, they continue to make
extraordinary contributions to our Nation's security and we
thank all of the citizen soldiers that are under your command.
We have had visits to Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, and we have seen your people in action. We
congratulate you for what you have done and pledge to you our
support for what you are going to do in the future.
Does any member have an opening statement?
Senator Bond. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Stevens. Sir.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Mr. Chairman, I join with you in welcoming
the generals and all of the men and women from the National
Guard. Senator Leahy and I are very proud to be able to work
with the members of the Guard Caucus and particularly this
committee in supporting the Guard, whether it is an allocation
in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriations
(NGREA) account or full-time support, additional rotor wing
aircraft, Army aviation, additional civil support teams, the
Youth Challenge program, just a few of the important things the
Guard is doing.
We understand there are over 170,000 Guard and Reserve
forces currently activated and almost 40 percent of the force
in Iraq is composed of Guard and Reserve. I think we have to
remain diligent to follow up to see that we support the Guard
and the Reserve as they support us.
That is why Senator Leahy and I investigated concerns about
medical holds and housing at Fort Stewart, Georgia. We got the
response we needed. Soldiers on medical hold are getting better
care and housing and the Army does not want a repeat of what
went on at Fort Stewart.
Right now I am working with a number of people to make sure
that we get the mail system modernized so that mail can get to
deployed troops overseas. Majority Leader Frist asked for a
General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation of the mail
system and that report is due out the end of April. We are
hearing that it is going to have some very, very deep concerns
about the ability to get mail to deployed troops which is very
important for morale.
Those of us in the political realm know that it is very
important that Guard and Reserve who are deployed be able to
vote. Twenty-nine States, including my State of Missouri and a
number of other States here, require voting by mail, and if we
cannot get the absentee ballots to our deployed troops and get
them back, then they are disenfranchised. In Missouri last
year, the Secretary of State checked on the 2002 election and
found that 40 percent--40 percent--of the Missouri military
deployed abroad who applied for absentee ballots did not get
their ballots counted. And with much larger numbers deployed
now, I think it is absolutely imperative. I have spoken to the
Secretary of Defense, and I hope that the bureaucracy will get
off its duff and make sure that we develop a mail system that
can get the mail that our deployed troops deserve to see on a
regular basis from home and also be able to participate in the
political process.
I thank all the members of the Guard. I want specifically
to recognize Sergeant 1st Class Stephanie Leonard. She is a
citizen soldier committed to supporting the community and the
Nation's military, an excellent example, the first Bronze Star
female winner in the Missouri National Guard. Sergeant, thank
you very much for being with us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. While we are recognizing constituents,
Senator, let me point out that the students in the back of the
room are from the Colony High School Closeup group from Palmer,
Alaska. They have come 4,500 miles to be with you this morning.
That is where they grow all those big pumpkins and big
squash and things like that.
Does any other Senator wish to make an opening statement?
Senator Cochran. I would just ask, Mr. Chairman, to have my
statement printed in the record. I join you in welcoming our
witnesses and thank them for their service and their
leadership.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our
witnesses this morning.
This year has been a huge challenge for our National Guard
and Reserve forces and their response has been very impressive.
An unprecedented number of Guard and Reserve are on active
duty, serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the Global War on
terrorism. Two Army reservists from my state of Mississippi
have paid the ultimate price in Iraq. Today, as the Guard and
Reserve serve in the air, on land and sea throughout the
spectrum of warfare they can be assured we are committed to
ensuring they have all the equipment and training necessary to
succeed, and to return home safely as soon as possible.
I would like to thank the witnesses, and the men and women
they represent, for their service and their leadership. I look
forward to hearing their testimony.
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, could I have my statement also
admitted to the record? We would like to hear from our
witnesses this morning. Also, congratulations on a great job
done by our citizen soldiers. Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
[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.
Our men and women of the Guard and Reserve have performed
nobly since 9/11 and in their current operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan--the Global War on Terrorism and Operation Iraqi
Freedom. The Guard and Reserve have certainly seen an increased
operations tempo over the past few years and have been working
side-by-side with the Active Component regularly. I worry that
their equipment may be behind the current technologies or may
not be compatible. Older equipment is expensive to operate and
maintain, due to lack of availability of spares and increased
failure rates. We must make sure the outdated cold war policy
of fielding the newest equipment to our active forces first,
and cascading the older equipment to the Guard and Reserve
forces has changed.
The Guard and Reserve force represents one that is
extremely skilled and capable, responding to various missions
across this nation and across the world. They show flexibility
and rapid response as they continue to play very important
roles in the protection of our homeland and warfighting
operations overseas.
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, then come home to their loved
ones safely.
Again, thank you for coming this morning. I look forward to
today's testimony today and the discussion that takes place.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome
the witnesses here too, General Schultz and General Blum and
General James. I have worked with all three of them. I know
what a superb job they do. I think we have a great leadership
team in place at the Guard Bureau.
But, Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Inouye have been a great
help. Senator Bond mentioned the fact that we lead the National
Guard Caucus. This has been a joy not only because of my
personal friendship and admiration of Senator Bond, but because
of the men and women we represent. I think all the members of
the caucus would agree in thanking you for the leadership you
have given. Your subcommittee, yours and Senator Inouye's
subcommittee, was the engine for launching two major
initiatives that will significantly strengthen the Guard,
including the TRICARE program and a significant increase in
equipment funding. It made the Guard a priority. You have
marshalled help through critical appropriations. Your own staff
is superb in these areas.
While we are mentioning folks from home, I would like to
mention Sergeant Cara Krauss, who is sitting behind the
Generals. The sergeant is a member of the Vermont National
Guard. She just returned from Afghanistan. And, Sergeant, we
are delighted to have you here.
I am very proud of her. I am very proud of all the members
of the Vermont Guard who served with great distinction in
Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, along with the Texas Guard and
along with the Missouri Guard and all the others.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Chairman, she was telling me this
morning that there are a couple big differences here. One, it
is a lot easier walking around without having to wear all the
body armor that is necessary in those places, and it is kind of
nice to walk into stores and be back in the United States of
America where things are a lot more familiar.
But we have three Guard members here, and of course, so
many others throughout the place. If it was not for our Guard
and Reserves, we could not be carrying out our missions around
the world and we would not have the United States well
represented. So thank you, and thank you and Senator Inouye
again for all the support you have given.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
I have been out to Bethesda and to Walter Reed, and each
time I was out there visiting with some of the military who
have come back, I think you would be surprised to know each
time I was asked, will you help me go back. That is a spirit
that just grabs me. It just grabs me. It is really wonderful to
be with those people.
Our co-chairman has arrived. Senator Inouye.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. If I may, I would like to join all of you
in welcoming our Reserves and their chiefs and to thank and
commend them and their men and women for their demonstration of
citizenship and courage. We admire them, sir. Thank you very
much.
May I ask that the rest of my statement be made part of the
record?
Senator Stevens. All of your statements will be printed in
the record in full.
[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
Cotton, General McCarthy, and General Sherrard of the Reserves.
Since this will be General Sherrard's last appearance
before this Committee, I would like to take the opportunity to
thank him for his dedicated service to the Air Force.
General, as chief, you commanded the Air Force Reserve
during a time of unprecedented mobilizations, including Kosovo,
Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, and
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
During your tenure in the Reserves you have also had a
distinguished career as a command pilot with more than 5,000
flying hours, commander of an Air Force Reserve group, two
wings and two numbered air forces, and finally five years as
chief of the Air Force Reserve.
General, we thank you for your loyal service.
Gentlemen, when I think of our Reserves, I think about your
long history as citizen soldiers, the minutemen in the
Revolutionary War, the militia that put down riots when our
nation was in infancy, and our Guard that responds to natural
disasters and emergencies, and ensured minority children were
safely admitted into public schools. But things are different
now. Today our Guard and Reserves make up 38 percent of our
force in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Since September 11th, 282,896 of our Guard and Reserve
personnel have been called to active duty, and 25,151 have been
called upon more than once.
I would like to commend everyone that has played a role in
these operations. Time and time again, the extraordinary
ability of our men and women in uniform and all the people that
work to support them has been demonstrated.
But, these ongoing operations have strained our troops.
Numerous concerns such as recruiting and retention, benefits,
pay equity, and force structure requirements continue to be
raised by our military forces in the field. This committee also
remains concerned over the longstanding issues of procuring
sufficient weapons and equipment to support our Guard and
Reserve forces.
Gentlemen, the challenge you face is how to separate the
identities of our Active and Reserve components, but ensuring
equity in their treatment.
I hope you will be able to address some of these concerns
that are so important to our Guardsmen and Reservists and their
families today.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing and
look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.
Senator Stevens. All of your statements and the statements
of the next panel will be printed in the record in full. I
would appreciate it if you would summarize it. We would call on
you first, General Blum.
General Blum. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
other members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear
here this morning.
As was stated in some of your opening remarks, as we sit
here this morning, there are 144,000-plus citizen soldiers and
airmen deployed all around the world that are engaged in the
global war on terrorism and defending our homeland both here at
home and abroad.
Your National Guard has become critically essential to the
defense, security and safety of our States and of our Nation.
The National Guard has always been an operational reserve when
it has answered the calls of the Governors and the President
here at home. As a Federal reserve component of our Army and
Air Force, we are transitioning from a strategic reserve that
was once held in reserve for World War III to an operational
force that is needed each and every day as our Army and our Air
Force execute their missions around the world.
This is a resource, manpower, and organizationally
intensive undertaking that will have to happen on a very
compressed time line if we are going to make it happen to meet
the needs of our Nation. The National Guard and Reserve
equipment account has been and will remain extraordinarily
useful and vital in these initiatives.
I am proud to report to you that your National Guard has
answered every call, met every requirement, and accomplished
every mission it has been asked to do.
We are committed to transformation. We are transforming the
Guard into a more joint and effective organization from top to
bottom. We are improving readiness across the full spectrum of
requirements from the full scale warfight overseas to the
myriad homeland defense, support to homeland security
operations and State traditional missions.
We are providing better predictability to our soldiers, to
our airmen, to their families, and to our employers. We are
meeting the needs of our elected leaders and our uniformed and
State and Federal leaders, and we are meeting the mandate to
seamlessly operate in a State and Federal intergovernmental,
interagency, joint and multinational role. Your National Guard
is focusing on the right force mix with the right kinds of
units, with the right kinds of capabilities distributed to each
State and territory.
We are transforming, along with the Army and the Air Force,
and we are full partners in that transformation. It is now
recognized that there are 18 divisions in the United States
Army, 8 of which are assigned to the Army National Guard. There
will be 82 brigade combat teams in the United States Army; 34
of these will be assigned to the Army National Guard. The
National Guard will convert units overtaken by technology or
strategic and tactical needs to those capabilities that our
country needs for today and tomorrow. We will eliminate
nonessential and under-resourced force structure because it
does not provide us the capabilities we need today or that
which we will need in the future. We will move to a more
modular, plug-and-play capabilities-based force which is
manned, equipped, trained, and resourced like its active
component.
Partnering with our active components and the Reserves, we
will create a true total force. Nationwide, we are rebalancing
and leveraging the Army and Air National Guard formations.
Transformation and modularity are both very good for the
National Guard. It will enhance our readiness. It will increase
our flexibility, agility and our ability to respond to today's
reality and tomorrow's threats both here at home and abroad. We
are taking on these transformations with the assistance and the
full collaboration and inclusion of all stakeholders, the
Governors, their Adjutants General, the services, the
Department of Defense, and you, sir, and the United States
Congress. Your National Guard is committed to doing what is
right for America.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General H Steven Blum
NATIONAL GUARD 2005 POSTURE STATEMENT
PROTECTING AMERICA AT HOME AND ABROAD
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN MEMORIAM
A Dedication to the men and women of the Army and the Air National
Guard who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving the United States
of America.
----------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW
At no time in our history has America depended more on its Citizen-
Soldiers. The strength of our National Guard, as always, is derived
from the caliber of our Soldiers and Airmen. When we think about what
our nation asks these young Citizen-Soldiers and Airmen to do for their
communities, their states, and their nation, and how magnificently they
have performed here at home and abroad, our hearts are filled with
pride.
Our priorities and our vision focuses on leveraging the talents,
the abilities, the selfless commitment and the enthusiasm of these
Soldiers and Airmen. As Chief of the National Guard Bureau, my mission
is to ensure that they receive the latest training, complete and modern
equipment, and an organizational and command structure worthy of their
mission and their service.
The National Guard will remain, first and foremost, a provider of
ready, trained, and equipped warfighting units to combatant commanders
through the Army and the Air Force. Notably, the Guard has always been,
throughout its history, a force that spanned the continuum of what we
define today as ``Homeland Security,'' ``Homeland Defense,'' and
``Warfighting.'' September 11, 2001 has refocused us on our fundamental
responsibility to defend the homeland--the original mission of the
militia--and revealed the present day efficacy that the founders
understood so well--that a citizen-based militia is the best force to
protect the citizenry from which it is drawn.
The Guard is uniquely suited, like no other entity in the Defense
Department, or indeed in the entire nation, to carry out that mission.
No other organization has our combination of size, skills, training and
experience, dispersion across the nation, command and communications
infrastructure, and the legal flexibility to support civil authorities
at a moment's notice. In nearly 3,000 communities around the nation,
the Guard stands ready today--as it has since Jamestown was settled
nearly 400 years ago.
SUPPORT THE WAR FIGHT
Anytime, Anywhere
We, the Guard, must provide the kind of forces that America needs,
when America needs them.
One of Secretary Rumsfeld's key mandates to the Services is to find
ways to make the National Guard more ready and accessible in its
federal warfighting role. Working in conjunction with the Army and
Joint Forces Command, our goal is to dramatically improve the current
mobilization and demobilization process. Under current guidelines, it
can take several weeks to months to prepare an Army National Guard unit
to mobilize and deploy--compared to the Air Guard model where units
deploy in a matter of hours or days.
We need to study and adapt the Air Guard model where possible.
We are working with the Army to change its go-to-war protocols. It
is no longer practical to follow cold war regimens of train, alert,
mobilize, train, certify, deploy. We must move to train, alert, deploy.
By updating home station facilities, taking advantage of new
technologies, and funding units at a higher level of readiness, we hope
to create a new 21st century minuteman. The Guard must and will
continue to operate across the full spectrum of national security
missions. But, new asymmetrical threats call for a different kind of
warfighter and different mission systems. We need to be smarter,
lighter, more agile, and more lethal.
The National Guard force structure does not stand alone unto
itself, but rather represents a 38 percent slice of the total Army and
approximately 34 percent of the total Air Force. As ongoing operations
abroad reveal the need to rebalance the types of units in the Army and
the Air Force, the Guard will be a leader in embracing this change.
Likewise, if studies indicate that Army divisions or Air Force wings
are no longer needed, it is our view that we, like the active component
and reserves, must change. We are working closely with the Army as we
move to a balanced, modular force. Similarly, through Vanguard, we are
working with the Air Force to meet the aerospace needs of the future.
HOMELAND DEFENSE
Here and Abroad for over 365 Years
We are this country's longest lasting, longest serving military
organization; we predate our nation. Today, the National Guard is ready
to write a brand new page in its long and heroic history, and get the
mission accomplished.
When you call out the National Guard, you call out America's joint
home team.
The Guard was there when it was needed, demonstrating the flexible
accessibility inherent in the unique multi-status roles of the Guard.
Our Homeland Defense and Security roles mandate that we be capable of
seamlessly operating in federal and state intergovernmental and
interagency roles. September 11th and its aftermath are illustrative of
the Guard's new operating environment and its unique flexibility to
respond to our nation's needs.
Within 24 hours of the attack on the World Trade Center, 8,500 New
York Army and Air National Guardmembers were on the streets of New York
in State Active Duty status. Within 72 hours of President Bush's
request to the Governors, Guardmembers were assisting civil authorities
in protecting U.S. airports (USC Title 32 status). As security of our
skies became paramount after September 11th, the Air National Guard
logged more than 30,000 incident free, fully armed combat air patrol
missions (USC Title 10 status) over the United States.
Congress funded the formation of joint Weapons of Mass Destruction
Civil Support Teams within the National Guard beginning in 1999. These
units were designed to provide direct assistance to civilian emergency
responders in the event of a chemical, biological, nuclear or
radiological attack upon the homeland. Few in numbers and still in
their operational infancy in 2001, nevertheless it was one of these
units--New York's 2nd Civil Support Team--that became the first
organized unit of any military service or component to arrive on Ground
Zero on the morning of September 11th, sampling the air to ensure that
no biological or chemical contaminants were present.
Since September 11th, National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction
Civil Support Teams operate daily in communities throughout the nation.
They are in a unique position to provide emergency community response
with full communications capability to the local, state and federal
levels. Moreover, they are actively involved in planning and
integration of Guard assets in local and state emergency plans.
Currently, we have 32 fully certified Weapons of Mass Destruction
Civil Support Teams. Congress recognized the urgent need to expand that
number, and 23 teams are scheduled to stand up in the next four years,
beginning with 12 this year alone. The Guard has initiated several
dramatic new programs that will further increase and improve our
Homeland Defense capability, while at the same time enhancing our
ability as warfighters.
We are actively pursuing the following initiatives:
--Organizing 12 Enhanced Response Force Packages. These forces will
consist of a National Guard Civil Support Team, an enhanced
division medical company with a 150-person per hour
decontamination and treatment capability, an enhanced engineer
company with specialized search and recovery equipment, and a
task-trained combat unit capable of supporting law enforcement.
These force packages will meet a previously identified Northern
Command request for capabilities.
--Expanding National Guard involvement in Ground-based Mid-course
Missile Defense, Cyber and Information Operations, Space, and
Intelligence Operations for both the Army and Air Guard. One
model we hope to emulate is the Guard's highly successful
experience in manning Nike missile batteries in the 1960s and
1970s. At that time, traditional and full-time Guardsmen served
together in units under State control, with self-activating
orders that automatically brought them into a Federal status
when the enemy attacked.
--Creating National Guard Reaction Forces through dual missioning and
training of existing units. These units will be immediately
available to State and Federal governments and for Homeland
Security purposes. They are already forward deployed throughout
the United States. The units will retain full war fight and
homeland security capabilities. These forces will also meet a
previously identified Northern Command request for forces
requirement.
We are expanding our interagency and intergovernmental efforts and
look forward to increased cooperation between the National Guard, the
states and the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense. We are
participating in exercises and planning at state and local levels, and
we have shared our Automated Exercise and Assessment System with them.
We are working with the national emergency responder and management
associations as well.
The National Guard has a significant number of units capable of
``dual-use''--that is to say, the combat skill sets in these units are
directly applicable to peacetime domestic support operations. We have
developed a force management model that will help us to ensure that
sufficient appropriate forces, properly resourced are available to the
Governors for State, Homeland Defense and support to Homeland Security
missions.
We will leverage the units, training and resources in our existing
war fight capabilities to expand and enhance the roles we can perform
in homeland security. We will make smarter use of force structure and
make minor modifications to mission essential task lists to
geometrically increase capabilities. We will provide homeland defense
capabilities in force packages, built from standardized warfighting
units. By doing this in our role as a state military force, we will
raise the threshold at which commitment of federal military resources
to non-warfighting tasks becomes necessary.
TRANSFORMATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Relevant, Reliable, Ready and Accessible
Transformation is a state of mind. It is about how we think,
organize and approach the future. We are transforming our headquarters
and our capabilities to shape our future. We reorganized the National
Guard Bureau from three separate organizations into a joint
organization effective July 1, 2003. We streamlined and flattened the
organization, making it more efficient, capable, and aligned its staff
functions and responsibilities with those of the Joint Staff and the
combatant commanders.
We have undertaken aggressive employer and family programs. The
three-legged stool of the Guard and Reserve--Service member, family,
and employer--is only as sturdy as the weakest leg. We are talking with
the nation's major employers and the states are aggressively doing the
same with employers in their area. Our family program was the model on
which the entire Department of Defense program was based, and we
continue to work to address the information, emotional and support
needs of our families. To that end, I have authorized a position in
each state to specifically deal with employer support.
The State Adjutants General consolidated 162 State headquarters
organizations into 54 doctrinally aligned Standing Joint Force
Headquarters--creating, effective in October 2003, a single joint force
headquarters in each state for all Army and Air Guard activities. This
will ensure a rapid and coordinated response to any emergency, making
the National Guard more versatile, relevant, and able to meet our
national security challenges.
Our joint team will become seamless with the other five services--
the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard--and their
reserve components as well. It will be capable of meeting active
component requirements and serving as an integrator for active
component and reserve component consequence management operations.
Together with our sister services, we will fight and win this war on
terrorism both here at home and abroad.
Readiness is a product of resources and training. We must focus our
training on the myriad missions we will be asked to perform, and we--
the National Guard Bureau--must obtain the resources necessary for the
Soldiers and Airmen to accomplish the mission.
Some of the changes contemplated will require the cooperation of
Congress in amending existing law.
Because of its increased relevance, the National Guard Bureau
should be organized so that the senior officer of the Army and the Air
National Guard of the United States on duty with the National Guard
Bureau should become the Acting Chief if the office is vacant or if the
Chief is absent or disabled. This change is necessary because of the
elevation of the Directors of the Army and Air National Guard to
Lieutenant General, without a concomitant promotion of the Vice Chief
of the National Guard Bureau. Similarly, the Vice Chief of the National
Guard Bureau should become the Director of the Joint Staff of the
National Guard Bureau. This designation reflects the roles and
functions of this individual within the National Guard Bureau's joint
organization.
CONCLUSION
We are transforming the Guard in all domains--the way we fight, the
way we do business, and the way we work with others--to provide the
Guard America needs today and tomorrow.
Training must produce enhanced readiness, immediate accessibility,
and individual and unit capability to conduct operations at home and
abroad.
We have approached our transformation in an open, collegial manner,
talking with all affected stakeholders including the Governors and
working as a team--Adjutants General, National Guard Bureau, Army, Air
Force, Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff and others--
to do what is right for America.
As we look forward to the new fiscal year, the National Guard is
enthusiastically engaged in planning, programming, and executing the
extraordinary changes that are ahead. We are evolving in ways that will
allow us to accomplish our state and federal missions more efficiently
than ever before, as we design mechanisms to seamlessly operate in the
Defense Department, interagency, and intergovernmental environments.
The National Guard will continue to defend our nation, both at home
and abroad, in both its state and federal capacities, as it has for 367
years. It will continue to serve as the reserve component without peer
in the world. This is our birthright--it is the legacy of the
Minuteman.
______
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz
OVERVIEW
The Army National Guard stands with the Active Component as we wage
war against the purveyors of global terrorism. Today, Soldiers in the
Army National Guard have answered the call of the nation and are
serving across the nation and the world. The Army National Guard, as an
integral part of the U.S. Army, is transforming itself to better
prosecute the Global War on Terrorism while remaining a ready and
relevant force that is prepared to defend our homeland.
The Posture Statement provides the Army National Guard an
opportunity to share with Congress what we have done in the past year
and where we are heading in the future. The Army Directorate in the
National Guard Bureau is responsible for how the Army National Guard
supports the Soldiers, their families, and their employers in
communities throughout the United States. Our Soldiers come from every
state, territory, and segment of society, and we recognize that we
support and are supported by those around us. The Army National Guard
is a community-based military organization and, as such, we are
prepared to assist our cities and towns in times of natural or man-made
disaster. Army National Guard Soldiers are Citizen-Soldiers, and we
recognize that we must fulfill dual roles as ordinary citizens and as
members of the Armed Forces of the United States.
As the Army National Guard continues to protect our nation, the
Chief, National Guard Bureau, has identified three priorities for the
Army National Guard that will nurture this responsibility: Support the
War Fight, Homeland Defense, and Transformation for the 21st Century.
As our enemies seek ways to wage their war of terrorism in the United
States and around the world, we are and must remain ready. The Army
National Guard has proven itself capable of securing our borders while
simultaneously carrying out a variety of missions across the globe. Our
goals are to maximize our ability to support our Soldiers, protect our
nation, and support the warfighters by providing a trained and ready
force.
It cannot be stressed enough that the Army National Guard has an
increased and more vital role in the U.S. Army than ever before. The
U.S. Army is at the forefront of the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As Reserve Components of the Army continue to deploy at increasing
rates, the Army National Guard joins the Army in its objectives to
remain ready and relevant in the midst of a war where our enemy is
elusive. We are transforming ourselves into a more flexible,
responsive, and capabilities-based force that is able to seamlessly
integrate into the larger Army. As the Army transforms itself from the
Current Force to the Future Force, so will the Army National Guard.
The Army National Guard is ready for every challenge both here at
home and abroad. We are not and cannot be complacent. The support we
receive from our citizens, families, employers, and legislatures is
invaluable. Our Constitution charges us to defend America, and we will
do this with the same dedication and steadfast purpose as we have done
for nearly 400 years.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
SUPPORT THE WAR FIGHT
The Guard Overseas
Not since World War II have so many Soldiers been activated for
wars. The Army National Guard demonstrated its responsiveness by
providing ready units in support of numerous overseas missions
throughout 2003. These missions ranged from combat operations to Post-
Hostility and Stability Operations. At the close of the year, 75,000
National Guardsmen were on active duty serving overseas. The year began
with our Soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and ended with Soldiers from
the Vermont and Oklahoma National Guard training the Afghanistan
National Army. There are just over 4,000 Soldiers in Afghanistan today.
The war in Iraq required the activation of 69,380 Soldiers and there
are just under 60,000 serving there today. The war in Iraq and in
Afghanistan exacted a toll on our most precious resource, the Soldier.
Understandably and regrettably there have been 60 Soldiers who have
lost their lives fighting these two campaigns. The war in Iraq saw the
activation of brigade size units, Attack Aviation Battalions, Combat
Engineers, and Military Police. The Army has plans to schedule several
more brigades and potentially a Division Headquarters for future
rotations. Most Soldiers that were activated for the war served an
average of 18 months, with 12 months of duty in Iraq. Related to the
two overseas wars has been a demand on our Military Police units to
guard the enemy Prisoners of War in Cuba. In addition to the direct
role in the overseas wars, the National Guard remains the Army's
primary force conducting operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Sinai.
Just under 6,000 National Guardsmen are there today. What were once
active duty missions are now principally missions of the Guard.
There are two other noteworthy events for the Guard's overseas
duty. The Army National Guard was given the mission to protect ships in
transit to the Persian Gulf, and we also provided 9,000 Soldiers to the
Air Force to protect their bases abroad and at home. These unplanned
missions simply demonstrate the accessibility, reliability, and
capability of the National Guard. Our overseas presence today is
supporting missions on five continents, and the future demands a level
of commitment similar to previous years. Not since World War II has our
call to duty been so great. It is important to note that our total
commitment since 9/11 has been a call to federal duty for 175,734
Soldiers. That represents just over 50 percent of our force of 350,000.
Readiness of the Force
Well before the attacks of September 11th, Army National Guard
units were being mobilized more frequently. The Total Force Policy in
the Army worked. During the Cold War period of our Army, the
expectation of readiness for the Reserve Components was to be
``generally ready for war.'' There were plans with TPFDDs and windows
of time for expected deployment. The plan was to move to an active duty
installation and then provide units with additional equipment and extra
training. Since 9/11, that level of readiness and window of time have
changed. Today our units are required to deploy at the highest level of
readiness, and the time from notification to deployment is sometimes a
matter of hours. In 2003, our units did extensive exchanging of
Soldiers and equipment as they prepared for war in Iraq. We
demonstrated flexibility, but placed unnecessary hardships on our
Soldiers in the process. Soldiers went to war with equipment they had
not previously trained upon. Thousands went to war with units other
than their own. This method of exchanging resources after a unit
mobilizes is not conducive to long-term success. Units must be manned,
trained, and equipped before they get the call to go to war. Train--
Mobilize--Deploy! The Army National Guard's level of readiness in the
future should be C1, the highest level. The Army National Guard must
modernize when the Army modernizes. We must raise the Full-Time Manning
levels to 100 percent of Requirements. Our failure to resource Army
National Guard units for any mission will place undue hardship on
Soldiers as they go to war.
Medical and Dental Readiness
The Army and the Army National Guard have a vested interest in the
care of Soldiers. The Army requires physical fitness prior to deploying
to a war. Today's deployment timelines are shorter, and there have been
some delays in our ability to respond to war because of the medical
readiness of our Soldiers. Most, but not all, Soldiers have medical and
dental plans. There are limits on the Army's ability to fix medical
shortcomings after the Soldier is mobilized for war. We have
experienced medical backlogs at some of the Army's installations
responsible for providing medical treatment.
The future of medical readiness rests in providing complete medical
evaluations prior to being alerted for war. We envision that each of
our State's Joint Force Headquarters provide support in the initial
care for Soldiers and refer Soldiers for medical support beyond their
capacity.
The National Guard plans to provide periodic physicals to its
Soldiers. This will enable our units to transition faster from a state
of peace to war. We also envision leveraging the medical capabilities
of our communities to offset the shortages in military medical
providers. Medical readiness and health care for our Soldiers are key
variants to our ability to train, mobilize, and deploy in the fashion
of a Minuteman.
Training Soldiers and Growing Leaders
Supporting the Warfighter will be best accomplished by training the
force with an integrated training strategy for individuals, leaders,
and units through live, virtual, and constructive training.
Throughout 2003, the Army National Guard prepared units and
Soldiers for wars and responded to the nation's call for contingency
operations. Our units trained at the Army National Guard Training
Centers and the Army's Combat Training Centers. They participated in
joint exercises and conducted training deployments overseas.
The key to training Brigades is to have them participate in the
Brigade Command and Battle Staff training. Five brigades participated
in this training in 2003. Seven of the eight Army National Guard
divisions participated in the Battle Command Training Program at the
Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk in Louisiana in 2003.
The Army National Guard is committed to producing the best
Soldiers. An excellent training venue is the Army National Guard
training centers. These centers train Soldiers, simulate real-world
conditions, and provide training enablers for the commanders.
Another way the Army National Guard achieves training excellence is
through Distributed Learning. The Army National Guard's emphasis on
Distributed Learning reduces the time Soldiers are away from their home
stations, eliminates excess travel time and costs, and takes less time
than training in a formal school setting. The goal of this program is
to maximize training time by providing more local access to training
and education at any time and at any location.
The Army National Guard's limited training time, training dollars,
and sometimes access to training ranges has generated an increased
reliance on low-cost, small-footprint training technologies. We have
invested in a virtual training infrastructure to meet or exceed the
Army's training requirements. As more missions such as homeland defense
and weapons of mass destruction are required of the National Guard, the
ability of our forces to respond requires that we are ready at all
times. The following new virtual technologies are tools critical to
achieving these readiness objectives:
--Advanced Bradley Full Crew Interactive Skills Trainer.--The Bradley
Fighting Vehicle, an armored personnel carrier, is the primary
weapon system of the U.S. Army Mechanized Infantry, as well as
a critical system for the cavalry. The current force structure
plans have the Army National Guard providing more than half of
the U.S. military's Bradley Fighting Vehicle force. The Army
Infantry School approved the Advanced Bradley Full Crew
Interactive Skills Trainer as a precision gunnery trainer. This
is a low-cost, deployable training system that attaches
directly to the Bradley and therefore does not require a
simulated vehicle mockup, thereby better preparing the crew for
live fire gunnery.
--Abrams Full Crew Interactive Skills Trainer.--The Army National
Guard provides 54 percent of the armor force in the U.S.
military. This equates to nearly 2,500 Abrams tanks with the
vast majority being the M1A1 configuration. The Abrams Full
Crew Interactive Skills Trainer is approved by U.S. Army Armor
School as a precision gunnery trainer. This, too, is a low-
cost, deployable training system that attaches directly to the
Abrams tank and therefore does not require a simulated vehicle
mockup, thereby better preparing the crew for live fire
gunnery.
--Simulations Network Rehost.--In the mid-1980s, the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency developed a new concept in simulation
training called the Network. The goal of this trainer is to
expose mounted combat forces to mock battles in an effort to
develop tactical maneuver skills and improve situation
awareness of commanders. This program provides a highly cost-
effective means of providing basic tactical platoon-level
training capability to a highly dispersed force. The
Simulations Network units are platoon sets for the Abrams Main
Battle Tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The National
Guard's force structure accounts for approximately 50 percent
of these mounted combat forces.
--Table Top Trainers (M1A1 and M2).--The Table Top Trainer program is
the linchpin of the National Guard's virtual training strategy.
The ammunition and operational tempo cost to train this fleet
exceeds $1 billion annually. The virtual training systems have
been introduced to offset costs that were even higher in
previous years. A single low-fidelity Table Top Trainer can be
reconfigured to supply 60 to 70 percent of the associated
skills training for Abrams Tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles,
and Stryker Light Armor Vehicles. The remaining skills tasks
can be trained in the available 25 percent training time in the
high-fidelity trainers or through live fire events.
Combat Training Centers and National Training Center
In 2003, the Army National Guard sent over 28,000 Soldiers to
participate in training at the Army's two Combat Training Centers. This
training program cost $23 million but produced the most significant
increase to training readiness for those units and Soldiers.
North Carolina's 30th Brigade formed the core of a 34-unit, 15-
state task force comprising the 5,545 Army National Guard Soldiers who
deployed to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, in
May and June 2003. This training rotation was the culminating exercise
in an intensive four-year train-up. The North Carolina Joint Force
Headquarters formed Task Force Tar Heel that served as the division
headquarters throughout the train-up and at the National Training
Center. The 30th and North Carolina's Joint Force Headquarters executed
wartime mobilization tasks by deploying the entire task force's
equipment and personnel from facilities across the country to Fort
Irwin's desert environment.
During 2003, additional Engineer, Field Artillery, and Infantry
units representing 3,732 Soldiers deployed to the National Training
Center in support of Active Component rotations. These units served
both as friendly and opposing force units integrated side by side with
their active military counterparts. An additional 1,123 Soldiers
assigned to Direct Support and General Support Maintenance Companies
were sent to Fort Irwin to supplement maintenance and reconstitution
operations.
Joint Readiness Training Center
In 2003, the majority of Florida's 53rd Brigade was mobilized and
deployed to Iraq. In preparation for this mission, they underwent
training at the Joint Readiness Training Center. While there, they
supported the training of the 10th Mountain Division, 7th Special
Forces Group, and the 3rd Brigade (Stryker), 2nd Infantry Division.
Combined Arms Center
Through the Army National Guard's Battle Command Training Center,
the U.S. Army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas,
supported the 29th Infantry Division and 49th Armored Division during
their Battle Command Training Program rotation in 2003. The training
center also conducted twelve Brigade Command and Battle Staff Training
Program seminars. Over 15,500 Army National Guard Soldiers participated
in these training events.
Force-on-Force Training
The Army National Guard Force-on-Force Training Program supports
the readiness of the National Guard's ground combat units. This program
simulates battles that are fought using laser-targeting systems to
replicate live ammunition. Some 2,080 Soldiers from Army National Guard
divisions participated in Force-on-Force events in 2003.
In 2003, Army National Guard brigades participated in Battle
Command Training Program staff exchanges, train-up exercises at the
Combat Training Centers, and gunnery and divisional artillery training.
A total of 30,034 Army National Guard Soldiers, 8 percent of the Army
National Guard's endstrength, conducted training at or in association
with the Army's training facilities at a cost of approximately $26
million. The payoff of this relationship is obvious. Three of these
brigades, the 30th, the 39th, and the 81st were directed to prepare for
war in Iraq. They will deploy there early in 2004.
Recruiting and Retention
The Army National Guard ended 2003 with 1,091 Soldiers above its
endstrength goal of 350,000, a result of surpassing retention goals and
retaining quality Soldiers. Despite the unprecedented challenges at
home and abroad, the Army National Guard validated the three-tenet
Strength Maintenance philosophy of recruiting, attrition management,
and retention. The ``Oath to Expiration of Term of Service'' philosophy
has helped to create a partnership with the units by building greater
trust and cooperation between the recruiting force, the full-time
support force, and unit leadership. The Army National Guard has
developed numerous tools to ensure continued success:
--Highly successful advertising campaigns and recruiting initiatives
that integrate the recruiting and retention force with
traditional unit members.
--Dynamic recruiting and retention programs to highlight the
relevance, features, and benefits of Army National Guard
service to current and potential Soldiers.
--Soldier and family member feedback programs that assess unit
environments and determine Soldier motivations for joining and
remaining in the Army National Guard.
--Post-mobilization surveys and retention initiatives to facilitate
the re-integration of the unit and its members following
deployment.
--Post-mobilization ``Freedom Salute'' campaign to recognize Soldier,
family member, and employer support of extensive overseas
deployments.
--Development of Recruit Sustainment Programs to better prepare new
Soldiers for initial active duty training and promote unit
strength readiness.
--Attrition management/retention programs to educate leaders on
caring for and mentoring Soldiers in the high operations tempo
environment of the Global War on Terror.
--Resource allocation that optimizes the effectiveness of the
Strength Maintenance Philosophy and the teaming of the
Recruiting and Retention Force and traditional Army National
Guard Soldiers.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selected Reserve Incentives Program
Up to $8,000 Enlistment Bonus for Non-Prior Service enlistees
--$3,000 for critical skill
--$3,000 for non-prior service bonus
--$2,000 for Off-Peak ship to training
$3,000 Civilian Acquired Skills Program for NPS enlistees
$2,500 for a first 3-Year Re-enlistment/Extension Bonus
$2,000 for a second 3-Year Re-enlistment/Extension Bonus
$2,500 for a first 3-year prior service Enlistment Bonus
$2,000 for a second 3-year prior service Enlistment Bonus
$50 per month for Affiliation Bonus (72-month maximum)
$10,000 Student Loan Repayment Program
$50,000 Health Professional Loan Repayment Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard Incentive Programs are currently undergoing
review by program managers for potential adjustments to both the
monetary amounts and the payment schedules of the various incentives.
We believe these improvements are necessary to compensate our Soldiers,
who are contributing to our nation's defense and deploying overseas on
a continuous rotational basis. Our goal is to retain our Soldiers when
they return.
Army National Guard Full-Time Support
Dedicated men and women who provide Full-Time Support to Army
National Guard Soldiers are a critical part of the Army National Guard.
They enhance readiness by assisting Unit Commanders in managing day-to-
day requirements. In recent years, the Army National Guard has begun to
expand its Full-Time Support force in order to better serve its
Soldiers and the units to which they are assigned. To meet readiness
requirements, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, in concert with
the state Adjutants General, has placed increasing Full-Time Support
authorizations as one of the top priorities for the Army National
Guard.
The National Guard Bureau will place new Full-Time Support manpower
into our units or into positions that directly impact unit readiness.
An example is the Military Technicians that will be directly placed
into organizational maintenance shops. Junior enlisted grades will
increase through fiscal year 2012 and will be applied to the unit level
to accomplish many of the missions where it is not uncommon to find
single Active Guard Reserve Soldiers working today.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Army National Guard Well-Being
The Army National Guard Well-Being Team works in concert with the
Active Army and the Reserve as part of a holistic initiative to address
various issues affecting Soldiers, families, retirees, veterans, and
civilians. The initiative uses various methods to measure success,
weakness, or failure in programs that affect the total Army force.
Based on the outcomes of these measures, policies and programs are
modified or assets are re-allocated to impact the total Army force.
Diversity Initiatives and Equal Opportunity
The Army National Guard Diversity Initiatives Team addresses
demographic realities impacting the Army National Guard as a community-
based force. The role of women in American society continues to evolve.
More positions in the Army National Guard are open to women based on
changes in force structure. With the rapid advance in technology and
changes in society, diversity also hinges on generational, technical,
and cultural differences.
The Army National Guard Equal Opportunity Team proactively
addresses team development and cultural exchanges to foster more
productive units and Soldiers. Fundamental to the mission of the Army
National Guard, the Equal Opportunity Office addresses issues that
arise relating to race, color, gender, sexual harassment, national
origin, and religion. The Army National Guard is steadfast in
maintaining zero tolerance for all forms and types of discrimination.
The Army National Guard will guarantee that all are treated with
dignity and respect.
HOMELAND DEFENSE
Domestic Operations
In 2003, the Army National Guard provided 419,463 mandays in 42
states, two territories, and the District of Columbia to state-level
emergency support missions. The year began with Tropical Storm Lilli
along the Gulf Coast that required 9,835 mandays for cleanup and
security. Super-typhoon Pongsona hit Guam and required 18,822 mandays
to provide traffic control, water, debris removal, and security.
The Army National Guard provided 318,131 mandays to Key Asset
Protection, the most significant category of Emergency Support
Missions. The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster demonstrated how quickly
the National Guard responds from a ``standing start.'' On the day of
the disaster, thousands of Army National Guard Soldiers from five
states were on duty, recovering and safeguarding debris. This mission
required 18,816 mandays of support.
The Army National Guard also provided support to special events,
including assistance to law enforcement for the Super Bowl and the
Kentucky Derby. Support to governors in response to Hurricane Isabel
ended a busy year.
The Army National Guard routinely performs training missions that
simultaneously support and assist our communities. The Innovative
Readiness Training Program required 205,000 mandays of support in 2003.
Programs included improving schools and parks, building and repairing
roads, administering immunizations, and providing medical care to
under-served areas.
The California Army National Guard is leading an effort to
construct access roads to the United States-Mexican border to assist
the Border Patrol in dealing with the growing tide of illegal
immigrants and narcotics. In Alaska, the Guard is leading a five-year
project that will result in a 15-mile road connecting two villages on
Annette Island, a trip that currently can only be made by boat. The
Army National Guard in Maine, Colorado, Arizona, Illinois, North
Carolina, Texas, and Alaska conducted medical training exercises to
provide inoculations, physician contacts, dental care, and optometrist
services to under-served populations. Innovative Readiness Training
projects benefit both the Army National Guard and the communities.
Missile Defense
Defense against ballistic missile attack is a key component of the
National Security Strategy in providing for Homeland Security. The
National Guard will play a major role in this mission as the force
provider for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system in the initial
defensive operations/defensive operations phase per National Security
Presidential Directive 23, dated December 16, 2002.
The National Guard received an increase of 100 in Active Guard and
Reserve authorizations in the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget
request to support this mission. Ground-based Midcourse Missile Defense
is a critical element of the Administration's National Security
Strategy and defense of the homeland. This program is continually
evolving and undergoing refinement.
Continuity of Operations
The National Guard's Continuity of Operations Program was
conceptualized in 1988 and took on added importance after September 11,
2001. In support of homeland defense, the Guard is utilizing this
program as a means to ensure continuous command and control in case of
emergency.
Executive orders, Department of Defense directives, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff directives, and Army Regulations require a
Continuity of Operations Program. This protects key leaders; allows for
the continuity of essential missions; provides for relocation sites;
protects vital records and operating files; and ensures survivability,
recoverability, and the ability to reconstitute. The National Guard has
taken a three-level approach to achieving this end:
--The first level is the Headquarters Department of the Army
Continuity of Operations Program that provides the active
component with the Army National Guard leadership to support
the War fight.
--The second level is the National Guard Continuity of Operations
Program that allows both the Army National Guard and the Air
National Guard to continue supporting the states and
territories in the event of a national disaster.
--Finally, the National Guard is also providing the platform for the
54 states, territories, and the District of Columbia to develop
their own Continuity of Operations Program initiatives to
support both homeland defense and the War fight at the state
and local level.
The National Guard plans to exercise the Continuity of Operations
Program at all three levels to ensure readiness and preparedness for
any situation. Ultimately, Continuity of Operations Programs will
ensure that no matter the situation, the National Guard will be ready
to continue its essential missions.
TRANSFORMATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
The Army National Guard is changing. Although our forces continue
to meet today's missions, tomorrow's force must be more versatile,
ready, and accessible than ever before. They must continue to be
capable of full-spectrum operations, but must be better equipped and
trained to defend the nation. Future Army National Guard forces must be
more interoperable with the Active Component and must be fully capable
of operating in a joint or interagency environment. Finally, Guard
forces must be postured to support long-term Stability and Support
Operations, Peacekeeping Operations, and the missions of the newest
Combatant Command, NORTHCOM.
In order to achieve these objectives, the Army National Guard must
attract and retain quality Soldiers. We must train and equip them to
accomplish the missions of tomorrow.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Force Balance and Restructure
The Department of the Army is revising priorities to better support
the National Military Strategy. Under the direction of the Secretary of
Defense, the Army is exchanging some formations from the Active
Component and the National Guard. These realignments will better align
the Army National Guard and the Army in supporting the warfighting and
Homeland Defense missions.
Another significant aspect of this force balance analysis is an
initiative by the Director of the Army National Guard to reduce the
Army National Guard's force structure with its congressionally
authorized personnel endstrength. This rebalancing effort will enable
the Army National Guard to deploy units within five to 30 days because
their readiness will be improved.
The results of force balance adjustments, coupled with the
alignment of force structure and personnel endstrength, will allow the
Army National Guard to provide divisions, brigade combat teams, and
supporting forces that are ready and capable of supporting the full
spectrum of military operations required by the National Military
Strategy.
High Demand Units
Since 1995, the Army has placed a high demand on the Military
Police in the National Guard. Beginning with missions to the Balkans,
the rate of work for these units has only increased. Today they are
used extensively in the Global War on Terrorism, principally in
guarding prisoners. To reduce the stress on Military Police units, we
have started to convert Field Artillery units into Military Police.
Eighteen additional Military Police units will be organized in the next
two years.
Modular Units
The Chief of Staff, Army, has directed a comprehensive reevaluation
of the Army's corps, divisions, and brigade structures with the intent
of making these units more expeditionary through modular design.
Modular units will allow for a ``plug and play'' capability, which will
enable the Army to provide the flexible mix of capabilities needed by
the warfighter. The Army National Guard will adapt existing force
structure to the new design envisioned by the leadership of the Army.
Over the next few years, we will reconfigure existing brigades,
including the 15 enhanced Separate Brigades, to the new Brigade Combat
Team design. We will have 34 Brigade Combat Teams and 8 Divisional
Headquarters that will be designed in an infantry and armored mix
identical to the Active Component's. This modular capability will
provide a new level of flexibility to our organizations as they support
the full spectrum of military operations. Distribution of new
capabilities will be equitable across the states.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2005 Army National Guard Equipment Modernization Shortfall
List
High-Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV)
Single-Channel Ground and Airborne Radios (SINC-GARS)
Night Vision devices
Black Hawk utility helicopter
Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks (HEMTT)
Small Arms
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)
Javelin Anti-Armor Missiles
Thermal Crew-Served Weapon Sight
Movement Tracking System
Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS)
Warlock Electronic Jamming Device
Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicle (TUAV)
M-22 Automatic Chemical Detector Alarm
Prophet Signal Intelligence System
Line Haul Tractor (M915A3)
22\1/2\-ton Trailer (M871A3)
Dump Truck (M917A1)
34-ton Trailer (M872A4)
Tactical Quiet Generators
Secure Mobile Anti-Jam Reliable Tactical Terminal (SMART-T)
Sentinel air defense radar system
Howitzer (LW 155)
Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (M2A2)
Hercules (M88A2 [heavy tank recovery vehicle])
----------------------------------------------------------------
Force Modernization
The Army's highest priority remains maintaining warfighting
readiness. In support of this priority, the Army National Guard is
pursuing a modernization strategy that will provide the nation with
compatible, interoperable, and strategically relevant forces well into
the future.
In the near term, we will ensure our Soldiers are equipped with
essential force protection items such as the latest body armor with
Small Arms Protective Insert plates for the outer tactical vests, the
latest Night Vision Devices, and small arms. To enhance near-term
readiness, the Army National Guard will focus on Army procurement of
the Black Hawk utility helicopter, High-Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled
Vehicles, Single-Channel Ground and Airborne Radios, Family of Medium
Tactical Vehicles, and M-22 Automatic Chemical Detector Alarm.
In the midterm, the Army National Guard will ensure the Army
earmarks sufficient funding to refurbish or recapitalize its current
forces to ensure fleets viability over the next several decades and for
future readiness and relevance. The Army National Guard will focus on
Current Force systems to include our primary aircraft, the Black Hawk,
CH-47 Chinook, and the Apache; the M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank; M2A2
Bradley Fighting Vehicle; M109A6 Paladin Howitzer; Heavy Expanded
Mobility Tactical Trucks; and the 5-ton truck fleet. The Army National
Guard will continue working with the Army to ensure program managers
bring systems cascaded to the Army National Guard's Divisional and
Corps troop units up to the required standard.
Army National Guard Aviation Modernization & Transformation
Throughout 2003, the focus of the Army National Guard aviation
modernization and transformation efforts was directed toward completion
of sweeping changes to unit organizational designs. Accompanying these
widespread conversions to the Army Aviation Transformation designs was
the continued turn-in of obsolete UH-1H/V ``Huey'' (Iroquois) and OH-
58A/C Kiowa series aircraft, and the fielding of the additional modern
UH-60A/L Black Hawk and AH-64A/D Apache series aircraft. Unfortunately,
while the Army National Guard net inventory of modernized aircraft
increased by 8 Black Hawk and 17 Apache aircraft during fiscal year
2003, the resulting Army National Guard levels for these aircraft did
not meet Army goals. In addition, most of the supporting or corrective
actions scheduled and funded for 2003, such as increased quantities of
special tools and spare parts, were effectively negated by the
increased requirements for contingency operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Based upon current projections, it is uncertain whether the
originally scheduled fiscal year 2002 figures for the Black Hawk and
Apache inventory in the Army National Guard will be reached by end of
fiscal year 2004. Army fixed-wing aviation modernization efforts are
underway to replace the Army National Guard's C-23 Sherpa cargo
aircraft with a more robust and capable airplane.
Information Operations
Army National Guard Information Operations Field Support Teams
assist the Brigade, Division, Corps, Joint Task Force, and Combatant
Commanders in integrating full-spectrum offensive and defensive
information operations, planning, execution, and assessment into their
operations. Additionally, Army National Guard full-spectrum Information
Operation Vulnerability Assessment Teams, Computer Emergency Response
Teams, and Joint Web Risk Assessment Cells contribute to national and
homeland security through the protection of information infrastructure.
The teams deploy domestically and globally to provide their specialized
service to the Combatant Commanders.
In fiscal year 2003, the Army National Guard's Information
Operations program continued to develop technically and tactically
focused units that supported the warfighting commanders and provided
protection of the nation's critical information infrastructure across
the operational continuum. During the same period, the Army National
Guard Information Operations section for the Pennsylvania Guard's 28th
Infantry Division and Minnesota's 34th Infantry Division deployed in
support of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. Seven
Information Operations Field Support Teams and one Computer Emergency
Response Team were mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The
Army National Guard Information Operations program also provided
operational support to all major commands and several Army divisions.
This program has trained over 2,400 Reserve and Active Component
Soldiers since fiscal year 2000. The program is scheduled to expand its
training capability, doubling its capacity in fiscal year 2004.
Logistics and Equipment
The Army National Guard is deployed all over the world in support
of the Global War on Terrorism and operations taking place in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Army National Guard personnel, in many cases,
train on and use older generation equipment to help support these
critical operations. This equipment is far behind the current
technologies, making much of what is used by the National Guard
incompatible with current Army equipment. And in many cases this older
equipment is more expensive to operate and maintain. An additional
challenge is that operational costs of older equipment are higher than
the new versions due to increased failure rates and decreased
availability of spare parts.
The Army National Guard has faced modernization challenges in
previous years for such systems as the High-Mobility Multi-Purpose
Wheeled Vehicles, Single-Channel Ground and Airborne Radios, chemical
and biological detection equipment, and Night Vision Devices. Many of
these challenges have had an adverse impact on units preparing for
overseas deployment.
The Army National Guard is making significant progress in
modernizing its heavy force and bridging its equipment to the digital
force. Emerging technologies will dramatically lower the logistics
impacts of these systems and substantially reduce repair times,
increase operational readiness rates, and eliminate obsolete and
unsustainable test equipment. This will allow the Army National Guard
to operate its heavy equipment at a higher operational rate while
reducing the overall costs for these systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Modernization Challenges in the Army National Guard
High-Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles
Single-Channel Ground and Airborne Radios
Chemical and biological detection equipment
Night Vision Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard currently has a significant portion of the
Army's maintenance infrastructure. This Cold War vestige is too
expensive and redundant. Under the Army's new maintenance strategy, the
Guard and other Army elements are transforming their maintenance
capabilities from a four-level system to a two-level system. This two-
level maintenance system will cut redundancy in the system and allow
Army maintenance personnel to more efficiently diagnose and maintain
equipment at the forward level.
Another focus area for the Army National Guard is the agility and
flexibility provided as a full partner in the Army Acquisition
Community. Whether it is grooming expert contingency contracting
personnel, facilitating Rapid Fielding activities, and/or participating
in major Army Program/Project Executive Offices, Army National Guard
Acquisition professionals are engaged in depth. The Army National Guard
is aggressively analyzing the task organization of Contingency Support
Contracting Teams. The members of these teams, task-organized from the
existing Modified Table of Organization and Equipment structure, are
identified and trained in advance to support specific deployment
requirements, giving deploying commanders the flexibility necessary to
accomplish their missions without relying on supporting unit
assistance.
Environmental Programs
Training the best force in the world requires the world's best
training areas. The Army National Guard's environmental programs
support the war-fighter and homeland defense by sustaining healthy
training lands. By reducing training restrictions, the Army National
Guard is able to be a good steward of the land it uses, while operating
top training facilities. The first Army Compatible Use Buffer under
Title 10, U.S. Code 2684A was recently implemented at Camp Blanding,
Florida. Within the designated buffer, and in collaboration with other
agencies, the National Guard has formed land-use agreements to ensure
land-use is compatible with military operations.
In addition, Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans will now
be used in lieu of critical habitat designation to ensure training
lands will continue to be used for training while simultaneously
protecting habitat. Also, the Army National Guard has instituted
restoration programs to clean and restore contaminated sites.
Initiatives at seven sites were recently completed and efforts at five
additional sites will be conducted through fiscal year 2005.
The Army National Guard is also improving its business practices as
they relate to the environment. Environmental program management will
be improved through the implementation of mission-focused Environmental
Management Systems. The Army National Guard will change its
environmental program from one of compliance to one that is proactive
and oriented toward the strategic goal of sustainable installations.
This will enhance the ability of warfighting units while minimizing
environmental impacts. Our organization is utilizing tools such as the
Environmental Performance Assessment System's Compliance Site
Inventory, a web-based module that allows environmental managers to
track, manage, and query a wide array of compliance data. Recent
program developments include a series of protocols to assess the
progress of the Environmental Management Systems.
A top priority for the Army National Guard is preparation for
fiscal year 2005 base realignment and closure actions and the effect
these will have on the environment. The Army National Guard expects to
have a complete inventory of training lands by 2006 through its
Geographic Information System program. These technologies are critical
to the battlefield intelligence component of transformation.
Part of the Joint Force
During the past year, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
directed the most profound organizational change to the National Guard
since the end of World War II. The heart of this transformation effort
was to combine the separate Army and Air National Guard Headquarters
that existed in each state and territory into a Joint Force
Headquarters, State. The vision was to make the National Guard more
responsive to regional Combatant Commanders and better enable the Guard
to defend the nation as part of the Joint Team.
The Army National Guard is capable of fighting as part of the Joint
Team. Today, operations in both peace and war are conducted by Joint
Forces. Army National Guard leaders must be trained and capable of
operating in a joint environment.
To ensure that its leaders are capable of this, the Army National
Guard is developing the means to expose them to joint operations at
various stages in their careers, and facilitate the opportunity for
them to receive Joint Professional Military Education. These
opportunities and experiences with the realities of joint operations
will better assure prepared leadership in the Army National Guard.
Predictability for Our Soldiers
The National Guard has manned units from local communities since
the first muster in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636. The National
Guard is a community-based force where a Soldier may spend an entire
career in the same battalion, company, battery, or troop. This provides
for unit cohesion, stability, continuity, and the bonds of camaraderie
that come from shared hardships and experiences.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Although we remain a ``Minuteman'' force, predictability is an
important factor in retaining our Citizen-Soldier. Since 1996, our
force has been consistently called to federal active duty. Our Soldiers
have and will continue to muster for any mission in the fine tradition
of the National Guard. However, the Global War on Terrorism is
projected to last several years. Feedback from the Soldiers, their
families, and their employers is consistent: they simply wish to know
when they are needed and for how long. Soldiers are asking for
predictability. When possible, mobilizations and deployments should be
forecasted in advance, potentially years ahead of a unit's deployment.
The Army National Guard is working towards instituting a Predictable
Deployment Cycle that will provide units a forecast on overseas
deployments. This predictable cycle looks at using a unit only one time
in a six-year period. This is a benchmark. While the National Guard
stands ready for any mission at any time, this concept will help
alleviate the magnitude of the unknown.
Home Station Mobilization
Home Station Mobilization is a National Guard initiative that
empowers the Joint Force Headquarters, State, with greater
responsibilities for the mobilization of units deploying to war. The
Joint Force Headquarters, State, assume responsibility for all
mobilization processing activities that are currently done at active
duty installations. This expedites the mobilization of the National
Guard and their employment into theaters of operation. Improved
efficiencies in mobilization allow the Army to maximize the operational
capability of the force. Three units successfully conducted Home
Station Mobilization and demobilization in fiscal year 2003.
Strategic Readiness System
The Army National Guard implemented the Strategic Readiness System
in 2003 to more accurately capture unit readiness. This is an
integrated strategic management and measurement system that ensures
that all levels of the Army recognize and align their operations to the
vision, objectives, and initiatives of the Army Plan. It measures each
element's success in achieving these goals. The Strategic Readiness
System has assisted Army transformation by changing the way the Army
National Guard approaches and reports readiness data.
Personnel and Human Resources
Continuing Army National Guard participation in the Department of
Defense Personnel Transformation includes immediate movement towards
the implementation of the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources
System during 2005-2006. This human resource system aligns the Army
National Guard with a Defense vision and goal of a Joint Service
integrated personnel and pay system. It will provide support throughout
the life cycle of a service member's career. Development and
implementation are proceeding under the direction of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness in coordination with
all services and components. This human resource system will streamline
the Guardsman transition from a non-federal to federal active duty
status.
The Army National Guard's Permanent Electronic Records Management
System is a web-based system utilizing digital imagery to store and
retrieve personnel records. Its importance lies in its seamless records
management capability throughout the Army, enhancing both mobilization
and personnel readiness.
By consolidating the administrative operation of human resources in
one place, the Permanent Electronic Records Management System allows
personnel records to follow a Soldier regardless of component. Army
National Guard enlisted records, currently in hard copy, will be
converted to an electronic form in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. It will
also 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.
Moving from a paper system to a digital 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 and programmed for
fielding in fiscal year 2005.
CONCLUSION
The Army National Guard remains a unique capability with its State
and Federal mission. As a community-based force, we are entrusted with
the responsibility to protect our citizens' liberties and our nation's
freedoms. Army National Guardsmen have a warrior's ethos and a loyalty
to respond to any Governor or Presidential call to duty.
Our Soldiers have been called upon more than ever to provide
security to our nation. We are a ready and relevant force, but we will
continue to raise our readiness level to C1, the highest level. We are
committed to obtain the necessary resources in the areas of
modernization, training, and equipping. Our Soldiers will not reach
their fullest potential readiness with outdated equipment, limited
health care, and unpredictable deployment cycles. In all areas,
however, we remain dedicated to using our resources efficiently and
prudently.
The Army National Guard continues its transformation into a leaner,
more agile and ready force. As the Army National Guard continues to
operate in concert with the U.S. Army, it will fight wars and ensure
the safety and well-being of the American people.
______
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Daniel James, III
OVERVIEW
What an incredible year this has been for the nation and the Air
National Guard. We've continued to make great strides in securing peace
for the nation in the Global War on Terrorism. We have validated
everything we've said about our capabilities: we train to fight and can
accomplish the mission professionally and, most importantly, bring the
will of the American people to the conflict.
Our contributions over the past two years and specifically in
Operation Iraqi Freedom have been tremendous. Since September 11th,
we've mobilized over 36,000 members and have flown over 111,000 sorties
for over 340,000 hours. One-third of the Air Force aircraft in
Operation Iraqi Freedom was from the Air Guard. We flew 100 percent of
the Operation Enduring Freedom A-10 missions and 66 percent of the
Iraqi Freedom A-10 taskings. We accomplished 45 percent of the F-16
taskings. The A-10s flew more combat missions in the Iraqi war than any
other weapon system. Thanks to our innovative culture, we modernized A-
10 and F-16 Block 52 aircraft with LITENING II targeting pods in just
three months, giving them precision guided munitions capability.
Because of this capability, we were 100 percent successful in stopping
SCUD missile launches in the Western Iraqi desert.
We flew 86 percent of the Operation Iraqi Freedom tanker sorties.
We accomplished this primarily through the Northeast Tanker Task Force
which was operating within 24 hours of initial call from Air Mobility
Command. In line with our militia spirit, that task force was initially
manned through volunteerism. A total of 18 units supported it; 15 were
from the Air Guard.
Iraqi Freedom was also the first employment of the integrated 116th
Air Control Wing flying with the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack
Radar System (JSTARS). Wing leadership and the Guard and Active crews
worked together superbly. While there is still work to do to fix some
administrative issues, we have validated the concept of blended or
integrated units.
Our Expeditionary Combat Support has been providing outstanding
service to the warfighter. Air National Guard maintenance quickly
rewired our A-10s and F-16s with LITENING II in minimum time. They've
kept our aircraft flying despite the challenging operating conditions.
Security Forces personnel were mobilized for two years and have
provided an incredible service. It was Air National Guard Security
Forces that were the first Security Forces on the ground in Iraq.
Intelligence personnel have been providing unique capabilities for
Central Command and organizational support for the U-2, Predator, and
Global Hawk. Medical personnel have been utilizing the new
Expeditionary Medical Service capability, providing critical care to
the warfighter. Civil Engineers built bare bases out of the desert and
trained Iraqi firefighters while Weather personnel worldwide provided
over 50 percent of the Army's weather support. Financial Management
personnel have been diligently working to keep benefits flowing to our
members despite complex systems. Air National Guard Command, Control,
Communications and Computer personnel have kept vital information
flowing on one end of the spectrum and provided Ground Theater Air
Control System Personnel on the other. Our chaplains, too, have been
providing outstanding spiritual aid out in the field. We have been able
to participate at these levels because we provide Expeditionary and
Homeland Defense capabilities that are relevant to the nation.
Today as we look toward our future relevancy, as indispensable and
equal Total Force partners, we have to be prepared to transform with
the Total Force. We are now in a position to make the decisions that
will influence our next evolution--transforming the Air National Guard.
We are fully committed to the transformation of the National Guard
Bureau and Joint State Headquarters.
Some of today's capabilities may not be required in the future. The
future Air Force will rely heavily on technological advances in space,
command and control, intelligence and reconnaissance systems,
information warfare, unmanned aerial vehicles, and the ability to
conduct high volume and highly accurate attacks with significantly
fewer platforms. For the Air Guard to remain Total Force partners, we
have carved out our own strategy in those areas and will explore new
organizational constructs. Among those constructs are various forms of
integrated units where we can combine individual units with other Air
Guard units or with another service component. We have to expand our
capabilities as joint warfighters and make the necessary changes to
integrate seamlessly into the joint warfighting force. To remain
relevant we must continue to listen to the messages that are being sent
today.
The ``VANGUARD'' Engagement Strategy is our vision for transforming
the Air National Guard to remain ``out in front'' as the Department of
Defense addresses current realities and plans for an uncertain future.
Our Air National Guard of tomorrow will be molded by our
transformational approach and actions of today. The Engagement Strategy
highlights several Transformation Focus Areas where we can concentrate
our continuing transformational efforts.
We must continue to lean on the strengths of our people, core
values, core competencies, community connections and unique culture
while participating in Air Force and Department of Defense
Transformation, Jointness and Capabilities-Based Relevance.
Now is the time for us to lead the way by considering, selecting
and implementing new concepts and missions that leverage our unique
strengths to improve Total Force capabilities in support of
Expeditionary roles and defense of the homeland. This can only be
accomplished by involving all Air National Guard stakeholders, working
toward a common goal--enhanced future relevance for the entire Air
National Guard. Vanguard seeks the optimum synergy resulting from
melding the right concepts and missions at the right times and places
for the right reasons without jeopardizing our core values and historic
traditional militia heritage and culture.
By together addressing the complex issues that face us, we will
keep the Air National Guard ``Ready, Reliable, Relevant--Needed Now and
in the Future.''
SUPPORT THE WAR FIGHT
In the continuing tradition of the Citizen-Airmen, members of the
Air National Guard have been contributing to the Global War on
Terrorism across the full spectrum of operations. During the peak of
Operation Iraqi Freedom, we had over 22,000 members mobilized or on
volunteer status supporting the Global War on Terrorism worldwide. In
Operation Iraqi Freedom we flew 43 percent of the fighter sorties, 86
percent of the tanker sorties and 39 percent of the airlift sorties. At
the same time we were flying almost 25 percent of the Operation
Enduring Freedom fighter sorties and over 20 percent of the tanker
sorties. True to our heritage, Air National Guard members were hard at
work protecting our shores at home by flying over 70 percent of the
fighter sorties, over 50 percent of the tanker sorties and 35 percent
of the airlift sorties.
But our capabilities do not reside only in aircraft; 15 percent of
our expeditionary combat support were engaged during this same period.
This includes 60 percent of Security Forces, many of whom were
mobilized for the longest duration. Additionally, about 25 percent of
our Intelligence, Services and Weather personnel were mobilized.
Air National Guard men and women are proud to defend and protect
our nation at home and abroad. Often, however, support equipment
requirements overseas necessitate that equipment remain in place,
causing a shortage of equipment for training at home. We are working
with Air Force and Defense Department leaders to develop a solution.
Medical Service Transformation--Expeditionary Combat Support, Homeland
Defense, and Wing Support
In 2002, the Air National Guard's Surgeon General led the Air
National Guard Medical Service through its most revolutionary
transformation in history by reconfiguring its medical capabilities
into Expeditionary Medical Support systems. These systems provide
highly mobile, integrated and multifunctional medical response
capabilities. They are the lightest, leanest and most rapidly
deployable medical platforms available to the Air National Guard today.
This system is capable of simultaneously providing Expeditionary Combat
Support to the warfighter for Air and Space Expeditionary Force
missions, Homeland Defense emergency response capabilities to the
states and support to the Air National Guard Wings.
During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Air National Guard medical units
provided Expeditionary Combat Support to the warfighter. The
Expeditionary Medical Support capability allowed 10 percent of Air
National Guard medical unit personnel to deploy for Operation Iraqi
Freedom, compared to only 3 percent in the early 1990s for deployments
for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The United States
Central Command has validated that the Expeditionary Medical Support
system is a perfect fit for the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force Global
Strike Task Force and Concept of Operations.
Homeland Defense capabilities are provided by the Expeditionary
Medical Support system through its Military Support to Civil
Authorities. The Air National Guard Medical Service plays a vital role
in the development and implementation of the National Guard's Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosive Enhanced
Response Force Package. This package will provide support to state and
local emergency responders and improve Weapons of Mass Destruction
response capabilities in support of the Civil Support Teams. The Air
National Guard will have 12 trained teams by late 2004 and will build
toward an anticipated 54 teams by 2007. The Air Combat Command Surgeon
General has committed to providing 39 mass decontamination equipment
sets to 39 Wings for installation-to-installation support, which will
ensure that the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-
Yield Explosive Enhanced Response Force package's decontamination teams
remain trained. The National Guard's short-term objective is to obtain
10 Small Portable Expeditionary Aerospace Rapid Response equipment
sets, one for each Federal Emergency Management Agency Region.
The Air National Guard Medical Service's new Force Structure
provided by the Expeditionary Medical Support system provides
standardized and much improved Force Health Protection, Public Health,
Agent Detection, and Health Surveillance capabilities to better support
all Air National Guard Wings. This will enhance the protection of the
Wings' resources and improve the medical readiness of its personnel.
Thus the modular ``building block'' capability of Expeditionary
Medical Support provides an advanced technology and an essential,
tailored medical capability in a small forward footprint expandable to
meet situational needs.
The Air National Guard Surgeon General has pursued and will
continue to develop the Air National Guard Medical Service's technology
and modernization plans to support the warfighter's, state's, and
Wing's requirements.
Eyes and Ears in the Sky: Air National Guard Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Systems and Support
The Air National Guard's Intelligence Surveillance and
Reconnaissance personnel and systems play an increasingly important
role in the defense of our nation. Air National Guard men and women are
essential to Air Force tasking, processing, exploitation, and
dissemination missions to support Global Hawk, Predator, and U-2
collection missions.
Due to a significant increase in Air Force mission requirements,
the Air National Guard continues to expand its intelligence collection
and production capability. The Air National Guard has also expanded its
imagery intelligence capability through the use of Eagle Vision, which
is a deployable commercial imagery downlink and exploitation system.
This system provides valuable support to aircrew mission planning and
targeting, as well as imagery support to natural disasters and
terrorism.
Other developing Air Force capabilities that are entrusted to the
Air National Guard include the F-16 Theater Airborne Reconnaissance
System and the C-130 SCATHE VIEW tactical imagery collection system.
The Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System will be improved to provide
near-real-time support to warfighter ``kill-chain'' operations in day-
night, all weather conditions. SCATHE VIEW provides a near-real-time
imaging capability to support humanitarian relief and non-combatant
evacuation operations. To support signal intelligence collection
requirements, the Air National Guard continues to aggressively upgrade
the SENIOR SCOUT platform. SENIOR SCOUT remains the primary collection
asset to support the nation's war on drugs and the Global War on
Terrorism in the Southern Hemisphere. Finally, the Air National Guard
established a new unit to support RC/OC/WC-135 flying operations at
Offutt AFB, Nebraska. This unique future Total Force organizational
construct is transformational and serves as a successful example for
future operationally integrated units. The Air National Guard is
transforming its force structure to meet escalating Intelligence
Surveillance and Reconnaissance mission requirements and an ever-
increasing demand for Air Guard capabilities.
Managing Force Finances
Financial Management experienced an unprecedented deployment tempo
during 2003. For the first time ever, an Air National Guard Comptroller
was assigned exclusive command and fiduciary responsibility for the
establishment and sustainment of financial operations in direct support
of combat missions. The challenge was to create a financial
infrastructure from scratch. This Comptroller and subordinate staff of
5 Air National Guard financial management professionals ``financed the
fight'' with distinction.
As locations overseas were vacated, our financial management
expertise was noticeably acknowledged. Our finance personnel were
specifically chosen and assigned the significant responsibility for
final reconciliation and settlement of accounts. The importance of
departing the local economy with balanced books and completely
liquidated fiscal obligations cannot be understated. The Air Guard
delivered remarkable stewardship in this demanding role.
The Operational Tempo at home generated another Financial
Management ``first''. One hundred seventy-six Air National Guard
finance personnel were mobilized as part of an innovative home station
support package. This was a transformational approach to the surge in
processing workload that tripled as hundreds of Airmen at each unit
were called to duty and follow-on overseas deployment.
The Air National Guard: Using the Stars to Serve the Community
For the Air Guard, Space Operations provide a critical
communications link to communities throughout the nation in the form of
satellite support for everyday uses, television, computers, and
wireless phones, but also serve as an important military deterrence
from external threats. Currently, the 137th Space Warning Squadron in
Colorado provides mobile survivable and endurable missile warning
capability to U.S. Strategic Command. Recently, two Air National Guard
units in Wyoming and California have come out of conversion to provide
operational command and control support to Northern Command and to
provide round-the-clock support to the Milstar satellite constellation.
Additionally, the Air Force has approved space missions for the
119th Command and Control Squadron in Tennessee to support the U.S.
Strategic Command, and 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 missions and assets in Alaska and other states
to Air National Guard control.
Comprehensive and Realistic Combat Training--An Asymmetric Advantage
The National Guard Bureau has a fundamental responsibility to
ensure that the men and women of the Air Guard are properly trained to
meet the challenges they will face to protect and defend this country.
This can be done through the effective development and management of
special use airspace and ranges. To support this requirement of the
warfighter, the Air Guard is responsible for 14 air-to-ground bombing
ranges, four Combat Readiness Training Centers, and the Air Guard
Special Use Airspace infrastructure.
To ensure that our units remain ready and relevant, they must have
access to adequate training airspace and ranges that meet the demands
of evolving operational requirements. The National and Regional
Airspace and Range Councils, co-chaired by both the Air Guard and the
Air Force, continue to identify and work airspace and range issues that
affect combat capability and are engaged with the Federal Aviation
Administration in the redesign of the National Airspace System.
Transformation efforts to improve realistic training at our ranges
have been identified by several units as instrumental in preparation
for Operation Iraqi Freedom. For example, the recently deployed Joint
Modular Ground Targets, Urban Area Targets and Time Sensitive Targets
provide training that reflects today's combat realities. Ranges are
being equipped with modernized scoring and instrumentation and data-
link equipment necessary to support precision-guided weapons training.
Critical training is provided to ground Forward Air Controllers as well
as aircrews. Range residual cleanup and associated environmental issues
remain a major challenge.
The four Combat Readiness Training Centers provide an integrated,
year-round, realistic training environment (airspace, ranges, systems,
facilities, and equipment), which enables military units to enhance
their combat capability at a deployed, combat-oriented operating base
and provide training opportunities that cannot be effectively
accomplished at the home station. As such, these centers are ideal
assets for the Joint National Training Capability. The centers offer an
effective mix of live, virtual and constructive simulation training.
The Air National Guard continues to pursue National Training Capability
certification for these centers and ranges.
It is imperative to the warfighter that the Air Guard maintain its
training superiority. As the warfighting transformation and joint
operational requirements evolve, it is essential that the airspace and
range infrastructure be available to support that training.
HOMELAND DEFENSE
Air Sovereignty Alert
Since September 11, 2001, thousands of National Guardsmen have been
mobilized to operate alert sites and alert support sites for Operation
Noble Eagle (ONE) in support of Homeland Defense. Our Air National
Guard has partnered with Active Duty and Reserve forces to provide
Combat Air Patrol, random patrols, and aircraft intercept protection
for large cities and high-valued assets in response to the increased
threat of terrorist groups. By the end of fiscal year 2003, Air
National Guard units had assumed 16 of 16 North American Air Defense
and Northern Command-directed ground alert sites in the Continental
United States and 1 of 2 alert site locations outside the United
States. While the Air National Guard has assumed the responsibility of
all ground alert sites and some irregular Combat Air Patrol periods,
Active Duty units have shouldered the burden of all regular ``steady-
state'' Combat Air Patrols. This partnering agreement maximizes our
nation's current basing locations and capitalizes on the high
experience levels within the Air National Guard and its professional
history in Air Defense operations.
To continue operations at this indefinite pace has posed some
unique funding and manning challenges for both the field and
headquarters staffs, especially with the looming two-year mobilization
limitation and Secretary of Defense's desire to normalize operations.
Beginning mid-November 2003, many Air National Guard personnel began to
reach their two years on active duty, causing much concern as to the
participation of Air National Guard personnel. With the release of the
fiscal year 2004 President's Budget, the Air National Guard received
temporary funds to begin transitioning from a mobilized to a ``steady
state'' force for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. This funding allowed for
supporting the ASA mission in a new Continuum of Service active duty or
technician status while at the same time it funded many of our
facilities, equipment, and MILCON requirements to support the mission
long-term. Our goal is to have all alert personnel transitioned from
contingency/mobilized to ``steady state'' Continuum of Service status
by March of 2004. As we move into the fiscal year 2006 Program
Objective Memoranda exercise, the active Air Force and Air National
Guard will continue to work towards a permanent solution for our alert
force and advocate with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to
incorporate these temporary Continuum of Service tours into steady
state programs.
TRANSFORMATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Supporting a ``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's priority is
Transformation--and therefore it is 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, Joint
Chiefs-validated, and Combatant Commander-required ``-capabilities.''
The Air Force is pursuing innovative organizational constructs and
personnel policies to meld the various components into a single,
unified force. Ongoing shifts in global conflict and U.S. strategy
suggest an increasing attention to activities such as homeland defense,
nation-building, and others that may require different mixes of
capability that are not necessarily resident at sufficient levels in
the Active Component alone. This ``Future Total Force'' integration
will create efficiencies, cut costs, ensure stability, retain
invaluable human capital, and, above all, increase our combat
capabilities. One example of this transformational initiative is the
proposed movement of Air National Guard manpower to Langley AFB, an
active duty base, from Richmond, an Air National Guard base, with the
intent of leveraging the high experience of Guard personnel to improve
the combat capability for the active force.
Another transformation effort is to ``integrate,'' 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; and integrated
fighter squadrons realizing the benefits of highly trained personnel
flying legacy systems during the transition period to newer fighter
aircraft such as 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
significant during conflicts envisioned for 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.
Modernizing for the Future
The Air National Guard modernization program is a capabilities-
based effort to keep the forces in the field relevant, reliable and
ready for any missions tasked by the state or federal authorities. As a
framework for prioritization, the modernization program is segmented
into three time frames: short-term, the current and next year's Defense
budget; medium-term, out to fiscal year 2015; and long-term, out to
fiscal year 2025 and beyond.
As the force structure continues to evolve, the Air Guard can
anticipate a continuous process to ensure the forces provide an
equivalent capability for Joint and Coalition Forces. The Air National
Guard remains an equal partner with the Air and Space Expeditionary
Forces that are tasked to meet the future challenges and missions.
Because of budget constraints, it is incumbent upon the Air Guard to
maximize combat capability for every dollar spent. The Air National
Guard includes all aircraft, ground command and control systems, and
training and simulation systems in this modernization effort. The
requirements necessary to focus this effort must be grounded in clearly
defined combat capabilities and missions. The foundation of our 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 Air Force will be
stretched to simultaneously fund current operations, modernization, and
future research and development projects.
In the near-term, our Modernization Program focuses on the ongoing
Global War on Terrorism. Theaters of operations range from domestic
efforts, such as fire-fighting, to full partners in overseas efforts,
such as Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The
demands of the modern battlefield require the Air Guard weapons systems
and crews to have identical or equivalent capability as the joint and
coalition forces. The results of the modernization program were
graphically demonstrated in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom as the Block 25/30/32 F-16s, with their laser
designator LITENING II targeting pods, the Enhanced Position Reporting
System and Situation Awareness data links became the weapons system of
choice for the combatant commanders in both theaters. Once air
supremacy was achieved, the Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve
Command and active A-10 aircraft became the primary choice in both
theaters. We fully expect that future threats will continue to evolve
which will require continued modernization across all weapons systems.
Here is a summary of the Air National Guard's force posture by
weapons system:
The A-10 demonstrated its continued relevance in today's
battlefield as the Warthog was the dominant weapon when coalition
forces raced for Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Rapid
integration and installation of the LITENING II laser targeting pod in
only a few days and subsequent spectacular precision attacks served as
a model for the future of the A-10. Several other limitations were
identified to include the need to modernize the aircraft infrastructure
through the Precision Engagement program. One particular limitation was
the lack of a tactical data link. The leading candidate in the near-
term is the Joint Tactical Radio System, with installation scheduled to
begin in fiscal year 2005. During 2003, the A-10 modernization program
experienced, increased emphasis including an aircraft modification to
house the personal locator system, further research into an adequate
engine replacement, continued testing of the AN/ALR 69 Radar Warning
Receiver, continued COMET infrared countermeasures pod testing,
continued acquisition of targeting pods for precision guided munitions,
and further work for the Precision Engagement program to upgrade the
aircraft avionics continued development and integration.
During 2003, the Air Guard F-16s provided crucial combat
capabilities in Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom by using advanced targeting pods funded by
the Air National Guard's Modernization Program for precision-guided
munitions. The Commercial Central Interface Unit, Color Multifunctional
Displays, the Heads Up Display Advanced Electrical Unit, the Radar
Modernized Programmable Signal Processor, the AN/ALR-69 Radar Warning
Receiver Antenna Optimization, Situational Awareness Data Link and the
Electronic Attack Upgrade were all part of our successful modernization
effort. Funding for the Advanced Identify Friend or Foe upgrade was
secured along with funding for the final engine upgrade kits. The
Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System continued its spiral development
to bolster the manned tactical reconnaissance limitation identified by
the combatant commanders in every after-action report.
The HC-130 is completing installation of the Forward Looking
Infrared system, an essential capability during combat rescue
operations. The HC-130 starts integration and installation of the Large
Aircraft Infrared Counter Measure system, increasing survivability in
face of the ever-increasing threat from hand-held missiles.
The HH-60 program started installation of the new M3M .50 caliber
door gun, replaced personal equipment for the pararescue jumpers with
state-of-the-art weapons and technologies. The initiation of the HH-60
replacement program will begin to slow any further modernization.
The Operational Support Aircraft Modernization Program leased two
737 Boeing Business Jets that are supporting current VIP Special Air
and Joint Operational Support Airlift operations to improve response
for civilian and military senior leaders. A third aircraft will receive
full modifications and begin service as the C-40C in September 2004.
The training and simulation systems ensure the personnel on the
front line are as ready and relevant as the equipment they use. Over
the past year, the Air National Guard has begun the transition to the
Distributed Mission Operations capability leveraging 21st century
technology with realistic simulation. Useful at every level of
training, crews acknowledged the edge they gained through mission
rehearsal on the ground prior to some of the more complex missions.
Starting with the A-10 and F-16 distributed mission training capable
flight simulators, the Air National Guard has begun to transform their
approach to combat training. The modernization of the F-15 includes the
continued installation of the BOL Infrared countermeasures improvements
system, continued delivery of upgraded engine kits and completion of
the installation of the Multifunctional Information Distribution System
Fighter Data Link. The next upgrades include the installation of the
new 8 mm recorders, retrofit of a permanent night vision cockpit
lighting system, continued integration and purchase of the Joint Helmet
Mounted Cueing System, and the delivery of the replacement Identify
Friend or Foe system. The conversion from the F-15A/B to F-15C/D begins
in fiscal year 2005, thereby extending the relevance of the air
superiority forces in the Air National Guard.
C-130 enhancements included the multi-command Avionics
Modernization Program which upgraded nearly 500 aircraft to a modern,
more sustainable cockpit. Additionally, the Air National Guard
continued acquisition of the AN/APN-241 Low Power Color Radar,
continued installation of the Night Vision Imaging System, and 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. Other Air Guard programs include the AN/AAQ-24 (V)
Directional Infrared Counter-measures System, propeller upgrades like
the Electronic Propeller Control System and NP2000 eight-bladed
propeller, and a second generation, upgraded Modular Airborne Fire
Fighting System. Additionally, the Air National Guard partnered with
the Air Force for the first multiyear buy of the new C-130J aircraft to
replace the aging C-130E fleet.
The KC-135 weapons system completed the installation of the cockpit
upgrade and continued the engine upgrades to the R-model. The KC-135
continued to be the air bridge for the multiple combat deployments
across the globe. Keeping the aging fleet modernized will continue to
challenge the Air National Guard as the refueling operations evolve to
meet the next mission. It is critical the aging tanker fleet be
modernized.
The Air National Guard Modernization Program is the key to
continuing to field a relevant combat capability, ensuring dominance of
American air power for the next 15 to 20 years. We must sustain an open
and honest dialogue from the warfighter through Congress, in order to
maximize the investment of precious tax dollars. The modernization
program is a process, not a goal. Recent combat successes validate that
process and serve as a model for future transformation of the United
States Air Force.
Land Fleet Supports Air Operations
The Air National Guard Vehicle Priority Buy program cannot 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, 35 percent of the Air National Guard vehicle
fleet is due for replacement, at a cost of approximately $262 million.
The Air National Guard vehicle fleet will continue to age and
become more costly to maintain. The less-than-adequate replacement rate
coupled with additional requirements to support newly emerging homeland
security tasking will severely impact our vehicle readiness.
Military Personnel Transformation--30 Years After ``Total Force''
The Air National Guard is partnered with the Air Force in multiple
transformation initiatives that will affect the Total Force. These
initiatives, tied with the Office of the Secretary of Defense's new
paradigm--Continuum of Service--will necessitate simplifying the
processes and rules that are now in place. Continuum of Service is a
transformation for personnel management that is needed to acknowledge
the changes that have occurred in the way Reserve Component members are
now employed in the full range of operational worldwide missions. This
transformation will require changes in legislation and the commitment
of the military services. Although there is an increased spirit of
volunteerism, and retention remains strong despite the increase in
calls for federal and state service, a more integrated approach to
military personnel management is imperative. The integration that is
required presents a challenge in military personnel life cycle
management. The Guard's Directorate of Diversity, Personnel, and
Training, the stewards of the force, will ensure Continuum of Service
policies have the flexibility to manage the force separately, so
Guardmembers have a reasonable opportunity to compete for promotion.
One of the business operations targeted by the Secretary of the Air
Force for transformation is the manner in which the Air Force delivers
human resource services to its customers. The transformation of these
business operations will achieve the Air Force Secretary's objectives
by shifting from the current labor-intensive, transaction-focused
customer service delivery system to a ``strategic partner'' role. The
ultimate goal is the creation of a customer-focused, mission-driven
Total Force service-based delivery system. The system will be leveraged
by technology that provides effective, efficient and timely services,
while freeing human resource professionals to advise commanders on the
development and management of their personnel. The Air Guard is
committed to the Secretary's vision and goals for Customer Service
Transformation while, at the same time, ensuring Air National Guard
members have access to the human resource services which are vital to
effective career management.
The Air National Guard supports the transformational vision of the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force for a more deliberate approach in
developing a force development construct. This entails a Total Force
concept that incorporates the way the Air Force trains, educates,
promotes, and assigns the Total Force--Active, Guard, Reserve, and
Civilians. The newly published Air Force Policy Directive 36-26
represents a radical departure from the current educational and
assignment culture. The newly published directive emphasizes a
flexible, capabilities-based, Total Force approach that fulfills the
professional and personal expectations of our Airmen, while still
meeting mission requirements.
One aspect of the Force Development construct is ensuring
implementation of the Air National Guard's national diversity strategy.
The purpose of the diversity strategy is to increase mission readiness
in the organization by focusing on workforce diversity and assuring
fair and equitable participation for all. Finally, the Air National
Guard has developed a Formal Mentoring Initiative that is ready for a
nation-wide rollout. This program will be a key component in the
professional development of Air National Guard members.
Information Networking for the Total Force
The Air National Guard Enterprise Network is critical to the
successful transmission of information within a unit, between units,
and among the various states. We are making progress towards
modernizing our nationwide information technology network that serves a
vital role in homeland security and national defense. A healthy and
robust network for reliable, available and secure information
technology is essential to federal and state authorities in their
ability to exercise command and control of information resources that
potentially could impact their various constituencies. The effective
functioning of the Air National Guard relies upon a strong interface
and interaction within the network to share information at all levels.
The Air National Guard continues to make 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.
The Air National Guard has completed a nationwide consolidation of
network servers by consolidating core network services to regional
operations centers, and we continue to provide high quality Information
Technology services. At the same time, we continue to reduce redundant
and obsolete systems and programs.
The current initiative to provide better communications to our
warfighters is our initial roll-out of Microsoft's Active Directory
Services. These services will provide enhanced security and broader
communications capabilities to our users, and more closely integrate
our network with Air Force and other Service networks, thereby
increasing both security and communications capability. We hope to fund
the remaining roll-out in fiscal year 2004 and begin follow-on programs
that will reduce the time required to maintain server and desktop
hardware, as well as help manage the software upgrades and security
patches so critical to our network's security.
Greater emphasis must be placed on maturing the Air National Guard
Enterprise Network. 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 Guard network has typically been supported
at the same level it was during the 1990s. Without a significant
infusion of new technology, all other Air National Guard mission areas
will be less than fully capable of executing their missions. This
modernization initiative will certainly enhance the Air National
Guard's interoperability with other federal and state agencies.
Preserving Facility Operations
Air National Guard Civil Engineering is proud of its management
record of constraining infrastructure and operating costs while
providing quality installations responsive to the nation's needs. This
focused business concept limits direct investment to core
responsibilities to better balance component, service, and department
resources with other risk areas.
Civil Engineering demonstrates the balance between cost-effective
and responsive infrastructure by operating a lean facility plant,
relying on contractors for most facility work, and leveraging with the
states and the traditional Guard member structure to reduce costs.
Facility space at the typical Air National Guard installation
averages only 350,000 square feet constrained to operational, training
and administrative space on 150 acres of leased property. Air National
Guard installations do not have the extensive support facilities
typically present on active component bases, such as dormitories, golf
courses, family housing, hospitals, child-care facilities, schools,
youth centers, commissaries or main exchanges. Instead, Guard members
leverage this quality of life support through the community. Additional
cost containment is realized by the joint-use of runways and taxiways
that are typically owned by the local civilian airport authority and by
property leases at nominal or no cost.
A small federal workforce of 7 to 10 predominantly civilian
employees executes the facility operations and maintenance program
through a contract and state employee workforce. This small full-time
workforce is built around the Base Civil Engineer, an assistant, a
facility manager and a production controller. About 15 state employees
provide maintenance service for day-to-day requirements while larger
non-routine maintenance, repair and construction, where most investment
is made, are accomplished through contracts as needed. Twenty-four
state employee firefighters provide crash, fire and rescue service when
not provided by the local civilian airport authority.
Base operational costs are further leveraged by state
contributions. Specifically, states are required to provide matching
funds for services such as utilities, custodial, trash, grounds
maintenance and snow removal. This contribution typically ranges
between 15 and 25 percent of the total cost of the requirement.
Additionally, Civil Engineer and Services ``outsource'' its military
capability, with personnel fulfilling traditional part-time roles, and
thus avoiding full-time costs except when needed for wartime or
deployment requirements. The Air National Guard Prime Base Engineer
Emergency Force or PrimeBEEF force has been covering 30 percent of the
total Air Force engineering wartime and deployment requirement, while
the Prime Readiness in Base Services or Prime RIBS team has been
covering 40 percent of these requirements.
Civil Engineer management controls costs to help keep the Air
National Guard and its military presence in the community. National
Guard facilities and personnel assigned to local units are the primary
connection most Americans have with the military since a large number
of active duty bases were closed during the 1990s. This community
presence provides cost-effective platforms for recruitment and
retention by being close to where Guard members work and live.
Correspondingly, the Air Guard's efficient infrastructure and
management structure helps the National Guard and the Department of
Defense to balance resources with other areas of risk as they continue
to transform military capabilities.
Redesigning Financial Management Systems
The Air National Guard Financial Management community is actively
participating in the coordination of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense Business Management Modernization Program and the Air Force
Financial Management Transformation efforts.
This will ensure our future systems and procedures comply with the
Defense Business Enterprise Architecture. The Air Guard's efforts
include: Adopting standard business practices and systems to enhance
the accountability and accuracy of financial management transactions;
and replacement of non-compliant financial management systems with web
applications that fully support the defense architecture and the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990.
This is particularly evidenced by our efforts to transform and
modernize the management of the Air National Guard Military Personnel
Appropriation through the future implementation of the Reserve Order
Writer System, a candidate to become a joint system that will bring the
latest advances in technology and military orders information to
Guards-members in the convenience of their homes around the clock.
CONCLUSION
The Air National Guard will continue to defend the nation in the
War on Terrorism while transforming for the future. We will do this
across the full spectrum of operations in both the Expeditionary and
Homeland Defense missions. The Air National Guard will also continue to
leverage our militia culture and linkage to the community that is vital
to our nation. The men and women of the Air Guard are currently serving
proudly in the far corners of the globe--and here at home--and will do
so with distinction with the necessary tools to protect our freedoms.
______
Prepared Statement of Major General Paul J. Sullivan, Vice Chief,
National Guard Bureau
OVERVIEW
The most exciting changes occurring in the National Guard today are
in the areas of Transformation, Jointness and Homeland Defense. The
initiatives begun in 2003 to bring the National Guard fully into the
Goldwater-Nichols era of jointness are already transforming the way we
do business in the highest echelons of the Department of Defense, out
in the states, and around the world where our Soldiers and Airmen are
protecting our nation from harm.
Transforming our headquarters to a joint structure provides greater
interoperability with combatant commands, especially with U.S. Northern
Command, U.S. Southern Command, and U.S. Pacific Command. It also
increases our ability to interface with the Department of Defense and
the Joint Staff on issues of Homeland Defense, Homeland Security, and
Military Assistance to Civil Authorities. In summary, this will allow
the Guard to operate on the same basis as the rest of the Defense
Department.
The year 2003 marked the beginning of our journey. There are many
more tasks to accomplish before we have fully implemented our
transformation campaign plan.
The National Guard Bureau completed the initial stage of its
transformation to a joint staff during the summer of 2003. In revising
the staff structure, we attempted to mirror as closely as possible the
structure of the Joint Staff in the Pentagon, thus facilitating closer
coordination between the two to the maximum degree possible.
The Bureau is extensively reorganizing its manpower to perform
staff functions that had never been addressed outside of the single-
service focus of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard
Directorates. The new joint Directorates of Logistics and Intelligence
are prime examples of the Bureau expanding its vision and capabilities
so that we can fully engage in interservice and intergovernmental
efforts to protect the nation at home and abroad.
The expansion of the National Guard Bureau's roles and missions in
the joint arena must still be validated by the Secretary of Defense and
the Joint Staff.
The transformation to a joint Headquarters at the National Guard
Bureau is being paralleled by a similar transformation in the states.
The new Standing Joint Force Headquarters, State, are being designed to
parallel the configurations of the National Guard Bureau, the Joint
Staff, and the Combatant Commands. The States have been given
flexibility to apply their human and financial resources to the joint
configuration to address their unique needs, while centralizing each
governor's ability to leverage both homeland security and state mission
capabilities in the event of a local emergency.
Every Joint Force Headquarters, State will provide a standing Joint
Force Command and Control capability that will allow a combatant
commander to accurately monitor an incident, provide supporting forces,
or command federal forces, including federalized National Guard forces,
in support of the civilian incident commander. This coordination
between state and federal authorities will be aided by the creation of
a robust command, control and communications backbone. We have proposed
a Joint CONUS Communications Support Enterprise initiative that will
provide a common, secure means through which they can coordinate their
response for any domestic emergency. Upon completion of these
transformational initiatives, the ability of both civil and military
authorities to secure and defend the homeland will have increased
exponentially.
In 2003, under the direction of Lieutenant General H Steven Blum,
the Bureau asserted that joint duty billets and joint educational
opportunities should be extended to the National Guard. The Defense
Department is currently considering plans that will allow members of
the reserve components, for the first time in history, to benefit from
the opportunities provided by Joint Professional Military Education.
The broad-based implementation of this training in years to come will
be critical to achieving our goal of fully integrating the National
Guard system with the Department and the combatant commands.
In organizing itself for the future, the National Guard Bureau,
together with the National Guard headquarters in every state and
territory, is transforming to become a member of the joint team. The
War on Terror demands this capability from us; indeed, we are already
serving in this capacity in our day-to-day interactions with the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, with the Joint Staff, and with the
combatant commanders. It is our responsibility to ensure that this
transformation to jointness reaches full operating capability by
October 2005.
SUPPORT THE WAR FIGHT
State Partnership Program
The National Guard State Partnership Program links states and
countries for the purpose of improving bilateral relations with the
United States. The value of this program is its ability to focus the
attention of a small part of the Department of Defense--a state
National Guard--with a single country or region in support of our
government policies. The program's goals reflect an evolving
international affairs mission for the National Guard. In addition, the
National Guard promotes regional stability and civil-military
relationships in support of U.S. policy objectives. The State Partners
actively participate in a host of engagement activities including
bilateral familiarization and training events, exercises, fellowship-
style internships, and civic leader visits. All activities are
coordinated through the theater combatant commander and the U.S.
ambassadors' country teams, and other agencies, as appropriate, to
ensure that National Guard efforts are tailored to meet both U.S. and
country objectives. This program increases exposure of Guard personnel
to diverse cultures in regions where they may be deployed in the
future.
During 2003, nine new partnerships--Kansas-Armenia; Maryland-
Bosnia; Puerto Rico-Dominican Republic; New York-South Africa;
Wisconsin-Nicaragua; Utah-Morocco; Alaska-Mongolia; Florida-Guyana; and
Virginia-Tajikistan--were formed. The Colorado-Jordan partnership was
announced in March 2004. Currently thirty-nine U.S. states, two
territories, and the District of Columbia are partnered with forty-five
countries around the world, and last year alone more than 300 events
took place between the partners. In fiscal year 2004 and beyond, it is
our goal to expand the program to include increased interaction at the
action officer and troop level will enable the partners to develop more
hands-on events.
The State Partnership Program is also invaluable for our own
homeland security. As we interface with countries that, on a daily
basis, live with a terrorist threat in their own back yard, we learn
the tactics and techniques that they employ to thwart attacks on their
civilian population. Conversely, the countries learn some of the
capabilities and techniques employed by not only the Department of
Defense, but by our civilian organizations at both a federal and state
level that are in use to protect our homeland. It is through this
cooperative exchange of vital information that we ultimately protect
our homeland by pushing our borders outwards and creating an atmosphere
of mutual support and collaboration.
Full-Time Support
The Active Guard and Reserve and Military Technician programs are a
major asset for the National Guard and are essential to organizational
readiness. Governed by USC Title 32, these full-time personnel are
uniformed members who perform day-to-day responsibilities for a unit,
who train with traditional Guardmembers in that unit, and who are
available for mobilization or deployment when the unit is called to
active duty.
The heightened pace of operations, however, has put a strain on
normal procedures, particularly for the military technician force.
National Guard technician deployments in support of ongoing contingency
operations involved approximately 16 percent of the technician
workforce. This resulted in an increased demand for personnel actions
to support technician separation and leave of absence actions,
entitlements counseling, and backfill of positions in order to continue
accomplishing essential full-time functions like payroll processing and
equipment maintenance. In order to expedite the increased demand for
backfill, the previously authorized emergency hiring flexibilities were
expanded and extended for another year. These flexibilities provided
streamlined hiring processes for affected states.
The deployment of large numbers of military technicians with their
units, while beneficial to the overall mission, created funding
challenges for the program. Under current Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights laws, absence of technicians from their
positions due to service in the armed forces does not result in absence
of costs for agencies employing those technicians. The National Guard
was still responsible for costs associated with stay-behind missions,
such as maintaining armories and equipment, and the congressional
legislation that employee and employer health benefit costs for
technicians be paid for up to 18 months during mobilization. Therefore,
residual costs incurred from health benefit costs, costs associated
from backfilling mobilized technicians, outsourcing expenses, and other
issues resulted in increased funding challenges during 2003.
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.
Not since World War II have so many Guardmembers been deployed to
so many places for such extended periods of time. The role and support
of the family is critical to success with these missions. The National
Guard Family Program has developed an extensive infrastructure to
support and assist families during all phases of the deployment
process. There are more than 400 National Guard Family Assistance
Centers located throughout the fifty-four states, territories and the
District of Columbia. These centers provide information, referral, and
assistance with anything that families experience during a deployment.
Most importantly, these services are for any military family member
from any branch or component of the Armed Forces.
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
deployment, pre-mobilization, mobilization, and reunion. The Family
Program office provides support to program coordinators through
information-sharing, training, volunteer management, workshops,
newsletters, family events, and youth development programs, among other
services.
The greatest challenge lies in awareness and communication. The
feedback we receive indicates that many family members are unaware of
the many resources available to them during a period of active duty or
deployment. Our primary goals are to increase the level of awareness
and participation with existing family resources, and to improve
overall mission readiness and retention by giving our warfighters the
peace-of-mind of knowing that their families are well cared for.
Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve
The National Guard Bureau renewed its partnership with the National
Committee, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. The Chief,
National Guard Bureau, reinforced this commitment with his decision to
authorize 54 positions for the states, District of Columbia, and
territories to augment retention initiatives within all seven of the
reserve components. A new initiative in fiscal year 2004 is a national
level contract that provides the states with additional personnel and
puts the Employer Support program on a parallel track with the National
Guard's Family Program. These two programs are intended to dovetail,
and reflect our increased efforts to address the impact of
mobilizations on employers and families.
Youth ChalleNGe Program
The award-winning National Guard ChalleNGe program is a community-
based program in twenty-nine sites that leads, trains, and mentors at-
risk youth to become productive citizens. 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.
A national model since 1993, the twenty-five states and territories
that offer the program have graduated more than 48,000 young men and
women who leave equipped with the values, skills, education and self-
discipline necessary to succeed as adults in our society.
Significantly, although many ChalleNGe candidates are from at-risk
populations, over 70 percent of them have attained either a General
Equivalency Diploma or a high school diploma. Furthermore,
approximately 30 percent of all graduates choose to enter military
service upon graduation. While the General Equivalency Diploma
attainment is over 66 percent, and the graduation rate is above 90
percent, the National Guard seeks to improve the results in both areas.
The National Guard is ``Hometown America'' with deep roots in every
community. The strong community ties make the National Guard a highly
visible and effective entity in many towns and communities across the
United States. 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. The
ChalleNGe program pays for itself with the savings realized from
keeping young people out of jails and off welfare roles. In fact, these
same young people are more prone to become productive, tax-paying
members of their communities. The program saves $175 million in
juvenile corrections costs, while lowering the percentage of youth who
are on federal assistance from 24 percent to 10 percent. The results
are that a ChalleNGe program actually makes money for the tax dollars
spent.
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities
In 1989, the Congress authorized the National Guard to perform drug
interdiction and counterdrug activities under Section 112, Title 32 of
the United States Code.
This domestic counterdrug effort falls into two general areas:
supporting community-based drug demand reduction programs and providing
support to help law enforcement stop illegal drugs from being imported,
manufactured and distributed. Approximately 2,600 personnel in Title 32
status work with the programs, while at the same time maintaining their
wartime military skills and unit readiness.
The mission of the Drug Demand Reduction program organizes and
expands community efforts to form coordinated and complementary systems
to reduce substance abuse. The Guard's primary focus is on community
mobilization and assistance to neighborhood groups. We assist these
groups in setting goals and objectives and building neighborhood
strength and resiliency that provide alternatives to drugs and drug-
related crime. In fiscal year 2003, National Guard members were able to
reach an audience of over 4.7 million students and family members with
an anti-drug message.
Supply reduction activities stem the flow of illegal drugs into the
United States. The National Guard performs a variety of counterdrug
missions in direct support of local, state, and federal law
enforcement. The types of support provided are diverse, but focus
primarily on intelligence analysis and investigative case support.
Activities also include linguist support, surface and aerial
reconnaissance and observation, as well as communications and engineer
support. We provide unique military-oriented skills so the program acts
as a force-multiplier for law enforcement agencies.
As part of the supply interdiction mission, the National Guard
provides airborne support to the domestic effort through the
Counterdrug Reconnaissance and Aerial Interdiction Detachment program
and the C-26 Sherpa program. These programs employ Kiowa helicopters
and Sherpa aircraft to detect and track targets identified by law
enforcement agencies. These aircraft have been specially modified with
thermal imaging equipment, night vision devices, and high-tech
communications equipment. Currently, we operate 116 Kiowa helicopters
distributed among thirty-seven states; while eleven states each have a
single Sherpa aircraft for these efforts. Recently, several of the
Sherpa assets have been tasked to support overseas missions in support
of U.S. Southern Command.
In fiscal year 2003, National Guard support efforts led to 66,395
arrests and assisted law enforcement in seizing the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cocaine............................... 665,179 pounds
Crack Cocaine......................... 61,713 pounds
Marijuana eradicated.................. 2,232,693 plants
Marijuana (processed)................. 1,251,182 pounds
Methamphetamines...................... 26,077 pounds
Heroin................................ 6,475 pounds
Ecstasy............................... 387,616 pills
Other/Designer Drugs.................. 14,600,274 pills
Weapons............................... 10,260
Vehicles.............................. 76,349
Currency.............................. $192,607,004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the tremendous successes of the Guard's training programs,
and the growing need for more specialized training, the Guard operates
five congressionally authorized training academies that provide
counterdrug training for both law enforcement and community officials.
These programs are open to both civilian and military personnel, and
these no-cost courses provide training in both supply interdiction and
drug demand reduction.
Finally, to help ensure a drug-free workplace, the National Guard
administers and oversees a Substance Abuse Prevention Program. All
members of the National Guard are subject to random, unannounced
testing throughout the year. Additionally, members in certain
specialties or job categories are subject to mandatory testing each
year. In fiscal year 2003, we performed more than 225,000 drug tests.
This testing helps ensure that the National Guard force is fit and
mission-ready.
HOMELAND DEFENSE
National Guard Reaction Force
The National Guard has nearly 368 years of experience in responding
to both the federal government's warfighting requirements, and the
needs of the states to protect critical infrastructure and to ensure
the safety of local communities. In an effort to improve the capability
of states to respond to threats against critical infrastructure within
their borders, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau has asked each
Adjutant General to develop a Quick Reaction Force capability. The goal
is to have a trained and ready National Guard force available to the
governor that can respond in support of local, state and, when
required, federal agencies. The Guard Bureau has been coordinating with
the states and territories to identify current response capabilities,
as well as working with Northern and Pacific commands to ensure that
these capabilities are understood and incorporated into their emergency
response plans. Work is underway to identify additional requirements
for force protection and interoperability with civil responders. This
reaction force is not a new capability or concept. What is new is the
standardized training and mission capabilities being shared by all
states, territories, and the District of Columbia.
Full Spectrum Vulnerability Assessment
The Full Spectrum Vulnerability Assessment program is a new
National Guard Homeland Defense initiative in which each state and
territory has a team of Soldiers or Airmen trained to conduct
vulnerability assessments of critical infrastructure in order to
prepare and plan emergency mission response in the event of a terrorist
attack or natural disaster. This program is designed to execute the
pre-planning needed for emergency response; to educate civilian
agencies on basic force protection; to develop relationships between
emergency responders, owners of critical infrastructure and National
Guard planners in the states; and deploy traditional National Guard
forces in a timely fashion to protect that infrastructure. In
developing this concept, the Guard Bureau has worked with the office of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense to establish
policies and standards. During 2004, we plan to have six of these teams
trained to conduct vulnerability assessments. Through this initiative,
the National Guard continues its time-honored tradition of being
prepared to respond at a moment's notice in defense of America.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams
The National Guard continues to strengthen its ability to respond
to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield
explosive events. Since September 11, 2001, the existing thirty-two
teams have been fully engaged in planning, training and operations in
support of state and local emergency responders. Civil Support Teams
are designed to provide specialized expertise and technical assistance
to an incident commander by identifying chemical, biological,
radiological, or nuclear substances; assessing the situation; advising
the commander on potential courses of action; and assisting 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 U.S.C. Title 32 status. The National Guard
Bureau provides logistical support, standardized operational
procedures, and operational coordination to facilitate the employment
of the teams and to ensure back-up capability to states currently
without a team.
During fiscal year 2003, teams responded to seventy-four requests
for support from civil authorities for actual or potential incidents.
Teams from Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and New Mexico also
provided valuable support in response to the Columbia space shuttle
disaster during February 2003.
In accordance with Congressional and Defense Department direction,
the National Guard will add twenty-three new teams, beginning with
twelve in 2004, so that each state, territory, and the District of
Columbia will have at least one team. Another four teams will be added
in 2005, with four more in 2006, and the remaining three in 2007.
In order to continue to be the best possible resource to the
emergency responders they assist, it is vital that these teams continue
to be equipped with state-of-the-art technology and trained to the
highest possible level. To accomplish this, the teams must remain a
high priority for resourcing at all levels of the Department of
Defense.
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosive
Enhanced Response Force Package
After the terrorist events of September 11th, the protection of
personnel and resources has greater urgency and the potential for
response to civil authority is greater than ever. Local, state and
federal agencies are applying tremendous resources to improve their
Weapons of Mass Destruction response capabilities. To enhance the
National Guard capability, the National Guard Bureau has developed an
initiative to equip and train units in twelve states to provide a
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosive
regional response. This force will augment the Civil Support Teams and
will provide emergency responders with a follow-on, task force-oriented
structure that will help secure the incident site, support mass
casualty decontamination operations in or near contaminated
environments, and provide for casualty search and extraction. Included
in this response force package is platoon-sized security, medical,
decontamination, and technical search and extraction teams. These
personnel are expected to respond to an incident on short notice in
either state active duty or U.S.C. Title 32 status. The new teams are
expected to be trained and ready to respond by October 2004.
Intelligence for Homeland Security
During the 2003 transformation to a joint staff structure, the
Guard Bureau broke new ground by organizing for the first time in its
history an Intelligence Directorate. The draft mission statement
designates the directorate as the primary advisor to the Chief,
National Guard Bureau, Deputy Chiefs, and the Adjutants General of the
fifty-four states and territories for all intelligence-related matters.
With the focus on improving threat awareness for the Guard's Homeland
Security mission, the immediate goal has been to efficiently maximize
information-sharing between the Guard and Defense Department, the
combatant commands, particularly U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Pacific
Command, the Department of Homeland Security, and national-level
intelligence agencies. Concurrently, this new directorate is taking the
lead in establishing a common operating system for intelligence that
will provide a standardized intelligence picture that gives each
participant the same level of situational awareness and allows sharing
of information and intelligence across a single system, thus aiding the
decision-making process.
TRANSFORMATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Transformation to a Joint National Guard Bureau
In May 2003, the Chief, National Guard Bureau, announced his vision
to transform the Bureau into a Joint National Guard Bureau that
encompasses both its federal and state missions. In July 2003, the
Chief provisionally organized the Bureau's manpower resources into a
joint staff.
In late July 2003, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
recognized the changing roles of the National Guard, both in its
federal and state relationship, and indicated support of the Bureau as
the national strategic focal point for National Guard matters.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld further suggested greater ties with his
office, the Joint Staff, and the Departments of the Army and Air Force
in support of combatant commanders. The Secretary encouraged the
development of proposals to forge a new relationship, one which would
improve his office's access to National Guard capabilities and improve
the ability of the National Guard to operate in the joint environment
and other military matters. The primary interest for the Chief,
National Guard Bureau is the Area of Responsibility of all combatant
commanders whose plans include or affect, or will likely include or
affect, federalized or non-federalized National Guard units or
personnel. As such, the Bureau supports U.S. Northern Command, U.S.
Pacific Command, U.S. Strategic Command, and the states and territories
in developing military strategy and contingency plans for homeland
defense and civil support operations. It further supports all of the
combatant commanders in developing joint operational requirements for
Theater Security Cooperation, and War and Contingency Plans.
The Bureau is recommending its recognition, in both law and policy,
as a joint activity of the Department of Defense, as well as a joint
bureau of the Departments of the Army and the Air Force, with both
joint and Service responsibilities. This joint initiative is projected
to achieve full operational capability and validation from the
Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff by fiscal year 2005.
Joint Force Headquarters, State
On October 1, 2003, the Chief approved provisional operation of the
Joint Force Headquarters in each of the fifty-four states, territories,
and the District of Columbia. Transformation of the previously separate
Air and Army National Guard Headquarters will continue through fiscal
year 2006.
The Joint Force Headquarters of each state, territory, Puerto Rico
and the District of Columbia exercises command and/or control over all
assigned, attached or operationally aligned forces. It acts as a
standing, deployed joint force headquarters, within the geographic
confines of the state/territory/commonwealth or district; it provides
situational awareness of developing or on-going emergencies and
activities to federal and state authority. As ordered, the Joint Force
Headquarters, State provides trained and equipped forces and
capabilities to the services and the Combatant Commanders for federal
missions. The Joint Force Headquarters, State supports civil authority
with capabilities and forces for homeland security and/or domestic
emergencies.
The Bureau is working to obtain Joint Staff approval for
integration of this headquarters organization into the joint manpower
process, specifically through submission of a Joint Table of
Distribution, along with supporting documentation, by September 30,
2004.
Joint Professional Military Education
Joint Professional Military Education is the key to integrating the
staffs of the fifty-four newly-created and the National Guard Joint
Staff with the rest of the Defense Department. Credit for performance
of joint duty is also a key factor in determining promotions in the
active component, and increasingly within the reserve components as
well. For this reason, in order to make the Bureau competitive with
other joint duty assignments, ceilings for Joint Specialty Officer
billets must be raised and billets must be allotted to the Guard. Guard
officers also need increased access to resident Phase 2 Joint
Professional Military Education. We are actively working with the Joint
Staff in the Pentagon to explore ways of using the Guard's extensive
Distance Learning facilities to expand Joint Professional Military
Education opportunities to members of the military, regardless of
service or component.
Reserve Joint Staff Duty at National Guard Bureau
One of the Chief's early initiatives while meeting with the other
reserve component chiefs was to obtain input and support for exchanging
officers to serve on each other's staffs. This added capability is
intended to assist in planning for the homeland security mission by
sharing at an early stage a better understanding of the roles and
specific security missions assigned to each component. For the first
time in its 100-year history, Navy and Marine Corps Reserve officers
are now serving as part of the Bureau staff, and Guard officers, in
turn, have been assigned to their staffs. Similar exchanges are planned
with the Coast Guard Reserve. These pioneers in the reserve joint staff
arena are field grade officers currently assigned to the Operations and
Plans and Policy equivalent directorates for a two-year period.
Joint Continental U.S. Communications Support Enterprise
Under Section 10501(b), U.S.C. Title 10, one of the purposes of the
National Guard Bureau is ``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, between the
Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force, and the
several states.'' Therefore, an obvious role for the National Guard is
to provide an interface for communications between federal and state
agencies with regard to incidents involving homeland security. There is
a requirement for U.S. Northern Command, as well as other federal
agencies, to have ``continuous situational awareness'' of incidents
occurring in the states related to homeland security and the associated
activities of the National Guard while acting under the states'
control.
To meet these requirements, the Bureau has established a
communications enterprise concept that meets the new homeland defense
challenges and leverages the advantages of the National Guard's
constitutional dual status under the state and federal governments. The
proposed communications enterprise is the state-federal network
connectivity concept named the Joint Continental United States
Communications Support Enterprise.
This enterprise will involve national level management and
integration by the Bureau of long haul, tactical, and other service
capabilities to provide U.S. Northern Command, Pacific Command and the
Joint Force Headquarters, State with connectivity to and through state
networks to an incident site. The enterprise includes the establishment
of a National Guard Bureau Joint Operations Center; a state joint
headquarters communications element; net-centric connectivity state-to-
state; vertical connectivity to incident sites, including a wireless
capability; and a National Guard Homeland Security Communications
Capability.
In 2003, the Bureau took the first step by establishing a Joint
Operations Center, and the Standing Joint Force Headquarters in each
state are in the process of establishing a dedicated communications
element. Planning and resourcing for the remaining program phases are
ongoing.
National Guard Enterprise Information Technology Initiatives
The National Guard continues to move aggressively in using
information technology to support our warfighters and our missions at
all levels, including Homeland Security and Homeland Defense. These
initiatives are being implemented with an approach that is geared
towards the National Guard Enterprise. Some examples of these
initiatives from the past year include using Guard telecommunications
resources, specifically distributed learning classrooms and video
teleconferencing assets, to link Civil Support Teams in thirteen
states. These resources have been used to provide critical pre-
deployment support for warfighters and their families. For example, at
Indiana's Camp Atterbury mobilization site, readiness training was
conducted for Soldiers during the day, and in the evenings, a ``Cyber
Cafe'' was established where Soldiers checked e-mail and military
accounts, took care of personal matters, and communicated with family
members. During March and April 2003, nearly 10,000 Soldiers logged
more than 327,000 minutes at this facility, providing substantial
training efficiencies, but just as importantly, it was a great boost to
Soldier and family morale. These same assets are currently being used
throughout the organization to facilitate command and control for
readiness of operating forces at levels never before available. Other
examples are spread across the country, where Guardsmen are using newly
provided capabilities to improve efficiency, effectiveness and morale.
Another initiative is the development of the Virtual Mission
Preparation capability. This is being used as a prototype to provide a
web-based, portal technology that delivers the capability to portray
real-time status of units and their overall mobilization readiness down
to the individual Soldier level. It was developed in Pennsylvania in
support of the 28th Division's rotation to Bosnia, and is now being
applied to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and to the 56th Stryker Brigade of
the Pennsylvania Army National Guard. Virtual Mission Preparation
provides functionality that has application across the Army National
Guard to improve deployability, as well as the capability to meet Army,
Defense Department and emergency response mission requirements.
The Bureau, through initiatives managed by the Communications
directorate and the Chief Information Officer, is ensuring that the
vision of supporting the warfighter and transforming the Guard is
supported through an approach that casts off the old lock-step, stove-
pipe method to Information Technology and moves to a truly
interconnected, net-centric information sharing capability.
Transforming the Mobilization and Demobilization Process
Today's global environment does not allow for the luxury of time
that our current Cold War era-mobilization process requires. The
modern, smaller, all volunteer military needs access to the reserve
components within days or weeks--not months.
The U.S. Joint Forces Command was tasked by the Secretary of
Defense to coordinate the development of a more agile and responsive
process to mobilize units and individuals within the reserve
components. As a result of this tasking, the command established
``Tiger Teams'' that consisted of subject matter experts from the
reserve and active components, defense agencies, and the Joint Staff to
study the mobilization process and make recommendations.
The Bureau fully participated in the workshops, endorsed the
recommendations of these teams, and is working closely with the U.S.
Joint Forces Command to improve the readiness and accessibility of the
National Guard for its federal mission. In order for this to occur, the
reserve components must be funded at a higher level of readiness and
the mobilization process must be updated so that the efficiencies of
automation and training during the course of the year can be
capitalized upon.
The lead agency within the Bureau for this effort is the newly-
organized Directorate of Logistics. They are the point of contact for
all coordination and inquiries by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and combatant commands regarding logistical and mobilization
matters as they relate to the National Guard. In the past, the Army and
the Air National Guard had no Bureau-level counterpart to interface
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense or with joint commands. The
joint Directorate of Logistics fills this void and is designed to
strengthen the interoperability of the Bureau with the other services
and components.
In addition to spearheading our efforts to reform the mobilization
and demobilization process, the directorate is an active member of a
newly formed multi-government agency committee of senior logisticians
that is chartered to develop a National Logistics Strategy to support
the National Response Plan. The group is working with U.S. Northern
Command to identify all logistics sources to support Homeland Defense
and Homeland Security needs.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Senator Stevens. General Schultz.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROGER C. SCHULTZ,
DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
General Schultz. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to be
before this committee.
As you think about our soldiers--you already mentioned the
highlight--they make our units special. They make our units
what they are, and collectively they develop our units'
capabilities.
As we talk about the Army National Guard, today we have
94,000-plus soldiers currently deployed. We have already
demobilized over 54,000 soldiers.
So, Mr. Chairman, our bottom line is readiness, and you
have clearly helped us deliver what I am now talking about in
highlight terms. Our posture statement gets at the detail, but
I do want to reinforce a point that General Blum has already
made and it has to do with Guard and Reserve equipment
appropriation. That is a readiness-enhancing initiative for us,
and I reinforce the importance of that.
Mr. Chairman, I know this is a 2005 hearing, but I need
your help getting through 2004. I have enough total money.
There will be a request coming to this committee for
consideration of moving some money from personnel accounts to
operations accounts. I will give you just a brief update of
what is going on. With all the mobilization activity, we have,
no doubt, changed our training plans from 1 October of last
year. So I would ask favorable consideration to move some of
our personnel accounts in a reprogramming action into the
operations and maintenance accounts where I have clear need for
some of our mobilization-related kinds of activity.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Stevens. We will look forward to that request and
act promptly on it. I understand what you are after and we will
work with you closely on that.
General James.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DANIEL JAMES, III,
DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
General James. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you on behalf of the more than 107,000 Air National Guard
men and women. Thank you for this opportunity.
Before I give my remarks, I would like to introduce to the
committee, if possible, Kentucky Air National Guardsman, Master
Sergeant David Strasinger. Master Sergeant Strasinger is here
with us today. He is a 20-year veteran. He has flown more than
1,000 sorties in his career. That is 2,500 hours of safe
flying. He is a combat veteran of 30 combat missions in
Operation Enduring Freedom. He has also participated in Iraqi
Freedom and Noble Eagle. From the 123rd Operations Group,
Master Sergeant David Strasinger.
Senator Stevens. Sergeant, it is nice to see that A-2
jacket. That brings back lots of memories.
General James. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, this has
been an incredible year for our Nation and it has also been an
incredible year for our Air National Guard. We have continued
to participate in the global war on terrorism with pride and
determination, and we have validated everything we have always
said about our capabilities. We have trained to Air Force
standards and accomplished the mission professionally as full
partners in the total Air Force.
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
Our contributions over the past 2 years since September
11th: we have mobilized over 36,000 members, flown over 100,000
flights for 340,000 hours. One-third of the Air Force aircraft
in Operation Iraqi Freedom were from the Air National Guard.
Today over 42,000 personnel, nearly 40 percent of the National
Guard's force, is currently performing full-time duty.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
We constantly monitor our recruiting and retention numbers,
and I am very pleased to report that the trends so far are
positive. We will and do expect to make our end strength for
this year. Because we have retained more of our people, our
recruiting goals are higher than need be. We have not recruited
to those goals, but we will retain enough people to make our
end strength.
We are currently working on a plan to posture the National
Guard for the missions our Nation will need in the future. The
plan, or Vanguard as I call it, is an examination of our
current capabilities and those required for our future air and
space force. We are already well into developing initiatives
for establishing the units that are integrated with the active
and reserve component in the Guard for the F/A-22 Raptor and
the RQ-1 Predator remotely piloted vehicle. Both of these are
groundbreaking opportunities for the Air Guard and we are
excited about the prospect of being involved in these new
missions and weapons systems.
C-17 AIRCRAFT
In December of 2003, the first C-17 aircraft was delivered
to the 172nd Air lift Wing in Jackson, Mississippi, the first
operational wing of its kind ever in the Air National Guard.
The final aircraft will be delivered in May and will be named
the Spirit of Sonny Montgomery in honor of Congressman
Montgomery who has done so much for not only the National
Guard, but for the Nation, the military, and its veterans. We
look forward to that event and to the great things to come from
this distinguished unit.
KC-135
The KC-135 tanker continues to be the backbone of our air
bridge for combat operations across the world. Modernizing this
aging fleet is critical to the Air National Guard, the Air
Force, and combatant commanders. This committee has helped make
and keep us relevant and is directly responsible for our
ability to participate as full partners with the Air Force.
Your exceptional support in providing the miscellaneous NGREA
funds has been absolutely critical in enabling us to leverage
our limited resources in an effort to bring needed capabilities
to the warfighter. The procurement of such items as the
Litening II targeting pod, upgrading the F-15 engines, and the
situational awareness data link, or SADL, are some examples of
how this appropriations has assisted us. We cannot thank you
enough for your continued support of this very important
program. With your help, I am certain that we will continue to
be ready, reliable, and relevant and needed now and in the
future.
I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Generals.
TANKERS
General James, in November 2001, we suggested a leasing
program to replace the KC-135's. Members of Congress and others
outside of Congress have criticized our suggestion, but they
have taken over 2\1/2\ years to review it and they have not
come up with anything else. The first time any one of those KC-
135's goes down and one of your people loses a life, I am going
to take it to the floor and point it out. And each one of those
people who are delaying that proposal are going to be
responsible. Those tankers are now what? Forty-four years old
on the average, General?
General James. Yes, sir. I think the oldest is 47 years
old.
Senator Stevens. It is just impossible to believe that. As
you say, the most critical portion of our operations today is
the tanker. We are airborne for almost everything that is going
on in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I cannot believe that this
should be delayed by just petty foolishness. It is time for
them to come up with a program and get it underway. It will
take 3 years before it is initiated, and take 5 years before
you get the replacement. Those tankers are going to be over 50
years old by the time they are replaced. That is criminal,
absolutely criminal.
Senator, do you have any comments, questions?
Senator Inouye. You have said everything I would have said,
sir.
Senator Stevens. I mean, it is your turn.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I would have said the same
thing that you have said about the tanker. If we let this
fester any longer, it would be criminal, and I would hate to be
a witness to its first accident.
Is it okay to ask questions?
Senator Stevens. It is your turn. Yes, sir. I used my time
to blow off.
RECRUITING
Senator Inouye. General Blum, the major concern that this
committee has can be said in two words, retention and
recruiting. What is your situation, sir?
General Blum. Senator Inouye, speaking for the three of us
at this front table, our major concern right now is readiness
which translates directly to our ability to recruit and retain
trained and ready citizen soldiers and airmen. My intuition
would tell you that that would be very, very difficult in the
situation and environment we find ourselves. However, in some
cases, the successes that we are experiencing, is that our
soldiers and airmen are reenlisting at very solid rates. They
are staying with us. After they deploy to very unpleasant
places around the world and put themselves in harm's way, they
are staying with their formations, which brings a great sense
of pride and satisfaction to the three of us at this table
because our citizen soldiers and airmen are answering the call
to colors and are remaining with us. This means we will have a
veteran force of combat veterans which the Guard has not had
since World War II. So in about 2 years, 8 out of 10 citizen-
soldiers and citizen-airmen in our formations will have pulled
a tour somewhere around the world in harm's way and will be
veterans of either a combat operation overseas in the away game
or a homeland defense operation here at home. And that vast
operational experience will make us an even more capable and
ready force.
I hope those young men and women from the high school in
Alaska are listening because we are getting non-prior service,
first-term enlistments out of high schools and colleges at an
unprecedented rate. We are doing very well and the quality of
our young men and women coming in has never been better.
So the good news is we are making our end strength and we
are maintaining our end strength now that we are almost 3 years
into a shooting war that is very, very difficult and putting a
strain on the force. But the trends seem to be holding. We do
not take them for granted. We monitor it very closely. We are
watching for any signs that this may fail, but so far the young
men and women of our Nation are answering the call to colors.
Senator Inouye. How would you describe the attitude of
employers and families?
EMPLOYERS
General Blum. Senator Inouye, as you well know, the
National Guard is really very similar to a three-legged stool.
One leg of that stool is the citizen soldier or airman. One is
their family members, and the third leg, equally important, is
the employer. So far the American employers have been standing
with us.
What they have asked us for time and time again, either
through contacting their elected officials or contacting the
National Committee on Employer Support for the Guard and
Reserve, or calling us directly, as happens in some of our
outreach programs, they simply want predictability. When is my
employee going to be called to active duty? How long will they
be away? When will they return? And how frequently will they be
called back? How soon again will I have to lose that employee?
So what we are doing is trying to set up a predictability
model that will give employers, families, and the citizen
soldiers and airmen a much greater picture further out. Right
now we are out to about 18 months with predictability in the
Air Guard and almost 24 months out with predictability in most
of the larger formations in the Army National Guard. So this
gives the soldier, the family, and their employer the
predictability they have asked for.
And we are also, to aid this, our transformation,
modularity and rebalancing efforts are trying to put a greater
number of high-demand capabilities in our force so that we do
not have to rotate the same units so frequently. We are aiming
for about a 5- or 6-year recovery time from an extended
overseas deployment.
READINESS
Senator Inouye. In your response to the first question, you
mentioned three R's: retention, recruiting, and readiness. How
would you describe the readiness of the forces under your
command?
General Blum. Senator Inouye, the National Guard soldiers
that have deployed most recently to Afghanistan and Iraq are
among the best trained, best equipped, best prepared soldiers
this Nation has ever sent out of any of its components. As a
matter of fact, they are probably the best trained, best
equipped, and best prepared soldiers any nation has ever sent
to war. So that pre-deployment part of it is superb.
But there are large parts of our force that are not ready
because they were not resourced to be ready. Part of our
rebalancing and restructuring of the National Guard will take
us to a posture where we can apply increased resources to
achieve enhanced readiness.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
C-17
General James, I wanted to thank you for coming to Jackson,
Mississippi for the arrival of the first C-17 that is deployed
there for the Air National Guard to operate and maintain. I
hope you are as pleased as I am with the progress that is being
made to train the pilots and the crews. I understand the plan
is to ramp up to an increased level of flying once all of the
crews are qualified in the C-17.
I am curious to know if your budget request contains the
resources that are necessary in order to make this unit an
active participant and to fully utilize these new assets.
General James. Well, Senator, it was a great honor for me
to be there and see that airplane roll down the runway and come
in behind the grandstand with you and other colleagues, your
colleagues from Mississippi.
I am very proud of the fact that the leadership of the
172nd remains engaged with us and Air Mobility Command (AMC) to
make sure that the conversion goes smoothly. I just spoke with
the Adjutant General yesterday about some plans to try to keep
the airplanes flying and the training going on while still
taking some pressure off of the air mobility assets that AMC
has.
In terms of our budgeting, when you have a conversion like
that that starts into the fiscal year, we agreed with the
Adjutant General (TAG) and with the leadership of the 172nd to
budget at 80 percent rather than 100 percent of the flying
hours for this fiscal year that we are currently in. We are
using the model that we talked about earlier that came over
from the 141. Once we train the crews and get the crews up to
speed and get everybody checked out, we intend to look at all
the data that we get from this first year's experience and then
make an adjustment there so that we gradually ramp up to what
or hopefully near what the active component is flying in their
C-17 programs.
Senator Cochran. I appreciate your leadership and your
staying personally in touch with the needs of that unit.
General James. Well, thank you, Senator. I have to tell you
that the new TAG knows the airlift business, air mobility
business very well and he does not hesitate to call me if he
has got an issue.
Senator Cochran. General Schultz, we were talking before
the hearing began about the fact that Camp Shelby in
Mississippi has been designated as a mobilization center. I
would like for you to let us know whether this means that we
will need to appropriate any additional funds beyond what is
requested in the budget to ensure that that mission is carried
out successfully.
General Schultz. Currently, Senator, the 278 Cav Regimen
from Tennessee will be mobilizing at Camp Shelby. Requirements
for the installation of upgrades and various things will be
processed through the Army. So right now today, I do not have a
line item for you on what that requirement would be.
Senator Cochran. Up in Tupelo, Mississippi, we have a unit
that had helicopters. It is an Army National Guard unit. Some
of the pilots have been deployed to Iraq, as a matter of fact.
These are Kiowa helicopter pilots. Maybe General Blum is the
one to respond to this. The report from the soldiers up there
was that no replacement aircraft had been identified. Maybe
they have by the time this hearing is held, but I understand
the Army National Guard aviation distribution plan will be
announced soon.
Can you speak to this issue or give us any indication of
what the plans are?
General Schultz. Senator, I am working that plan
personally. We will have 10 Kiowa Warriors, which is the
aircraft that the unit had before we sent all the pilots off to
active duty, to war. When we are done, there will be 8 Apaches
in Tupelo plus the 10 Kiowa Warriors.
Now, we are going through, obviously, a transformation in
the aviation community as well, so some of the numbers I am
talking about will take a while to be rebuilt, redistributed,
but the end state would be a 16-helicopter flight facility
there.
I might also say, Senator, that I talked with the brigade
commander from the 101st Air Assault Division, and the pilots
we took from Tupelo were recognized as outstanding, skilled
aviators indeed.
Senator Cochran. We appreciate that compliment. We have had
a lot of National Guard and Reserve forces from our State
deployed. As a matter of fact, I think two Army Reservists have
been killed in Iraq, so we are fully aware of the dangers they
face and we want to be sure that the equipment they have and
the training that they receive will enable them to carry out
their mission successfully and to return home safely as soon as
possible. We appreciate your leadership in assuring that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Leahy.
HEALTH INSURANCE
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last year the subcommittee recognized that almost 20
percent of the National Guard and Reserve did not have health
insurance. We realized that this was damaging readiness. On the
Iraq supplemental, we enacted legislation that allows
unemployed members of the Guard to buy into the TRICARE program
on a cost share basis, and we put that in the defense
authorization bill. It was a bipartisan piece of legislation.
But it has not been implemented. I joined my colleagues,
Senators Graham and DeWine and Daschle, recently to write the
Secretary of Defense to find out how we can speed this up, stop
slowing down this critical legislation. I would ask consent
that my letter be part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Without objection.
[The letter follows:]
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, March 25, 2004.
The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC
20301.
Dear Mr. Secretary: We are writing to express our mounting
frustration with the Defense Department's lethargic efforts to
implement a pilot program to provide our reservists access to TRICARE.
As you know, in both the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) and the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act, Congress voted to expand reservists' access to TRICARE for one
year. This legislation contained seven TRICARE-related provisions,
ranging from medical and dental screening for reservists alerted for
mobilization, to an extension of TRICARE eligibility before and after
mobilization periods.
We were pleased last week to see that the Defense Department has
finally implemented the provisions to extend the post-mobilization
TRICARE benefit to 180 days. But the same announcement said that
implementation of a critical component of the TRICARE benefit--offering
coverage to those without employer-provided health care--``cannot be
completed for several months.'' We are very disturbed by the delay in
the department's implementation of this key provision.
We are also concerned that transitional benefits will not provide
access to TRICARE Prime Remote. Many reservists, and perhaps most, live
beyond a 50-mile radius of a military treatment facility and thus would
be forced into TRICARE Standard. This plan charges a substantial annual
deductible as well as copayments for every visit. This is not the
transitional benefit that Congress sought to create.
In recent days, the Administration has indicated that it supports
improving health care benefits for our reservists. We applaud that
decision and ask that you work with us, both to implement the existing
one-year program and enact our proposal to provide reservists and their
families permanent access to TRICARE.
Sincerely,
Mike DeWine,
Tom Daschle,
Lindsey O. Graham,
Patrick Leahy,
Members of the Senate.
Senator Leahy. General Blum, can you tell me why this has
not been put into place yet? I would think there would be some
urgency on this.
General Blum. Senator Leahy, there is definitely urgency on
our part. We place nothing at a higher priority than taking
care of our soldiers, our airmen, and their families. I do not
view this TRICARE initiative or this health care initiative as
an entitlement program. I really view it as a medical readiness
enhancement. I too am anxiously awaiting the implementing
instructions from the Department of Defense on how we are going
to move forward in this area.
Senator Leahy. Well, please pass the word back that an
awful lot of us up here from both parties--this is not a
partisan issue, and you certainly have not made it one--who are
very, very concerned. As we call up more and more of our Guard
and Reserves, we would like this TRICARE implemented. If they
keep delaying it at the Pentagon, I think it is going to hurt
your readiness. It is certainly going to hurt retention. I know
you and I have had a lot of discussions and I know how
concerned you are.
We added, in this subcommittee, about $200 million divided
almost equally between the Air and Army National Guard to
increase equipment procurement. We also gave the Air and Army
Guard a lot of discretion, an enormous amount of discretion in
managing the account. I have received an update on how you used
the funds. It appears you put them toward an urgent need like
up-armored high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV),
M-4 carbines, combat identification friend or foe systems. Do
you still have an equipment backlog and what are some of the
most urgent needs?
EQUIPMENT BACKLOG
General Blum. Yes, Senator, we always will have an
equipment backlog as technology changes and as the requirements
change on the battlefield. General James has an equipments
needs list as does General Schultz. These are not wants; these
are needs. Frankly, the Army and the Air Force are making every
effort to finally make an honest effort to equip us like our
active counterparts, but they too are going to fall short. We
will welcome any assistance that we could get in that regard
against our needs list, and those needs directly equate to
readiness. If you want some detail on that, General Schultz can
share that on the Army Guard side and General James can give
you the detail, sir, for the Air Guard.
Senator Leahy. General Schultz.
General Schultz. Senator, in the case of the Army Guard, we
bought trucks, machine guns, night vision devices, and radios.
The equipment I am talking about now is as a result of
Congress' action last year. It will be realized in the form of
units going to the third rotation of Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF)-3. In other words, we are buying new equipment and
furnishing this equipment to units that are about to go to war.
That is how critical this function is. We are still short the
very things that I have just talked about as we now alert and
mobilize follow-on units.
Senator Leahy. General James.
General James. Yes, Senator. In terms of fiscal year 2004,
we have utilized those resources I mentioned in my opening
remarks on targeting pods, engine upgrades, everything from
night vision goggles to helmet-mounted cuing systems and large
aircraft infrared countermeasures which is something we
continue to press for. We have a large fleet of large airplanes
and I really am concerned about their ability to protect
themselves against infrared man-launched shoulder-mounted
weapons in theater in particular.
LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
As far as the unfunded areas, the top five for us for this
coming fiscal year would be again the targeting pods, depot
maintenance shortfalls, weapons of mass destruction equipment
and training, primarily training. Again, the LAIRCM, the large
aircraft infrared countermeasures, and the F-15, F-16 engines.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
I will submit my other questions for the record, if I
might.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator. I will
remind members that we do have a second panel.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Each time I go home, I am just standing in marvel of what
we have accomplished in the last 3 years as far as upgrading
our Reserves and our National Guard in our home States.
A decision was made some 10 or 11 years ago that part of
our overall military force structure was going to be moved to
the ranks of the National Guard and Reserves. It became
apparent to me that when you look at the infrastructure in our
particular States, our infrastructure was not ready to really
train hard and to have the facilities, the infrastructure to
complete that mission.
So in my State, I went to work trying to fix that because
we were operating out of facilities that were built in World
War II. Our communications and our ability to teach
interactively and distance learning and everything that we had
to do was woefully way behind the state of the art. But now we
have done that.
TRAINING RANGES
I just want to mention to you, General James, about a
training tool that we use in Montana at the 120th wing there on
the Litening II advance targeting pods. I keep hearing my
people talk about them. They have probably been the most useful
thing. As you know, we ran out of ranges, places to train, air
space in which to train. By the way, if any of you all want
some air space, you know the sky is bigger in Montana. We have
got room for you and we are willing to host you. I just thought
that I would throw that out there.
Senator Stevens. The sky is only bigger in Montana if you
are lying on your back.
Senator Burns. I am not going to go there.
LITENING II TARGETING PODS
Could you bring us up to date on the Litening II targeting
pods, if you would please, your requirements? Give us some idea
of the cost of the program because it appears to me these will
become a very, very economical way to train our pilots. Can you
bring us up to date on that and tell us more about them?
Because I do not think a lot of people know a lot about them.
General James. Well, the Litening II targeting pod was, I
would say, the piece of equipment that got us involved in the
last few contingencies. The warfighters, the combatant
commanders, want precision-guided munitions capability that can
be delivered very accurately. My predecessor pursued this
strategy to acquire the Litening II and they used the NGREA
funds to do so. That capability allowed us to be involved in
the last two to three contingencies, especially Iraqi Freedom
and Enduring Freedom.
SNIPER POD
I have a list of different numbers here that I can pass on
to the staff, but what I would say to you is our philosophy is
that there is another pod that has come forward. It is called a
Sniper pod and it is produced by another corporation. It was a
little delayed getting into production but now they are
starting to produce this pod, and it is supposed to be the
Cadillac of all pods.
We still are procuring our Litening II pods and we have
developed a two-pod procurement philosophy. In other words, we
will continue to procure some Litening pods, but we will also
procure the Sniper pod as it becomes more and more available.
Senator Burns. Well, I congratulate on that.
General Schultz, we are trying to update our 155's in
Montana. Can you give us an update? Is that possible? We want
to go to the lighter weight Howitzers up there. Is that
possible? What plans do you have for us on those 155's?
General Schultz. Senator, I owe you a complete answer for
the record. We are going through those reviews right now. We
had some 155's in our long-range program. Some of those numbers
have changed, and I will give you a full lay down and a
detailed description of just how we are doing there. It is
possible to do what you are describing.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
Fielding of Lighter Weight Howitzers for Montana Army National Guard
No force structure decisions have been made with respect to
the unit level of detail for the fielding of LW 155 equipped
Army National Guard Field Artillery units. Montana is part of a
two-state coalition that is attempting to go after a
congressional add for the LW 155 Howitzer. Montana Army
National Guard is not currently on any fielding schedule for
the LW 155.
Senator Burns. I have some more questions. I will offer
them in writing, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to congratulate
the leadership because I think you have been visionary because
we know we are not just a weekend Boy Scout camp anymore. We
are there to do business. You have caught the imagination of a
lot of young people. They are staying with you to somewhat of a
surprise because we hear a little rhetorical going on every now
and again, but for the most part, they are very, very
optimistic and they are doing a great job. I thank the
Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
First of all, let me thank all of you for your service and
for what the men and women under your command do for this
country.
General Schultz, this weekend a member of the 142nd
battalion that just returned from Iraq told us that they did
not have enough sets of body armor. The young man indicated
that when one soldier came back from patrol in Iraq, he took
off his body armor and gave it to the next soldier going on
patrol. Can you give me any information about what is the
supply of body armor? Is there sufficient body armor in Iraq at
this point?
General Schultz. Senator, the condition you described early
on in the first rotation of Operation Iraqi Freedom was no
doubt exactly as the soldier outlined it to you. The Army has
(OIF-1) been working hard on the distribution of the body
armor. In Afghanistan and Iraq, there are adequate quantities
of the inventory. We followed the 142nd battalion and they
performed a significant portion of their mission without every
soldier having the full-up body armor issued. That is correct.
That has since been adjusted in theater, though. So we have
taken the action that he outlined the concern for.
Senator Dorgan. I will ask him more about that later, but
the question is how much is in the country relative to the
number of soldiers in the country.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Let me ask you a question about BRAC. What will be the role
of the three of you with respect to making recommendations to
the Defense Secretary? My understanding is that only a handful
of Air Guard and Air Force Reserve facilities were evaluated,
General James, in the 1995 BRAC round. My understanding is that
this BRAC round intends to look at all facilities of the Guard
and Reserve. Is that correct, or am I wrong about that?
General Schultz. Senator, if I could. In terms of the Army
Guard, all our facilities fall below the threshold that BRAC
considers. What I have said, though--and I encourage Adjutants
General to do the same thing here--is we ought to volunteer to
be considered for the survey, for the review, for the analysis.
And then States would participate on a voluntary kind of basis
for a site by site and a reconfiguration and redesign, et
cetera. So there are aspects of the BRAC program I think we
ought to take a serious look at and see the value-added or the
advantage of what BRAC might bring us. So I have said do not
just discount the BRAC benefits by saying nothing qualifies in
the Army Guard.
What I am saying is we ought to take a serious look at
facilities that could be joint, facilities that may have
qualities where we can just simply share costs with other
services. Now, that will not apply to every kind of armory
across the country, but it might to some. So that is what I
have encouraged States to do.
Senator Dorgan. General James.
General James. We will be full participants in the BRAC. We
are already working with the committees from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) all the way to the Air Force
committees. The Air National Guard will be full participants in
having an input into BRAC. To answer your questions, are all
installations being looked at for BRAC, my understanding is
yes, all installations will be looked at.
Senator Dorgan. And that is a change from 1995. Is that not
correct?
General James. Correct.
Senator Dorgan. If all of your units are full participants,
what role will you have in making recommendations to the
Secretary? I think I understand what role the other service
chiefs have, but what role will you have?
General James. We are involved with the Air Force. We
participate through the Air Force and then on to the Department
of Defense (DOD). My deputy, Brigadier General David Brubaker,
sits on the committee that represents the Air National Guard
and makes our inputs.
Senator Dorgan. So you will participate through the Air
Force Chief.
I mean, there is a difference between regular Air Force and
Air Guard because in the regular Air Force, you can close a
base and move your troops. That is not necessarily the case
with the Guard. Is that right?
General James. That is our challenge. We cannot cut
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders and just move our
folks. We have to come up with a program whereby we can re-roll
or integrate these forces into possibly a facility that is
close by that is an active duty facility. Under the Vanguard
concept, we are looking at those types of formations and those
types of units whereby we have integrated Air National Guard
and active duty. That does not work in every case as you look
at the demographics and how we are spread out. In some places,
that lends itself very well, in the large airplane community,
for example, along the east and west coast where we have
facilities that have the air mobility assets. But when you look
at the heartland and your State and other States where you have
fighter units spread out throughout the United States, you have
to look very carefully. There is potential because you do have
a large tanker base north of you, but all of this has to be
taken into consideration.
One of the things we are doing is we are asking for inputs
from the States through the adjutants general for how they
would do it if they were forced to remission or move.
Senator Dorgan. Finally, General Schultz, in the Guard you
recruit not just a soldier but their family because it is a
citizen soldier and their family plays a significant role in
this. I listened closely to your answer about retention and
recruitment. I think it is critical to take a hard look and a
close look at that because often what we are getting from
families after long deployments is word that they are concerned
about that. So one would expect there to be some concern
showing up in recruitment and retention. I am really pleased to
hear your report that it is not, but I think that your
suggestion that you need to follow that very closely is an
important one at this point.
General Schultz. We watch it very closely, Senator.
Senator Dorgan. I hope that those men and women who serve
under you understand the gratitude of this committee and that
this country is grateful for their service.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a series
of four questions. I will try to get them in. If I do not, I
will submit them.
IRAQ
Let me ask all of you. It would seem to this Senator that
you must have had to change the activity expected from some of
your units and some of the preparation in order to be used in
this war in Iraq. When you hear of Reserves and National Guard
units over there, you frequently hear that they are doing
things that the regular Air Force is not doing and the regular
Army is not doing. But could you tell me, when you say we are
sending the best equipped, best trained people, what are you
sending them over there to do? What are they principally
involved in doing in Iraq?
General Blum. Senator, I have been to Afghanistan and Iraq
three times. I will be going there again in the next 2 weeks. I
have been for each and every rotation, and I can assure you
that the first rotation was not a pretty picture. They did not
go over there as well-equipped as we currently are doing. They
were trained and they were ready, but they were not equipped,
and that has been brought up by several of the other Senators.
They are absolutely correct. Those issues have been corrected.
The United States Army, General Pete Schoomaker has moved lots
and lots of effort and money to making us the best equipped,
best trained, best prepared force that has ever been deployed,
and I mean that sincerely, bar none, in the history of this
Nation. The group that is over there now, the 30th, the 39th,
the 81st, and the 116th, the 278th, 256th, and the 42nd that
are getting ready to go will be the best equipped and trained
and superbly ready force we have ever sent.
What they do is what the combatant commander needs them to
do on a given day because this is not a training exercise. This
is a war where an enemy has a vote, and unfortunately, he votes
often and differently each time, and we have to make those
adjustments.
The performance of the citizen soldier and airmen that have
been sent overseas has been nothing short of outstanding,
superb. They have not failed in anything they have been asked
to do. They can perform at the same rate or better than their
active duty counterparts because of their civilian-acquired
skills and some of their maturity and education levels are a
little bit higher.
Senator Domenici. General, let me interrupt. I understand
your answer and I appreciate it.
It seems to me when you talk about the success rate at
keeping these people in that somebody like me wonders are they
staying in expecting to be overseas or are a lot of them
expecting to be part of a mission that does not take them
overseas?
General Blum. Sir, in the last 3 years no one has come into
the National Guard because they think they are coming in
strictly for a college education or military vocational
training. They know they are going to have to answer the call
to colors. They know they are going to be serving, defending
this Nation either here at home or abroad, and maybe both. In
fact, some of the people on the panel have done all three. They
are staying with us because they feel what they are doing is
vitally important to the survival of this Nation and our way of
life and our liberties. I thank God every night that we have
young citizens in this country that are willing to do that.
When you remember that we are now in our 30th year of no draft,
all volunteer, all recruited force and being tested for the
first time in the crucible of war, this young generation is
standing up to that test and getting high marks.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
I want to just say I had three questions and I am just
going to outline them. One has to do with a lot of families in
rural areas. New Mexico is a very rural State. The families do
not know their benefits, do not know what they are supposed to
get, do not know what they are entitled to, and they are not in
Albuquerque. They are off in some little rural area. Could
there be some kind of centralized office that could provide
Guard and Reserve families with information regarding what they
are entitled to, or is that being done in your opinion?
General Blum. Sir, we have over 400 centers called Family
Assistance Centers where any member of the Army National Guard,
Air National Guard, or any of the other services, whether
reserve or active, can contact that unit armory and speak with
a trained representative who can tell them all of their
benefits and direct them almost as an ombudsman to solve their
problems. That is what they are there for. They are funded and
they are established and they are trained to take care of the
families of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who happen
to live in a ZIP code where there is no major military
installation to help them.
Senator Domenici. So if we are receiving complaints about
that, what we ought to do is have them check where their
closest center is, and if there are not any, we ought to
complain to you.
General Blum. Absolutely. In your case, sir, I would direct
them right to see General Montoya and have him direct them to
the local closest Army National Guard or readiness facility
that could support their efforts.
BLENDED UNITS
Senator Domenici. My last one has to do with blended units.
We understand that the National Guard unit in California and an
active duty Air Force squadron in Nevada recently formed what
they called a blended wing for the operation of Predator
unattended aerial vehicles (UAV). How is this concept working?
And do you see an increased role for the Guard in operating
UAV's for the border? And do you and the Air Force plan to
expand the number of blended wings? If so, for what purpose?
General Blum. I personally think it is the way of the
future. I think it makes sense for the American taxpayer to
leverage the Department of Defense's capabilities by getting
the synergy of the active, the Reserve, and the Guard
components. That unit that you talk about is an Air Force
Reserve unit, an active Air Force unit, and two Air National
Guard units that make up that unit. We call that an integrated
unit because it is fully integrated. All three components
comprise that unit and I think that makes great sense as we
move into the future and we use our Guard and Reserve as an
operational force, not a strategic Reserve.
Senator Domenici. Could I have one more, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. In New Mexico, it seems like a
restructuring is taking place. The National Guard leadership is
developing a plan and an organization to convert much of what
we have got there from air defense to infantry military police
and other units. Is this in line with what you want, and do
these kind of missions reflect a larger plan for building the
National Guard for the future, reflecting perhaps a change of
needs?
General Blum. Senator, I applaud those efforts being taken
by the joint force headquarters in New Mexico. It is exactly
the right thing to do. They are divesting themselves of units
that are no longer needed for current and future threats and
moving it to areas to develop capabilities that that State will
need and our Nation will need from its National Guard forces in
New Mexico. General Montoya is doing exactly, in my judgment,
the right thing at the right time.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, gentlemen. I have only one
question and that is this. When we were in Iraq, we pursued to
a great extent the question of the dumps of ammunition and
ordnance that exist all over that country. We were told there
are from 1,000 to 7,000 of those dumps in that country and that
the current deployment is not sufficient to guard them. They
represent a massive amount of weapons of destruction. We have
been looking for weapons of mass destruction. This is a massive
amount of weapons of destruction. It appears that some of them
were taken out, tied together, and blew up an Abrams tank and
others have been used as mines in the roads.
I do not want your response, but I would like you to go
back to your offices and take a look at that and see what would
it take to send over a force designed for one purpose and that
is to gather up that ordnance, either destroy it or drop it in
the ocean or do something with it because it is going to be
consistently used to harm our American personnel if we do not
do something about it. We are asking the Department to look at
it too, and I intend to go further on it before the year is
over. But I do think it is going to take a special force of
people that would be trained to know how to deal with that
ordnance and to move it somewhere, at least get it to where we
can guard it. Currently very few of those dumps are guarded. So
I appreciate your response if you would get it to me.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I also have some questions I will submit for the record, as
did several members of this committee.
I want to thank you all again and tell you what a wonderful
job we know your people are doing. I have said before Senator
Inouye and I were supposed to be part of the greatest
generation. We spawned a greater generation. These young people
are just fantastic people. I have never met anybody like those
people who are over there, and that includes the ones that are
in the hospital. They are just fantastic. Thank you all very
much, gentlemen.
[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
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. One of my constituents, Atlantis Cyberspace, Inc. has
developed what seems to be an extremely flexible Immersive Group
Simulation system capable of providing superb training opportunities
for Reserve component forces. Their basic solution provides four
virtual reality pods, a live virtual camera system, a mission control
instructor-operator station, training scenarios based on situations and
graphics developed for ``America's Army'', a full runtime license, and
set-up and installation. That basic system can be easily expanded from
four to up to 32 pods and has additional options including expanded
After Action Review stations, wireless or customized weapons, and force
feedback vests that record opposing force hits. This existing
flexibility allows realistic training for a range of needs: from small
special operations teams up to platoon-sized conventional units. The
scenarios can be modified to train specific tactics, techniques and
procedures or to conduct mission rehearsals, in fact I understand that
Atlantis Cyberspace has recently been asked to submit a proposal for a
modification of their basic system to allow tactical convoy training in
a virtual environment. The pods can be linked from different locations
to allow individuals to train together while physically separated and
the system is sufficiently compact to allow its deployment in austere
locations or small training spaces.
Atlantis Cyberspace has had some initial contact with the National
Guard, but I am interested in your assessment of the training
opportunities offered by their Immersive Group Simulation. Could you
please have the appropriate members of the Bureau look at the system
and provide me your thoughts on the utility of the system?
Answer. We are aware of the system and have had contact with
Cyberspace but have not as yet completed a full assessment of its
applicability to Army National Guard Training. Once a complete
assessment is completed, we will forward a copy of the review to you.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
HOMELAND SECURITY
Question. General Blum, The past has shown that there are times
when it is necessary to have access to military equipment and personnel
to perform certain functions in a state and local setting. We have made
provisions in previous years to allow National Guard members to perform
certain missions such as counter-drug and weapons of mass destruction
civil support in a separate status that would not violate posse
comitatus. Do you feel that domestic operational use of National
Guardsmen in a title 32 status would aid in providing the necessary
flexibility for our states to respond to domestic emergencies such as
unprovoked terrorist attacks?
Answer. Providing clear authority for the National Guard to perform
operations--in addition to training--under Title 32 would significantly
strengthen the flexibility for addressing domestic missions. As you
state, the counter-drug activities and weapons of mass destruction/
civil support team operations have been quite successful. I would also
add that the airport security mission and the recent mission in support
of the G8 conference and similar major events have also demonstrated
the wisdom of having National Guardsmen perform operational type
missions while remaining under the command and control of states. One
of the major benefits, as you point out, is the resulting ability of
National Guardsmen to assist in both federal and state law enforcement
free from the restrictions of posse comitatus.
Also, important, is the great speed and agility inherent in Title
32 operations. Because National Guard troops are already under the
command of their state Adjutants General they can very rapidly be
called to duty and, likewise, can easily be released from duty. No
cumbersome federal mobilization and deployment process is needed.
For this reason, I would urge that any amendment of Title 32 to
provide operational authority do so in such a manner as to minimize the
number and types of administrative prerequisites which might slow down
the process and thereby destroy the speed and flexibility which are
among the most important characteristics of Title 32 operations in the
first place.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
HOMELAND SECURITY
Question. What is your plan for the procurement of more M777,
Lightweight 155-millimeter howitzers (LW155) for the Army National
Guard?
Answer. Money previously programmed to field all six battalions in
the Army National Guard has been reprogrammed to fund the Army's
Stryker brigades and leaving the Army National Guard with an unfunded
requirement of four battalions--two-thirds--of the Army National
Guard's total requirement for LW155 corps battalions. A battalion set
of LW155 costs $35 million, which includes howitzers equipped with the
digitization package, initial spares, new equipment training and LW155
unique associated items of equipment and test sets.
Question. I am interested in your plans for the expansion of the
force structure of unmanned aircraft into the Army National Guard; can
you provide me with a plan showing which systems will be brought into
Army National Guard units and a timeline for that implementation?
Answer. It is my intention to build modernized force structure
which mirrors the modular design of the Active Army. These designs will
be implemented between now and fiscal year 2010 and follow, as nearly
as can be projected, the return of units from Peace Keeping or GWOT
missions. When the plan is completely implemented the Army National
Guard (ARNG) will have 34 fully equipped and trained Shadow 200
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) Platoons. In order to meet this
timeline the activities of a number of organizations to include the
state National Guards; the operations, personnel, acquisition, force
structure and training staff elements of both HQDA and NGB as well as
manufacturers must be coordinated. At present, two TUAV platoons (from
the Pennsylvania and Maryland Guards) comprised of 22 soldiers are
training at Fort Huachuca as part of a Mobilize-Train-Deploy scenario.
These units will leave equipment fielded to them in the theater of
operations as they will be followed by platoons from the Minnesota
ARNG. The 116th Brigade which is headquartered in Idaho shares force
structure with the Oregon and Montana Army Guards and will convert to
the modular design in fiscal year 2006.
Question. What is your plan to decrease the stress on certain
specialties such as Military Police and Civil Affairs due to high
mobilization rates within the Guard?
Answer. Current operations and future operations continue to
require increasing numbers of military police units. This requirement
is not likely to decrease in the near future. In order to meet on-going
requirements, the Army National Guard committed to build 144 new
military policy units, in addition to the 118 military police units the
Guard presently has, between now and September 2009. The Army National
Guard provisionally organized 16 military police units to fill the
immediate need for additional military police for law and order mission
inside the Continental United States, Hawaii, and military
installations in Germany, but some of these provisional units will
return to their original structure when missions complete. In addition,
the Army National Guard accelerated the activation of two military
police combat support companies. The Active component and the Army
Reserve own all Civil Affairs functions.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Daniel James, III
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
LITENING II PODS
Question. What are your requirements for the Litening II Pods for
the Air National Guard?
Answer. The LITENING family of targeting pods has evolved from the
original LITENING II to ER (Extended Range) and now to AT (Advanced
Technology). The LITENING AT pod is equipped with a 512k FLIR, Laser
Spot Track (LST), and the capability to target J-Series Weapons. The
Northrop Grumman LITENING AT targeting pod (TGP) is comparable to
Lockheed Martin's Sniper XR.
The total targeting pod requirement for the Air National Guard is
266 pods that includes 203 for Block 25/30/32/42 F-16s and 54 for the
A-10. This breaks down to 8 TGPs per squadron plus spares. The ANG has
87 LITENING TGPs in the inventory, with 25 LITENING ATs on order, 12
Sniper XRs on order, and 70 Sniper XRs to be received from the active
duty Air Force. The remaining requirement is 63 TGPs at a unit cost of
$1.3 million per pod for a total price of $81.9 million.
F-16 FLEET
Question. Is the Air Force adequately funded to provide these pods
to the F-16?
Answer. No. The United States Air Force currently has 470 LANTIRN
Targeting Pods (TGP) in its inventory, which has a single mode Forward
Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) and does not have a TV mode, Laser Spot Search
and Track (LSS/LST), Laser Marker (LM), or the ability to generate J-
series weapons. The total documented requirement for the Combat Air
Forces (CAF) is 679 3rd Generation TGPs. The United States Air Force
has budgeted for 200 Sniper XR targeting pods, with 56 on contract. The
United States Air Force, Air National Guard, and AFRC have a total of
134 LITENING pods in their inventories. This leaves the CAF 345 TGPs
short of our documented requirements.
The United States Air Force and Air National Guard combined forces
in February 2000 to develop and procure the Advanced Targeting Pod
(ATP). Lockheed Martin's Sniper XR pod won an open competition for the
ATP contract, and the Air National Guard is supposed to receive 70 of
the first 176 Snipers that are procured. Sniper is over a year and a
half late, and the Air National Guard is still waiting to receive the
first TGP from the United States Air Force. LITENING has helped satisfy
ANG requirements in the interim.
LITENING TARGETING PODS
Question. What will be the impact if these Litening targeting pods
are not adequately funded?
Answer. The Air National Guard has been sharing LITENING Targeting
Pods (TGP) between units since 1998. At the present time, we only have
enough pods for units to get a minimum of 3 months worth of training
before they deploy to theater. When a unit returns home, they typically
go 3-6 months without any TGP training capability. Funding the
remaining 63 LITENING pods and receiving 70 Sniper pods from the United
States Air Force will allow the Air National Guard to permanently base
8 pods plus spares at each unit. This will keep the Air National Guard
from constantly moving TGPs, provide better training continuity, and
establish unit ``ownership'' of pods that will improve their overall
maintainability.
UNMANNED AIRCRAFTS
Question. I am interested in your plans for the expansion of the
force structure of unmanned aircraft into the Air National Guard; can
you provide me with a plan showing which systems will be brought into
Air Guard units and a timeline for that implementation?
Answer. We are currently working with Air Combat Command, the lead
command for unmanned aircraft, to develop a plan to support and
integrate Air National Guard units into unmanned aircraft operations
and maintenance. To date, the ANG has been processing, exploiting, and
disseminating intelligence from Predator, Global Hawk, and U-2 missions
over Iraq and Afghanistan. In particular, the 152 Intel Squadron (NV
ANG) was the sole exploiter of Global Hawk imagery during OPERATION
IRAQI FREEDOM and OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM. We are currently
expanding our exploitation capability by robusting our current
intelligence units [117 Intel Sq (AL ANG), 123 Intel Sq (AR ANG), and
152 Intel Sq (NV ANG)] and standing up additional units in California,
Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.
TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC AIRLIFT
Question. Are you finding that your tactical and strategic airlift
capabilities adequate?
Answer. ANG internal tactical (theater) and strategic capabilities
are more than adequate to meet Air National Guard training, non-
deployed mobility and exercise support needs. The issue is that ANG
resources are part of a larger, Air Force/National Defense set of
requirements determined by the Air Force and the Joint Staff. Whether
overall capacity is sufficient to meet national strategy and
warfighting needs is currently under study. The issue is beyond the
capacity of the ANG to answer.
Question. Is tactical and strategic airlift funded adequately in
the fiscal year 2005 budget?
Answer. There are shortfalls in funding both tactical and strategic
airlift in the fiscal year 2005 budget. On the tactical side,
additional unbudgeted C-130J aircraft are required to meet the
previously agreed total force acquisition profile and funding is
lacking for combatant commander and AMC mandated (but not funded) night
vision goggle capability and aircraft defensive systems. The strategic
airlift mission area is under funded in fiscal year 2005 in the amount
of $1.7 million for the cost of C-5 simulator installation at Memphis,
TN as part of the ongoing 164th Airlift Wing conversion from C-141 to
C-5 aircraft. There is a critical shortfall of $63 million in fiscal
year 2005 to cover the cost of required support equipment required for
the incoming C-5s at Memphis and at the subsequently converting 167th
Airlift Wing at Martinsburg, WV. This equipment is not being flowed
from AMC with the aircraft and is acquisition lead-time away.
RESERVES
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES R. HELMLY, CHIEF,
ARMY RESERVE
Senator Stevens. Our next panel will be the Reserve chiefs,
Lieutenant General James Helmly, Vice Admiral John Cotton,
Lieutenant General Dennis McCarthy, and Lieutenant General
James Sherrard. If you would please join us, gentlemen.
General McCarthy, can you tell us who those people are? One
of them is your son I understand. Captain, it is nice to have
you join your father. We appreciate it very much.
General McCarthy. The young captain back there is Captain
Michael McCarthy who is on active duty with the Marine Chemical
Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) unit here in
Washington who wanted to come and see a hearing today. Thank
you for asking me that, sir.
Senator Stevens. It is not very educational today, but that
is fine.
General Helmly, are those people behind you here for
introduction?
General Helmly. Yes, sir. This is Staff Sergeant James
Gwiazda and Sergeant Paul Hutton, both members of the 299th
Engineer Bridge Company of Fort Belvoir, Virginia, which fought
the road to Baghdad and bridged the Euphrates River for the 3rd
Infantry Division in its decisive attack on Baghdad.
Senator Stevens. Well, we are proud to have you with us,
gentlemen. Thank you very much.
All of your statements will be printed in the record as if
read. We appreciate your summarizing whatever you wish to say
before us today. There is a debate going on on the floor now
unfortunately, but General Helmly, let us start with you
please, sir.
General Helmly. Mr. Chairman and members of this
distinguished subcommittee, thank you so much for the
opportunity and indeed the privilege to testify on behalf of
the 211,000 soldiers, 12,000 civilian employees, and indeed the
families, as we noted here today, of the Army Reserve, an
integral component of the world's greatest army, an army at war
for a Nation at war.
I am Ron Helmly and I am an American soldier in your Army
and very, very proud of it, Mr. Chairman. I am joined this
morning, as we noted, by Staff Sergeant James Gwiazda and
Sergeant Paul Hutton, both of the 299th Engineer Bridge
Company.
Today, as we speak, nearly 60,000 Army Reserve soldiers are
on active duty in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, here in the
continental United States, and elsewhere around the world as
part of our Nation's global war on terrorism, serving
courageously and proudly. They are joined by another 151,000
Army Reserve soldiers currently training and preparing for
mobilization or, indeed, resting and refitting after being
demobilized and redeployed.
Since September 11, 2001, more than 100,000 Army Reserve
soldiers have served on active duty as a part of this war.
Tragically, 31 Army Reserve soldiers have made the ultimate
sacrifice, 4 in just the last week, in service to our Nation to
keep their fellow citizens and their families and neighbors
safe and free. We are forever and deeply in their debt and
honor their memories by our actions here today.
Your invitation to testify comes at a time of profound and
unprecedented change and challenge in the dynamics of our
Nation's security environment. A critical issue that should be
recognized is that this is the first extended duration war our
Nation has fought with an all-volunteer force. January marked
the 30th anniversary of the all-volunteer force. This immense
policy change in our Nation has brought the Army Reserve and
the armed forces an unheard of and unprecedented quality of
those who populate our ranks. Yet, the all-volunteer force also
brings expectations and sensitivities that we must confront
with regard to how we support our people and how we train them
and how and when we employ those people.
To meet the demands of our Nation and the needs of our Army
and joint force team, we must change the way we man the Army
Reserve. We must change the way we organize, train, and prepare
the force. This is a period of deep change from the old to the
new, but we must forge this change while simultaneously
continuing the fight in the current war. We are not afforded
the luxury of hanging a sign outside our Army Reserve command
headquarters in Atlanta that says ``closed for remodeling.''
The culture must change from one that expects 1 weekend a
month, 2 weeks in the summer, to one that understands I am
first of all an American soldier. Though not on daily active
duty, before and after a call to active duty, I am expected to
live to demonstrate Army values. I must prepare for
mobilization as if I knew the hour and, indeed, the day that it
would come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, General.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General James R. Helmly
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity and the privilege to testify on behalf of the
211,000 Soldiers, 12,000 civilian employees, and the families of the
United States Army Reserve, an integral component of the world's
greatest Army; an Army at war for a nation at war. I'm Ron Helmly, and
I'm an American Soldier in your Army, and proud of it.
Today as we speak, nearly 60,000 Army Reserve Soldiers are on
active duty in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, in the continental United
States, and elsewhere around the world as part of America's global war
on terrorism, serving courageously and proudly. They are joined by
another 151,000 Army Reserve Soldiers training and preparing for
mobilization or resting and refitting after being demobilized. These
modern-day patriots are your neighbors who live in your communities,
work in your factories, teach your children, deliver your babies, your
mail, and share your everyday lives. They have willingly answered the
call to duty to perform missions they have trained for, and to honor
their commitment as part of a responsive and relevant force, an
essential element and indispensable component of the world's finest
land force, the United States Army.
The strength and added value we bring to that partnership is drawn
from the people who serve in our formations. With nearly 25 percent of
its Soldiers female, and more than 40 percent minority, the Army
Reserve is the most ethnically and gender-diverse force of all the
armed services. Overall, 92 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 fields who give of their time and expertise to serve our
nation.
Since September 11, 2001, more than 100,000 Army Reserve Soldiers
have served on active duty as part of the global war on terrorism.
Tragically, 21 Army Reserve Soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice
in service to our nation to keep their fellow citizens and their
families and neighbors safe and free. We are deeply in their debt and
honor their memories by our actions here today.
THE CHALLENGE
Your invitation to testify comes at a time of profound and
unprecedented change and challenge in the dynamics of our nation's
security environment. Since September 11, 2001, we have been embroiled
in a war with wily, determined enemies, who are intent on destroying
our very way of life. In this global war on terrorism, we are
confronting regional powers; facing the potential use of weapons of
terror and mass destruction at home and abroad; and struggling with the
challenges of how to secure our homeland while preserving our precious
rights and freedoms. From the start, we have understood that this will
be no brief campaign or a short war. It will be an enduring global war,
a protracted war, a long struggle that lacks clear, well-defined
borders. Have no doubt, it is a war. It challenges our national will
and our perseverance. It tries our patience and our moral fiber. It is
a war different, just as all previous wars have been different. Unlike
previous wars the Army fought here on our own soil, where we in the
armed services must be continually ready to carry out our mission when
and where the nation calls.
As we engage these enemies we recognize that carrying out current
missions is not by itself sufficient. The very forces that cause this
war to be different have propelled the world into a period of
unprecedented change and volatility. We live in a much-changed world
and we must change to confront it. We must simultaneously confront
today's challenges while preparing for tomorrow's. The Army will
maintain its non-negotiable contract to fight and win the nation's wars
as we change to become more strategically responsive and dominant at
every point across the spectrum of military operations. The confluence
of these dual challenges, transforming while fighting and winning, and
preparing for future wars, is the crux of our challenge--transforming
while at war.
Last year was my first opportunity to address this subcommittee as
the Chief, Army Reserve. I told you then that I was humbled and sobered
by that responsibility. That feeling remains and indeed has grown more
profound. The Army Reserve is an organization that daily 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 land force the world has seen. Together with the
Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, the Army Reserve of
your Army fights as part of the joint team: the sum of the parts is
much greater--and that's the power we bring to the battlefield today.
ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE
A critical issue that should be recognized is that this is the
first extended duration war our nation has fought with an all-volunteer
force. January marked the 30th anniversary of the all-volunteer force.
This tremendous policy change in our Nation has brought the Army
Reserve, and the Armed Forces, an unheard of quality of people. Yet the
all-volunteer force also brings expectations and sensitivities that we
must confront with regard to how we support our people, and how we
train them, and how and when we employ those people.
Title 10 of the United States Code directs the Army Reserve to
provide units and Soldiers to the Army, whenever and wherever required.
Since 1973, the Active and Reserve components have met this challenge
with a force of volunteers, men and women who have freely chosen to
serve their nation. Perhaps more than any other policy decision, this
momentous move from a conscript force to a force, Active and Reserve,
manned solely by volunteers has been responsible for shaping today's
armed forces, the most professional and capable military the world has
seen. Working through this sea change in how we lead our force has
highlighted differing challenges that we simply must recognize and
address if we are to maintain this immensely capable force.
During a recent conference celebrating 30 years of the All-
Volunteer Force (AVF) policy, former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird
discussed its genesis. He explained that while from the start, it was
understood that the policy would apply to the Total Force, in reality,
after the AVF was established, the focus tended to be almost
exclusively on manning the Active component--understandable since it
was the tip of the spear. But as a result, manning the Reserve
components became, in effect, an accidental by-product of manning the
Active component. This lack of a deliberate focus has hindered the
development of force-manning policies that recognize the unique nature
of Reserve service. As a result, the ``one weekend a month and two
weeks in the summer'' paradigm was created. For almost three decades,
that paradigm has remained largely intact. The world has witnessed
major change since we started relying on an all-volunteer force. And
yet we, in the Army Reserve, allowed the continuance of expectations
for our most critical element--our people--our volunteers--for a world
that no longer existed.
To meet the demands of our nation and the needs of our Army and
joint force team, we must change the way we man the Army Reserve, we
must change the way we organize, train, and prepare the force, and to
accomplish this change, the culture must change. This is a period of
change from the old to the new. Forging a new paradigm is akin to the
depth of change the Department of Defense endured when transitioning
from a conscript force to an all-volunteer force. But we must forge
this change while simultaneously continuing the fight in the current
war. We are not afforded the luxury of hanging a sign outside the U.S.
Army Reserve Command headquarters that says, ``Closed for Remodeling.''
The culture must change from one that expects ``one weekend a month,
two weeks in the summer'' to one that understands ``I am, first of all,
a Soldier, though not on daily active duty, before and after a call to
active duty I am expected to live Army values; I am expected to prepare
for mobilization as if I knew the day and the hour that it would come.
I use my civilian skills and all that I am to perform my military
duties. I understand that I must prepare to be called to active duty
for various periods of time during my military career while
simultaneously advancing my civilian career.''
The Army Reserve is part of a public institution founded in law.
Our mission and our responsibility come from this law. I would like to
note that the law does not say for big wars, little wars, short wars or
medium wars, it says whenever our Army and our armed services and our
nation require us, we are to provide trained units and qualified
individuals. We must change to continue fulfilling the mandate of that
law while simultaneously perfecting and strengthening the quality force
we have today.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The past year has been a full one for your Army Reserve, marked by
great efforts and remarkable achievements. Among the most significant
have been:
At War--Army Reserve Soldiers Called to Active Duty in 2003
In 2003, the Army Reserve called to active duty and deployed nearly
70,000 Soldiers, more than 30 percent of the Army Reserve's 205,000
Selected Reserve end strength, to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and
theaters around the world in support of Operations Enduring Freedom,
Iraqi Freedom, Noble Eagle, and other contingency operations.
377th Theater Support Command Operates Logistics on the Battlefield
The seamless integration of the Army's Active and Reserve
components was epitomized by the Army Reserve's 377th Theater Support
Command during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The 377th was redeployed
to OIF after performing as the senior logistics headquarters during
Operation Enduring Freedom. Once redeployed, the 377th TSC
(headquartered in New Orleans) supported OIF, and reported directly to
the Combined Forces Land Component Command.
The joint and coalition flavor that the 377th brought to the fight
is a historic first. From the early hours onward, the 377th supported
combat operations from Kuwait throughout the entire battle space into
Iraq. The headquarters commanded over 43,500 Soldiers during the
buildup of forces and subsequent combat phase of OIF, and consisted of
8 general officer commands and 8 area support groups. The 377th TSC
helped shape the theater logistical footprint and was responsible for
supporting the reception, staging, onward movement, and integration of
all coalition forces, in addition to many other logistical support
operations.
Of particular note were the 377th's accomplishments in seaport of
debarkation operations in Kuwait. This included the largest wartime
combined/joint logistics over the shore operation in over 50 years, at
the Kuwait Naval Base. These operations involved over 150 ships, 31,000
personnel, 4,900 wheeled/tracked vehicles, over 6,000 ammunition and
general containers, over 29,000 ammunition and general pallets, and
over 2,500 other pieces of cargo. The base was operated by units of
377th and the Army Reserve's 143rd Transportation Command
(headquartered in Orlando).
Three Consolidated and Streamlined Support Commands Established
Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) Merged with
Human Resources Command (HRC)
Effective October 2, 2003, the St. Louis, Missouri-based Army
Reserve Personnel Command inactivated and merged with the Total Army
Personnel Command to form the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC).
The HRC envisions becoming the nation's premier human resources
provider. The HRC mission is to execute the full spectrum of human
resources programs, services, and systems to support the readiness and
well-being of Army personnel worldwide.
The HRC executes Army personnel policies and procedures under the
direction of the Department of the Army G-1. It integrates, manages,
monitors, and coordinates military personnel systems to develop and
optimize utilization of the Army's human resources in peace and war.
HRC is the activity within the Department of the Army responsible for
managing the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and Standby Reserve. The
HRC will also plan for and integrate civilian personnel management and
processes to attain a fully integrated HR focus.
Army Reserve Engineers Integrated with DA ACSIM
Effective October 1, 2003, the Army Reserve Engineers, formerly
known as the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR) Engineer Staff
and the U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC) Engineer Staff, transferred
to the Army's Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
(ACSIM) and Headquarters, Installation Management Agency (IMA).
The former OCAR Engineer Staff (Arlington, VA) was integrated as a
separate division within the Department of the Army, ACSIM, as the
ACSIM-Army Reserve Division (ACSIM-ARD). The former USARC Engineer
Staff (Atlanta, GA) was integrated as a separate division within the
HQ, IMA, as the IMA-Army Reserve Division (IMA-ARD). The IMA-ARD is
split-stationed between Arlington, VA and Atlanta, GA.
The ACSIM-ARD and IMA-ARD program, plan, and execute base
operations support (e.g., environmental, maintenance and repair, and
sustainment) and military construction functions on behalf of the Army
Reserve and its more than 900 Army Reserve centers worldwide and two
power projection platform installations (Fort Dix, NJ and Fort McCoy,
WI).
Army Reserve Chief Information Office (CIO) Merged with DA
CIO/G-6
At a June 25, 2003 signing ceremony, the Department of the Army
CIO/G-6 and I formalized a memorandum of agreement that integrates the
Army Reserve, CIO into the Department of the Army CIO/G-6.
The Army Reserve counts communication and signal technology as one
of its core capabilities--an enduring skill-rich capability across the
spectrum of operations. With this integration, the Army Reserve
demonstrates a commitment to both the transformation of the Army and to
a common/single Army enterprise. With this integration, the Army
Reserve Enterprise Integration Office will continue to be responsible
for C\4\/IT planning, programming, budgeting, and execution support for
all related Army Reserve appropriations. The Department of the Army
CIO/G-6 will provide resource guidance and policy oversight, ensuring
that Army Reserve C\4\/IT requirements are integrated and validated as
part of broader Army requirements.
FEDS-HEAL Program Expanded and Improved
The Army Reserve Surgeon's office worked with the Veteran's
Administration to expand and improve the Federal Strategic Health
Alliance (FEDS-HEAL) program. This initiative includes the addition of
consolidated medical and dental records review, centralized appointment
scheduling, dental treatment, vision examinations and eyeglass and lens
insert procurement, and support to Soldier readiness processing
activities.
The year began with a concerted effort to enhance Soldier readiness
in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This resulted in 85,000 records
being reviewed by the FEDS-HEAL Program Office, which subsequently
initiated and completed 48,000 physical examinations, 31,000 dental
examinations, 3,200 dental treatment services, 71,000 immunizations
(not including Anthrax), 22,500 Anthrax immunizations, and 1,000 vision
examinations. The effort has been sustained via routine SRP support
across the nation. The effect has been to increase readiness and
minimize processing time and the frequency of non-deployable Soldiers
being called to active duty.
In addition, the effectiveness of FEDS-HEAL was enhanced by the
program's extension to the Army National Guard, Air Force Reserve, six
Active component dental treatment facilities, and the occupational
health programs of the Army National Guard and Reserve.
GROWING CONTRIBUTIONS
Prior to Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Army Reserve
Soldiers provided minimal support to military missions. That all
changed with the first Gulf War, when almost 95,000 Army Reserve
members were called to active duty--and they not only responded but
performed that duty well, contributing over 14 million duty days of
support. Since that war, the Army Reserve provided between 1 million
and 4 million duty days annually to total force missions until the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Once again the Army Reserve
has responded quickly and continuously with over 95,000 members serving
on active duty and providing nearly 16 million duty days of support to
the Active forces in fiscal year 2003.
The increased personnel tempo became steady-state even before
September 11th as our Reserve Soldiers took their places among the
rotational forces that are still keeping the peace in Eastern Europe.
Our military police, medical, civil affairs, and public affairs
Soldiers continue to provide their skills and capabilities in
Operations Joint Endeavor and Joint Guardian in Bosnia and Kosovo.
In the wake of the events of September 11th, came the global war on
terrorism, Operation Noble Eagle in the United States, and the
subsequent campaign, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and
Kuwait. Civil affairs units made up 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 reestablishing a free, functioning society. Numerous new
schools were built and medical aid provided 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 social capability they help create, and every
contact they make with the native population. And your Army Reserve
Soldiers are doing an incredible job.
In Operation Iraqi Freedom our troops have liberated Iraq and
brought down Saddam Hussein. Today they remain, boots on the ground,
helping restore the fabric of Iraqi society and its infrastructure and
return self-determination to the people of Iraq who are free for the
first time in more than 30 years.
No one expects this mission to be completed soon or the war on
terrorism to be won quickly. Both will try our patience and test our
resolve as a nation and as an Army. Both will require new
organizational and institutional paradigms and expectations if we are
to prevail in our present endeavors and prosper in future ones. The
world will remain a dangerous and unstable place for the foreseeable
future. We must so organize ourselves and our efforts that we have the
institutional endurance and robustness to accomplish our missions
effectively, efficiently, and definitively.
THE IMPERATIVE FOR CHANGE
Despite the clear relevance and strength demonstrated by these
examples, we, the Army as an institution, are not without our
challenges. First and foremost, we, the Army Reserve, must evolve as an
institution to accommodate the changes in our environment. The
division-oriented, set-piece battles of the past now share the stage
with conflicts in which smaller interchangeable units will be combined
in formations tailored to meet specific threats and situations and to
offer the combatant commander the capabilities he needs to contain and
defeat the enemy, and prevail upon the shifting, asymmetrical
battlefields of the twenty-first century.
ARMY RESERVE RESPONSE
The Army Reserve is moving to meet that challenge, preparing
changes to training, readiness and policies, practices, and procedures.
We are restructuring how we train and prepare the force by establishing
a Trainee, Transient, Holdee, and Student Account, much like the Active
Army, to manage our force more effectively. We are preparing plans to
support the continuum of service concept recently proposed by the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, which 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 transition
proposals.
Federal Reserve Restructuring Initiative (FRRI)
Our initiatives concerning the management of individuals and units
in the Army Reserve are the catalyst of the evolving Army Reserve--The
Federal Reserve Restructuring Initiative. Six imperatives are necessary
in order for the Army Reserve to change to a 21st century force. These
imperatives are: re-engineer the call to active duty process; transform
Army Reserve command and control; ensure ready units; implement human
resources life cycle management; build a rotational base in our force;
and re-engineer individual Soldier capabilities.
Call to Active Duty Reform
Changing our industrial-age, Cold-War era call-to-active-duty and
mobilization process remains a critical component to realizing the
capabilities and potential of our highly skilled, loyal and sacrificing
Soldiers. The nation's existing process is designed to support a
traditional, 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 forces. Rather than a ``force in
reserve,'' the Army Reserve has become and serves more as a
complementary force of discrete specialized, skill-rich capabilities
and a building block for teams and integrated units of capabilities,
all essential to generating and sustaining forces. The process of
accessing and employing these forces must be overhauled completely to
become more efficient, flexible, and responsive to the nation's needs,
yet sensitive to, and supportive of the Soldier, the family and the
civilian employer. To do this we require a more decentralized, agile,
and responsive process that accommodates the mission requirement while
simultaneously providing greater predictability for soldier, family,
and employer.
Changing the way we employ Soldiers starts with changing the way we
prepare for calls to active duty. The current process is to alert a
unit for calls to active duty, conduct administrative readiness
preparations at home station, and then send the unit to the
mobilization station for further administrative and logistical
preparedness processing and to train for deployment. This alert-train-
deploy process, while successful in Desert Shield/Desert Storm, today
inhibits responsiveness. By changing to a train-mob-deploy model, and
dealing with administrative and logistical requirements prior to active
duty, we will reduce the time needed to bring units to a campaign
quality level needed for operations. This will require us to resource
more training events at home station through the use of devices,
simulators and simulations. As you would expect, this shift in
paradigms will increase pre-call-to-active-duty OPTEMPO beyond the
current statutory level and will require greater effort and resources
to achieve. We are confident that the increased costs will pay
significant dividends in terms of readiness and deployability.
Realigning Force Command and Control
Our evolutionary force structure journey actually began 10 years
ago and is accelerating rapidly today. In 1993 we reorganized to
produce a smaller, more efficient, and more effective structure. Our
overall strength was reduced by 114,000 Soldiers, or 36 percent,
leaving us with a 205,000 Soldier statutory end strength today. We
continue our journey from a Cold-War Army Reserve force to our current,
fully engaged Army Reserve, to a changed, even more responsive and
capable future Army Reserve force that will include a rotational
capability. In the 1990s, we cut the number of our Army Reserve
commands by more than half and re-invested those resources 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 journey continues today as we
mature plans for further realignments and force structure initiatives.
Between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2008, we will reduce our force
structure by 35,000 spaces, reinvesting those into remaining units in
order to man them at 100 percent. Simultaneously, we will redesign the
remaining force into more capable modular organizations and reduce the
number of general officer functional commands and the number of general
officer command and control headquarters subordinate to the Army
Reserve Command.
The Army Reserve is the nation's repository of experience,
expertise, and vision regarding Soldier and unit calls to active duty.
We do have forces capable of mobilizing in 24 hours and moving to their
active duty stations within 48 hours, as we demonstrated in response to
September 11th. This norm of quick and precise calls to active duty
ability will become institutionalized in the processes and systems of
the future and give our forces the ability to marshal Army Reserve
Soldiers rapidly and smoothly.
Trainees, Transients, Holdees, and Students (TTHS) Account
The most immediately effective methods for improving Army Reserve
unit readiness is to harvest the personnel authorizations (spaces)
associated with those units whose historical missions have been largely
overtaken by events and whose consequent relevance to war plans and
missions has been significantly reduced or eliminated all together.
These spaces can then be used as a holding account that increases unit
readiness by removing unready Soldiers from troop program unit spaces.
Currently, unready Soldiers are carried on the rolls for a variety of
reasons and reported as unavailable to fill force authorized positions.
With the creation of the TTHS account, these unready Soldiers will be
assigned to the TTHS account where they will be trained and managed
until they can be assigned to a unit in a duty-qualified status.
This procedure can be accomplished within existing manpower and
funding levels. This initiative will improve the quality of service for
individual Soldiers and relieve unit commanders of a major
administrative challenge thus enabling them to better focus on calls to
active duty and readiness activities.
The TTHS account will be used to manage vacancies and the
assignment of qualified Soldiers to authorized positions, thus
increasing retention with a positive Soldier-oriented life-cycle
management program.
Individual Augmentee Program and Continuum of Service
In today's operational milieu, there is a growing need to establish
a capability-based pool of individual Soldiers with a range of
specialties who are readily available, organized, and trained for calls
to active duty 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 Individual Augmentee Program is intended 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 affecting their readiness, cohesion,
and future employment effectiveness. This program 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 that
enables service members to move more easily between their services'
components during their careers.
Rotating the Force
While changing industrial-age mobilization, 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. We are committed to achieving a
capability ratio that will manage Army Reserve deployments to once
every four or five years. Predictable and sustainable utilization is a
key factor in maintaining 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 long
term source of skill-rich capabilities for small scale contingency
conflicts and follow-on operations. Properly executed, predictable
rotations will provide our units with operational experience; provide a
sense of fulfillment for our Soldiers; impart a sense of order for our
Soldiers, and even out the work load across the force. The recent
changes to the Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom
rotational schedules are an important step in establishing those
rotational capabilities.
Rebalancing the Force
There has been considerable concern raised about what is viewed as
excessive reliance on the nation's Reserve components both for small-
scale operations such as the Balkans rotations and for long-term
contingency operations such as Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom. While only 33 percent of Army Reserve troop strength is
currently called to active duty, and while that level of usage does not
seem extreme, raw numbers alone do not tell the whole story. Some
units, notably, military police and truck transportation units are in
fact over-extended, and it is true that some types of units that have
been used more in the war on terrorism than others. Military police,
civil affairs, military intelligence, transportation and biological
detection and surveillance capabilities are the highest in utilization.
We are committed to eliminating these pockets of specialty over-stress
by increasing the number of some units in both the Active component and
the Army Reserve and Army National Guard.
The Department of Defense is currently deeply involved in
determining how to rebalance the Active-Reserve component force mix to
mitigate the effects of over-use of particular specialties. Currently,
313 Standard Requirement Codes (types of units) are found exclusively
in the Army Reserve. The Army Reserve has been able to meet the
challenges with this structure thus far, but clearly the structure
requires change and perhaps augmentation to meet the continuing demand
for these skill-rich capabilities that are more practically sustained
in a Reserve component force.
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 four straight years from 2000 to 2003. In fiscal
year 2004, however, we are 182 accessions short of expected year-to-
date mission out of a projected 10,156 accessions. While this is cause
for some concern, I am not alarmed over this because we are currently
at 103 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. 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, has 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 transferred from the Accessions Command to the Army Reserve.
Tenets of this transfer included: 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.
As for the retention of this all-volunteer force, during the mid-
eighties, at the height of the Cold War, the Army Reserve averaged a
36-38 percent officer and enlisted attrition at a time when we were
never used. Today, after 8 continuous years of calls to active duty and
use since 1997, we are averaging 24-26 percent attrition.
Interestingly, the retention rates appear to be higher in those units
that get called to active duty than in those that are not called. Our
Soldiers feel the pressure, they understand the sacrifice, and they
recognize their contributions to the common good and their fellow
citizens. They are proud and they are determined. I am profoundly
impressed by their performance, their commitment, and their dedication
every day.
Historically, our retention program has been 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. 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.
In response, the Army Reserve developed the Commanders 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 Commanders 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 Commanders Retention Program, the
Army Reserve has reduced enlisted troop program unit attrition by
nearly 12 percentage points. The enlisted attrition rate in fiscal year
2003 was 25.5 percent.
The attrition rate for fiscal year 2004 is projected to increase to
30.4 percent, due to an increase in the Expiration of Term of Service
(ETS) population, expected retirements as well as recalls to active
duty. The exact impact of demobilization of troops rotating out of
theater having served in OIF1 and OEF3 remains to be seen. The next
several months will tell the tale as stop-loss provisions are lifted 90
days after our troops are released from active duty.
Overall, the Army Reserve successfully accomplished its fiscal year
2003 recruiting mission while achieving the Department of the Army and
Department of Defense quality marks. Beginning fiscal year 2004, the
Army Reserve transitioned the U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC)
from a contract recruiting mission to a ship mission as well as began a
three-year phased implementation of the Delayed Entry Program (DEP)
similar to the Active Army. To support these efforts the Army Reserve
recruiting mission will increase over the next three years and will
stabilize by fiscal year 2007. The purpose of these two initiatives is
to better utilize our training seat resources and to reduce overall
unit attrition. The accomplishment of the recruiting mission will
demand a large investment in time on the part of our commanders, 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 also 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 affects 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.
The Army Reserve is currently experiencing a shortfall of 4,200
company grade officers. 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.
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
A functional family readiness program is important in peace and
critical in war. Family programs provide invaluable family assistance
during peacetime and calls to active duty, 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 25 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.
In preparation for calls to active duty deployment, these
volunteers and staff provide an extensive briefing for both families as
well as Soldiers. 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.
The average Army Reserve soldier is older and more likely to be
married than the average active component soldier. While all families
face hardships when their soldier is called to the colors, Army Reserve
families have additional challenges as they generally do not live near
an installation that can provide services. While historically we have
relied extensively on volunteers, experience has shown we must increase
the amount of full time staff available for families. We will soon have
25 additional family readiness group assistants positioned in locations
where they can assist geographically isolated families of mobilized
soldiers. We also have begun the process of accreditation to ensure the
program delivers a consistent level of service to families. We continue
to work on obtaining more resources for the program.
During Desert Shield/Desert Storm Army Reserve family readiness
programs were sparse. Today, these programs are extensive, and they are
providing a support network for our families. We have been able to meet
the needs of our deployed Army Reserve Soldiers and will continue to do
so. 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 that
supports the continental United States. With this redesign, the Army
Reserve would have the technological capability to sustain existing
Army systems or field new Army systems to meet readiness requirements.
The redesign will also enhance the timely dissemination of information
supporting command and control of areas of mobilization, training, and
overall data exchange.
Force Protection
The Force Protection program within the Army Reserve is designed to
provide security and preparedness to meet the full spectrum of threats
facing Army Reserve facilities and stand-alone facilities worldwide.
The program is an integrated set of five security activities: physical
security, anti-terrorism, law enforcement, information operations, and
installation preparedness.
The timely and accurate flow of threat information is the
foundation of the overall Force Protection program within the Army
Reserve. Vulnerability and risk assessments coupled with current threat
information provides a solid crisis management planning platform for
the Army Reserve stand alone facilities and installations.
The Army Reserve Force Protection program enables commanders to
prioritize facilities and focus resources using a proven decision
making methodology. The Army Reserve Force Protection program is being
used to dramatically repair and upgrade facilities, train leaders and
integrate security programs to ensure fully capable units are available
to support combatant commanders in the Global War on Terrorism.
Installation Preparedness concentrates on detailed planning,
integrated training and for the coordinated response of first
responders such as fire, police and emergency services to incidents
involving weapons of mass destruction or industrial accidents and
disasters on or near Army Reserve facilities and installations.
The Army Reserve is challenged with its existing military and
civilian manpower structure. To sustain the current Force Protection
program and meet the demands of emerging requirements, we must expand
contract requirements for physical security, anti-terrorism
vulnerability and risk assessments, force program leader training and
exercise planning for the entire Army Reserve.
Currently, the Army Reserve meets installation access control
requirements, but sustainment of access control combined with the
additional stand alone facility level security requirements associated
with the global war on terrorism has become a challenge.
Funding to support these critical security programs will allow the
Army Reserve to continue to repair facilities, train leaders, and
integrate security programs to ensure fully capable units are available
to support combatant commanders in the global war on terrorism.
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.
The need to quickly and efficiently deploy Army Reserve units
invalidates the old Cold War planning that Army Reserve units will have
sufficient mobilization time to replace non-interoperable equipment or
fill shortfalls deliberately accepted as ``necessary risk.'' Retaining
older, less effective equipment or filling the Army Reserve's
authorized levels of equipment only partially, leads to delays as a
limited pool of Army Reserve equipment is transferred between
deploying, redeploying and non-deploying units and Army Reserve
Soldiers are trained or retrained to operate more modern equipment,
they did not have access to during drills and annual training. The
National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) has been a
significant and essential tool to improve the Army Reserve through
force modernization.
Meeting these challenges requires not only that the Army Reserve be
issued modern, interoperable equipment, but that the resources to
maintain the readiness of this equipment also be provided. Sufficient
funding needs to be provided to allow the Army Reserve to reach higher
standards of readiness than currently maintained as an element of risk
accepted by the Army under constrained budgets. Until the Army Reserve
can be fully equipped with modern items, sustaining the combat and
deployment readiness of the equipment currently on hand is essential.
This requires full funding of operations and maintenance requirements
and continuing support of the Army's depot maintenance program, which
is vital to maintaining the readiness of Army Reserve equipment, while
extending service life, reducing life cycle costs and improving safety
for Army Reserve Soldiers.
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. The Army Reserve is continuing to support the Army's
Transformation through the assignment of equipment from Army Reserve
units to Army prepositioned stocks (APS) and stay-behind equipment
(SBE) in Iraq and Afghanistan.
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.
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 1,160 communities across all 50 states, 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 training centers
and support facilities worldwide, whose 40 million square feet of space
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 sapping Soldier morale and esprit de corps.
SUMMARY
In today's national security environment, the Army Reserve has many
challenges--we accept these without hesitation. These challenges find
expression in our reliance on Reserve component forces in contingency
operations. Historically our nation has placed great reliance on
Reserve components of Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen to expand
the armed forces for operations during time of war. As BG David
Fastabend notes in his unpublished white paper, Serving a Nation at
War; a Campaign-Quality Army with a Joint and Expeditionary Mindset,
``Although the fundamental nature of war is constant, its methods and
techniques change chameleon-like to match the strategic context and
capabilities at hand.'' We must also change to accommodate the twenty-
first century strategic context and operational reality. 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 man, train, 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.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL JOHN G. COTTON, CHIEF, NAVAL
RESERVE
Senator Stevens. Admiral, I think this is your first
appearance before our committee. We welcome you and would be
happy to have your statement, sir.
Admiral Cotton. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before the committee.
There are many heros in the room today and many heros
overseas. I would like to call to everyone's attention the
brave actions here in the United States just a few weeks ago at
the Baltimore Reserve Center where on a Saturday afternoon in a
big storm 26 reservists went out in a mike boat and in a matter
of minutes rescued 21 civilians, some of them near death, all
of them would certainly have perished if these reservists had
not rescued them. I am proud to say that in 10 days we will
have a ceremony at the Reserve Center and appropriately
recognize all of them with awards. I think what that
demonstrates is not only are we fighting overseas, but we have
capability amongst our Reserve centers, our Guard armories here
in this country which will provide the backbone for homeland
security both now and in the future.
The Naval Reserve is very busy. We have about 2,700 folks
recalled overseas, over 500 cargo handlers and 500 Seabees are
in action today in theater. We also have another 20,000 naval
reservists on orders just this week providing operational
support, as well as undergoing training to support the fleet.
We have fully integrated with the Navy. The Chief of Naval
Operations and I work together to make sure that everything we
do is in synergy to increase warfighting wholeness. In
particular, the very much appreciated NGREA account is taken by
Navy, and we look where we can apply it to Reserve equipment so
that we can increase that warfighting wholeness both for
current readiness and future readiness.
One other word I would like to mention is alignment. In the
last 6 months in particular, we have aligned our headquarters
and key individuals to create a synchronization or an increased
synergy between the Navy and its Naval Reserve, which is very
important in this global war on terrorism. There is currently a
zero-based review going on of every Naval Reserve unit and
billet, and then once we lay this down over the next 2 years,
we will properly resource and program this force along with
Navy in the pillars of SeaPower 21.
I thank you for your attention, your time. I look forward
to your questions, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. We did notice that heroic
action of your people and I think they do deserve recognition.
Let us know if we can help in any way on that.
Admiral Cotton. Yes, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral John G. Cotton
OPENING
Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today about some of the important changes
that are happening in the Navy and its Reserve, and to give you a
report on our accomplishments and current state of readiness.
As we look back, we see clearly that the tragic attack on our
country on September 11, 2001, and the operations that followed,
prompted significant changes for the Armed Forces, including the Guard
and Reserve. Members of the National Guard and the Reserve have been
called upon more in this global war on terrorism than at any other time
since World War II. The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has said,
``Change to make us better is completely necessary . . . to make our
Navy even better and to build the 21st century Navy, and the Reserve is
a key part of our growth and our future.''
We are meeting the CNO's challenge head on, changing our culture
and the shape of the force, moving away from an obsolete Cold War
construct to one that provides tailorable, flexible capability in
support of 21st century warfighting. Active-Reserve Integration is
about more than gaining business efficiencies--it is about capitalizing
on the skills, dedication and patriotism of the citizen-Sailors that
make up our force. The Navy's Reserve will be structured, equipped and
trained to complement the capabilities inherent in SeaPower 21, and
will leverage technology to take advantage of skills and abilities
carried by our Sailors on the coasts and in the heartland of America.
Integration is a journey, and we are sharing this voyage with our
active component shipmates. The CNO and senior fleet leadership have
taken ownership of their Reserve, from recruiting and training, to
equipment and readiness. The fleet is identifying the capabilities it
will require the Navy's Reserve to provide, an input that the active
and reserve components together will use to design and shape the force.
This new sense of ownership will build closer day-to-day operational
relationships and allow for the seamless connection of total force
capabilities in the right place, and at the right time.
To enable recapitalization of the Navy, CNO has directed that
efficiencies be realized in all areas of operations, and in both Active
and Reserve components. The Navy is fully integrating its Reserve into
the new Fleet Response Plan (FRP) through both unit level and
individual augmentation during day-to-day operational support, while
maintaining the ability to mobilize reservists and equipment to support
expanded surge operations around the globe. The fundamental construct
of FRP is a surge-ready fleet, able to sail to any troubled spot in the
world, swiftly defeat the enemy, and then reconstitute in minimum time.
Therefore, the Navy and its Reserve will continually be in a surge
status requiring minimum time to reset. Experienced and trained Reserve
personnel are ideally suited for this surge capability. The basic 24
drill days per year and 14 days of annual training are provided at 20
percent of the cost of full time personnel, and they leverage prior
Navy investment in training and maintain a continuum of service. Most
reservists have both fleet experience and critical civilian skills to
contribute to this concept of efficient utilization, and will fit
perfectly into the unique surge mission requirements of the Navy's
Reserve as envisioned in SeaPower 21.
The Navy's Reserve has always been and will continue to be an
important element of the Navy's Total Force. In the Chief of Naval
Operations' own words, ``. . . with the Navy's Reserve playing such a
vital role in our day to day operations, it is imperative that we
continue to properly assess and fund reserve personnel and readiness
requirements now and in the future.'' The Navy's Reserve contributes
daily to support fleet operations and provides critical surge and
sustainment capabilities to meet real world contingencies. However, to
remain relevant, reservists must be even more accessible, flexible and
adaptable to better support fleet operations both at home and abroad.
Every structural change being considered for the future is intended to
ensure that the Navy's Reserve remains an important element of the Navy
Team. Providing a more tightly integrated force creates the opportunity
for Reservists to train, deploy and operate alongside their active
counterparts using current doctrine, concepts and tactics, as well as
the most modern equipment in the Navy's inventory.
The Navy is evolving, and its Reserve is in step with the changes.
For instance, Navy is aligning missions by capabilities and has created
Fleet Forces Command to meld the fleets into a single, integrated
force. The first change we made to support this alignment was to assign
both the Commander, Naval Reserve Force (CNRF) in Washington, DC, and
Commander, Naval Reserve Forces Command (CNRFC) in New Orleans, LA,
``additional duty'' to Commander, Fleet Forces Command (CFFC) in
Norfolk, VA. For the first time ever, one fleet commander acting for
all other Navy commanders, is conducting a Zero Based Review (ZBR),
where every Reserve unit and billet is being reviewed for capability
relevance and alignment with fleet requirements, and then forwarded to
CNO for inclusion in future budget deliberations and requests. The
Navy's Reserve will continue to provide mission capable units and
individuals to the Navy-Marine Corps team throughout the full range of
operations, from peace to war, and will do so in a much more efficient
and integrated manner. The Navy has taken charge of its Reserve Force
to further enable it to provide predictable and effective support to
the fleet, ready and fully integrated, in the most efficient manner
possible.
NAVY RESERVE PRIORITIES FOR 2004
The Reserve's priorities have been aligned with those established
by CNO for the entire Navy.
Priority #1: Manpower
Manpower is, and will remain, the Navy's number one priority. The
Navy competes for the best people, and we are engaged on two fronts:
recruiting the right people and improving retention. The focus is on
capabilities and our recruiting objectives will be driven by fleet
requirements. We need to attract and retain smart and savvy sailors to
employ the advanced technologies that we will rely on in the network
centric future.
Navy leadership understands the consequences of sustained and
repeated recalls on our reserve personnel, their families and
employers. Our judicious use of individual and unit mobilizations has
demonstrated the Navy's efficient, tailored and volunteer-based method
of mobilization. Retention remains at an all-time high and post-
mobilization surveys of recalled personnel indicate strong job
satisfaction. Our proud, patriotic citizen-Sailors have, and will
continue, to answer the call in defense of freedom and liberty. CFFC's
integration initiative will build on this success by increasing mission
relevance, and ensuring that every reservist is delivering the
capability and expertise required by the fleet and the Joint Force
Commander.
We are pleased to report that recruiting remained strong in 2003.
Last year we achieved 106 percent of our enlisted recruiting goal.
Largely due to record high retention rates in the active duty Navy, 40
percent of these enlisted accessions were Non-Prior Service (NPS)
personnel. While very qualified, many with advanced degrees, these NPS
personnel require additional training before being assigned
mobilizations billets. Officer recruiting, also challenged by high
retention in active duty warfare designated communities, finished at 91
percent of the fiscal year goal. Our recruiters met goal last year for
both officer and enlisted Full-Time Support personnel. The Navy's
Reserve had an attrition rate of 17.8 percent in fiscal year 2003, and
ended the year manned at 100.2 percent of authorized end strength.
Although we are pleased with our results in these important manpower
categories for last year, fiscal year 2004 brings similar challenges.
We believe we can meet our recruiting goals in part because Reserve
Recruiting became one of the first commands to fully align with their
active duty counterpart. Commander, Naval Reserve Recruiting Command
(CNRRC) in New Orleans, LA, became Commander, Naval Reserve Recruiting
Region (CNRRR) and is now aligned with the Navy Recruiting Command
(CNRC), in Millington, TN. We are very optimistic that prototype
recruiting stations combining both active duty and full-time reserve
recruiters opening this year will result in improved recruiting
efficiencies. Furthermore, active duty commands are being directed to
increase their efforts to keep trained and talented personnel leaving
the active force on the Navy team by recruiting them directly into the
Navy's Reserve. Keeping Navy veterans serving, especially those with
critical skills and qualifications, is very important and has the
support of the entire chain of command, both active and reserve.
Navy Reserve end strength requested in the fiscal year 2005
President's Budget is 83,400, a decrease of 2,500 from fiscal year
2004. This decrease is due primarily to the rebalancing of Naval
Coastal Warfare units into the active component, the decommissioning of
a Fleet Hospital, and Medical program billet reductions due to force
restructuring. We expect that the requested end strength in this budget
is sufficient for the Navy's Reserve to meet fleet requirements.
However, ongoing initiatives and total force capability analysis may
result in modifications to this target in the future.
Priority #2: Current Readiness
During Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, the Navy had eight carrier strike
groups, six expeditionary strike groups, and nearly 100,000 Sailors and
Marines deployed around the world in support of the Global War on
Terrorism. The near term goal for the Navy's Reserve is to provide a
force shaped by fleet requirements and driven by SeaPower 21. To
achieve this goal, we will continue to align with the Navy, measure
risk, present options and rapidly move ahead with assignment of units
and personnel to match requirements with capabilities. These
assessments will be driven by the question: What resources can we apply
that will enhance effectiveness and efficiency, and will contribute to
warfighting wholeness? If the analysis indicates that the number of
reservists should be adjusted to meet current requirements and future
capabilities, we will make that happen. If that means that some
equipment must be retired or realigned to support the active force,
then we will ensure that the Navy's Reserve is integrated with the
fleet and trains on and operates the Navy's newest, most capable
platforms and systems.
Following the attack on U.S.S. Cole, the Navy recognized the
immediate need for increased force protection and added 6,619 new
active component and 1,379 reserve component anti-terrorism and force
protection billets. Current readiness was also enhanced in the fiscal
year 2004 budget with funding to operate an additional frigate (FFG) in
the Navy's Reserve Force, execute flying hours at 100 percent of
requirement, and support ship maintenance to meet CNO's goal. Aviation
depot maintenance funding was increased to ensure that 100 percent of
CNO engine and airframe maintenance goals are achieved. In fiscal year
2004, base support funding has been consolidated Navy-wide under
Commander, Naval Installations to eliminate redundancies, generate
economies of scale, and provide enhanced readiness support to shore
activities, both Active and Reserve. It is expected that further
efficiencies will be realized by combining base support for active and
reserve personnel where overlaps and excess capabilities exist.
The very much appreciated National Guard and Reserve Equipment
appropriation for fiscal year 2004 provided readiness support
modifications, upgrades and procurement of items for expeditionary
warfare units, trainers and simulators to improve the availability of
readiness training, as well to acquire eight Swiss F-5 aircraft to
replace aging Reserve adversary training assets. The appropriation also
included funds to complete the last two upgrades to Reserve F/A-18As to
``A-Plus,'' providing precision strike capability and placing them on
par with fleet F/A-18Cs. Funds were first applied to improve current
readiness and then to enhance future readiness, and were coordinated
with Navy warfare and resource sponsors.
Priority #3: Future Readiness
Improved accessibility and integration are the cornerstones of the
Navy Reserve's contribution to future readiness. For example, full
integration will ensure that Navy Reservists in aviation Fleet Response
Units (FRU) will be able to quickly activate and support global
operations under the CNO's Fleet Response Plan (FRP). Our vision is a
reserve force that is better prepared and more capable for both unit
and individual mobilization requirements. Co-locating our reserve
personnel and hardware with their supported fleet units streamlines the
activation process enabling individuals to train alongside, and be more
familiar, with the units they will augment. Co-location enables FRU
aircrews to train and operate state-of-the-art equipment, as well as
leverage active force tactics and doctrine. Reserve experience and
availability can also be used to provide onsite fleet support.
Concurrently, retaining and strengthening the Squadron Augment Unit
(SAU) concept continues the vital contribution that our experienced
reserve instructor and maintenance cadre provides to the Fleet
Replacement Squadrons (FRS). As an aside, every pilot flying combat
missions in OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM/OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM was
trained by dedicated and professional Navy Reserve aviators providing
airwing adversary, Fleet exercise and training command support.
Under the guidance of Commander, Fleet Forces Command, the Navy has
begun an initiative that will lead to a more integrated total force in
which Navy Reserve capabilities are tied directly to active units in
support of SeaPower 21 mission capabilities. The active component is
currently engaged to clearly articulate requirements for the Navy's
Reserve. CFFC's reserve integration cell will recommend the future
Reserve force structure necessary to meet these fleet capability
requirements. Coordination has already begun with a complete zero-based
review of Navy Reserve capabilities. Active duty commands have been
tasked to identify their Reserve support requirements and to describe
potential new capabilities they need from their Reservists to more
readily meet their mission requirements.
To fully realize SeaPower 21, the Navy and its Reserve will align,
organize, integrate and transform around the four warfighting pillars
of Sea Strike, Sea Shield, Sea Base and FORCEnet. SeaPower 21 embodies
a number of maritime capabilities that are in the domain of expertise
the Navy brings to the Joint Force. To provide sufficient operational
range and depth to many of these capabilities, and to efficiently and
effectively meet its requirements as part of the Joint Force, Navy must
leverage its investment in the extraordinary capabilities, critical
skills, innovative nature, and entrepreneurial spirit of its reserve
personnel.
We support the Secretary of Defense's goal of rebalancing the
active-reserve component force mix to eliminate the need for
involuntary mobilization, especially during the first 15 days of an
operation. Our fiscal year 2005 budget submission reflects the
additional active-reserve rebalancing changes needed for the Navy to
meet this goal.
At present, no Homeland Defense/Homeland Security (HLD/HLS) mission
has been assigned to the Navy's Reserve, but the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Reserve Affairs and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Homeland Defense are conducting a study to determine the appropriate
role of reserve components in these critical areas. Upon completion of
the study, new and existing naval capabilities present in the Navy's
Reserve could be assigned HLD/HLS missions. These might include Harbor
Defense, Port Security, Maritime Surveillance and Tracking, AT/FP
roles, Joint Fires Network Units and maintenance of shipping channels.
As we move forward, evolving missions will continue to influence our
force shaping and integration initiatives, with the endstate being a
more combat-capable Total Force.
Priority #4: Quality of Service
Quality of Service is the combination of quality of life and
quality of work. It is about achieving balance, personal and
professional. The Navy will continue to strive to make available the
best facilities and equipment to train, deploy and fight, and our
Reservists will benefit from ongoing integration and alignment efforts.
Ensuring that our Navy's Reservists can rely on predictability,
periodicity, pay and benefits, will greatly assist each Sailor to
achieve that balance.
--Predictability.--Every Sailor in the Navy's Reserve wants to make a
difference and needs to know with reasonable advance notice,
when and where they will train or perform operational support,
whether mobilized, on active duty orders or on routine drills.
As part of a fully integrated force, Reservists will train or
perform meaningful work that provides or enhances capabilities
required by the fleet. Additionally, individual reservists will
be able to anticipate drills and periods of active duty through
processes that will track and match necessary skills to
appropriate billets or orders.
--Periodicity.--Individual reservists' availability varies during the
year and with each employer. These periods of availability can
be leveraged to enable each Sailor to provide meaningful fleet
support. ``Flexible drilling'' is encouraged to allow
reservists to combine traditional drill weekends to work for a
week once a quarter, two weeks every six months, or even for
several weeks once a year to satisfy participation
requirements. If a unit or individual is called to mobilize,
reservists should receive as much notice as is possible, with a
target of 30 days, to help minimize potential employer or
family conflicts.
--Pay and Benefits.--Reservists should be assured that their benefits
will appropriately address their individual and family needs,
whether serving at home or abroad. Development of a single pay
and benefits system continues to be a priority to standardize
the administration of both active and reserve personnel in all
services.
Continuous professional improvement is important to every Sailor,
active and reserve. Accordingly, the Navy's Reserve is a full partner
with the Navy in the Sea Warrior initiative, enabling an individual to
easily access and monitor their career progression and future options.
Navy Reservists have full access to both the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet
(NMCI) as well as the Navy Knowledge Online (NKO) web portal, which
connects every Sailor, active, reserve or retired, and families, to
information that will significantly aid in their overall education,
growth and development.
Priority #5: Alignment
The Navy will continue to take an active role in optimizing the
balance of active and reserve forces to support our National Military
Strategy (NMS) and win the Global War on Terror (GWOT). We recognize
that this balance is dynamic and we continuously review our force
structure and capability in order to improve integration and alignment.
Integration provides the Navy's Reserve a path to current equipment,
concepts and tactics, thereby increasing combat readiness and
warfighting wholeness. Through integration, the Navy's Reserve will
become a more capable and agile force with increased warfighting
capability and a much-improved ability to meet fleet requirements.
In support of alignment and efficiency, we recently consolidated
three Navy Reserve staffs in New Orleans into a single Echelon III
staff to function as the provider of reserve capabilities to Fleet
Forces Command. Commander, Naval Air Forces Reserve (CNAFR) has been
assigned as Vice Commander Naval Reserve Forces Command, further
aligning reserve capabilities under a single structure to work with the
active component to fully align and integrate the Navy's Reserve. CNAFR
has also been assigned additional duty to Commander, Naval Air Forces
(CNAF) in San Diego, CA, to align active and reserve aviation
capabilities.
We are embedding key Full-Time Support staff in headquarters, fleet
and type commands. We have developed strategic linkages between Reserve
Forces Command and Fleet Forces Command with tangible results, and
continue to build new bridges throughout the Navy. This was done to
more closely align reserve and active forces and to improve combat
effectiveness and efficiency. These actions will strengthen ties
between the Navy's active and reserve forces and are the first steps in
an overall initiative that seeks to define, and subsequently forge a
cohesive ``total force'' team that can more effectively satisfy the
Navy's operational requirements. We will continue to identify and
propose practical ways to better integrate reservists and equipment
with the fleet, and have taken steps to accelerate and solidify our
integration efforts. We are also participating in a new officer
exchange program with other Guard and Reserve components, starting with
the Army National Guard. This initiative will lead to full integration
at National Guard State Headquarters Command Units to support Northern
Command's Homeland Security initiatives.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Today's strategic environment requires naval forces that can
rapidly deliver decisive combat power through a rotational, surge
capable force. Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM
demonstrated not only the tactical value of this operational concept,
but also the potent warfighting capabilities of a flexible, responsive
maritime force, operating either independently or as part of a broader
Joint Force. The Navy's Reserve played a significant role in the surge
to war.
On September 17th, 2001, the first mobilization orders were sent to
the force. Since that day, 4,537 officers and 18,436 enlisted personnel
have been mobilized, providing operational support to either their
supported commands or to Combatant Commanders around the world. With
respect to OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, 12,046 Navy Reservists served their
country in Navy and joint commands. While some units and equipment were
mobilized in support of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, we have been able to
maximize individual mobilizations to support requirements submitted by
Combatant Commanders, validated by the CNO's staff, and ordered to
active duty by the Chief of Naval Personnel. For example, 362 drilling
reservists were mobilized to augment the staff of Commander, U.S. Fifth
Fleet, the Naval Component Commander for Commander, U.S. Central
Command and other subordinate commands. These Navy Reservists supported
this active duty staff in the development of the OPERATION IRAQI
FREEDOM air plan. Since January 2003, 478 Navy Reservists attached to
Navy Cargo Handling Battalions across the United States were mobilized
to facilitate the movement of cargo from bases in the United States and
overseas to the Central Command area of operation theater in support of
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.
A group of Navy Reservists from Fort Worth, TX, made history on the
decks of U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). For the first time since
the Korean War, an entire Navy Reserve tactical aviation squadron
deployed aboard an aircraft carrier when the ``Hunters'' of Strike
Fighter Squadron 201 were ordered to active duty. Completing a short
notice workup, the squadron fully integrated with the active airwing,
completed 224 combat sorties, delivered 125 tons of ordnance in combat,
and impressed everyone with their experience, dedication and
capabilities.
When 800 active duty medical personnel from the National Naval
Medical Center (NNMC), Bethesda, MD embarked in USNS COMFORT in March
2003 and another 498 NNMC medical personnel deployed as part of
Casualty Receiving and Trauma Ship's team members, 548 Navy Reservists
were recalled to support the National Naval Medical Center. Civilian
trauma and orthopedic surgeons were mobilized to treat the wounds of
those Sailors and Marines who required more specialized care.
843 Naval Reservists have been activated to support Marine Forces
during the war, including 592 enlisted corpsmen assigned to provide
critical battlefield medical support to front-line Marine units. 134
Navy Reserve corpsmen have recently been recalled to support the
Marines' rotation in conjunction with Operation IRAQI FREEDOM II. Of
these, 24 Reservists are volunteers for their second year of
activation, while the remainder have just begun their first activation
under the current partial mobilization authority.
Another success story was the mobilization of the ``Firehawks'' of
Helicopter Combat Support Special Squadron Five (HCS-5) based at Naval
Air Station North Island, CA, and their subsequent deployment to Iraq,
where they continue to support CENTCOM operations. In March 2003,
seventy percent of this squadron's Selected Reservists were recalled to
active duty in preparation for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. This squadron
is composed solely of drilling Reservists and Full-Time Support
personnel, and is one of two squadrons in the Navy dedicated to Naval
Special Warfare support and combat search and rescue. The Firehawks fly
the latest model of the HH-60H Seahawk helicopter and their average
pilot has more than 12 years of experience flying, and most have over
2,500 military flight hours. Although the majority of their flights in
the Iraqi theater have supported special operations ground force
missions, the squadron has other warfighting capabilities. The
Firehawks have participated in operations in urban areas and have
assisted with medical and casualty operations. As of the 5th of March,
2004, the squadron had flown 916 sorties and logged 1,738 flight hours.
Navy Reservists from the Redwolves of HCS-4 based at Norfolk Naval
Base will soon deploy to relieve the combat veterans of HCS-5. This
critical capability embedded in the Navy's Reserve has proved to be
invaluable in the support of special operations and the development of
new tactics in the hostile urban warfare environment. It is a
predictable and periodic capability that was ready when called upon;
just what the vision of future reserve contributions will be. They have
trained with the special warfare units and now deploy with them to
combat.
Recently, over five hundred members of the Navy Reserve
Expeditionary Logistics Support Force have been mobilized in support of
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM II, and it is anticipated that over five
hundred Seabees will be mobilized as well. Their combat service support
capabilities are in demand to help relieve the U.S. Army and coalition
forces in Iraq.
SUMMARY
Before I close, I would like to thank this committee for the
support you have provided the Navy's Reserve and all of the Guard and
Reserve components. Last year's budget included several positive
benefits that will help us recruit and retain our talented personnel to
better support the Navy and joint commands. As you can see, this is a
very exciting period for the Navy and its Reserve. The CNO has
challenged every Sailor to review current ways of doing business and
find solutions to improve effectiveness and find efficiencies. The
Navy's Reserve has accepted the challenge and promises the members of
this committee that we will continue to do just that--examine all
facets of our operation to support the fleet and accelerate our Navy's
advantage.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DENNIS M. McCARTHY,
COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE
Senator Stevens. General McCarthy.
General McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye.
It is a great honor to represent the men and women of the
Marine Corps Reserve and the sailors who serve with us today.
I am proud to report to you that the past investments that
this committee and indeed the entire Congress has made in the
Marine Corps Reserve have paid real dividends in the global war
on terrorism. Since my testimony last year, the Marine Forces
Reserve has been engaged in both combat and the stability
operations and in just about every other activity that the
United States Marine Corps has been engaged in. We have also
prepared for future operations, and today we have Marine Forces
Reserve units in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in the Horn of
Africa and elsewhere around the world.
I am also pleased to report to you that while all this has
been going on, we have continued to meet our recruiting goals.
We have, in fact, slightly exceeded our retention goals and the
trends, in terms of sustaining this force, are very positive.
Like everyone, that is something that we watch very, very
closely because it is not something that we can fix after we
get behind on it. But I believe that the current trends are, as
I say, very positive and I believe that we will be able to
sustain this capability over the long haul.
I look forward to responding to your specific questions.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
[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
As the last few years have demonstrated, the Marine Corps Reserve
is a full partner in our Total Force. Marine Corps Reserve units
participated in all aspects Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, providing air,
ground, and combat service support as well as a large number of
individual augmentees to Marine and joint staffs. Reserve units
continue to fill critical roles in our nation's defense during the
Global War on Terrorism--whether deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, the
Georgian Republic, Djibouti, Kuwait, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba or on
standby at U.S. bases to quickly respond to Homeland Security crises.
The Marine Corps has completed 27,389 Reserve activations, in
response to both internal and joint operational requirements. Of the
27,389 Marines mobilized since 9/11, 1,426 (or 5.2 percent) have been
mobilized more than once. For Operations ENDURING FREEDOM V and IRAQI
FREEDOM II Phase II, of the approximately 6,300 eligible for
activation, 3,422 Reserve Marines have already been mobilized at least
once since 9/11. Marine Forces Reserve has maximized the use of
Individual Ready Reserve volunteers, 4,570 have been activated to meet
these requirements, primarily in the areas of staff augmentation, such
as linguists, intelligence specialists, and for force protection
requirements.
During the peak of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM, the Marine Corps had 21,316 Reserve Marines on Active duty.
Marine Forces Reserve proved once again that it was ready, willing and
able to accomplish its primary mission of augmenting and reinforcing
the active component by seamlessly integrating into the I Marine
Expeditionary Force. As an example of the level of support Reserve
Marines provided, 6th Engineer Support Battalion, the second largest
battalion in the Marine Corps mobilized 1,972 of its 2,172 Marines from
11 separate sites. The unit is comprised of 10 companies spread among
12 Reserve centers across the United States. During the war, the
battalion distributed 8 million gallons of fuel, produced and
distributed over 3.1 million gallons of water and provided material
handling support for numerous convoys. In addition, the unit built the
longest Hose Reel Fuel line system (80 miles), the largest tactical
fuel farm and the longest Improved Ribbon Bridge in Marine Corps'
history.
The Fourth Marine Division was equally engaged. Two infantry
battalions, 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines and 2nd Battalion, 25th Marines
were directly engaged in ground combat, as was 4th Light Armored
Reconnaissance Battalion, 4th Assault Amphibian Battalion, and other
combat support and combat service support outfits. Reserve officers and
staff noncommissioned officers effectively trained their units for
combat and led them successfully in battle.
Marine Reserve KC-130Ts proved their worth. Using the most modern
night vision equipment, they participated in 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing's
assault support effort, landing on highways and dirt strips to resupply
Forward Arming and Refueling Points that supported the I Marine
Expeditionary Force's 500-kilometer drive from Basra to Baghdad and on
to Tikrit.
The seamless integration of reserve units is a credit to the Marine
Corps commitment to Total Force. A strong Inspector-Instructor system,
providing a top notch staff of Active duty and Active Reserve personnel
at each site, and a demanding Mobilization and Operational Readiness
Deployment Test program ensure Marine Corps Reserve units achieve the
highest level of pre-mobilization readiness. Marine Corps Reserve units
train to a high readiness standard, eliminating the need for post-
mobilization certification. For Operation IRAQI FREEDOM the Marine
Corps Reserve executed a rapid and efficient mobilization. While some
of our Reserve units deployed in as little as six days from
notification, on the whole our units averaged 23 days from notification
to deployment. None of our units missed their deployment window. In
fact, many of our units were notified, activated, and ready to deploy
faster than strategic lift was available.
The ability of the Marine 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.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
The Marine Corps Reserve has achieved historically high retention
rates in fiscal year 2003 and, the retention rate for the Marine Corps
Reserve remains favorable with a 7 to 10 percent increase over
retention rates in the near-term past. Marine Forces Reserve will not
be complacent about these positive trends. I will carefully and
continuously monitor the data on both recruiting and retention, and
will make every effort to stay ahead of any problems. These are areas
in which we cannot wait until we are in trouble to initiate corrective
measures. Every Marine Corps leader knows the role of leadership,
training and family readiness programs in the recruiting and retention
of our Marines.
With the accession of 6,174 non-prior service Marines and 2,663
prior service Marines, the Marine Corps Reserve met and exceeded,
respectively, current recruiting goals. Current Military Occupational
Specialty match rates are exceeding the goal of 75 percent with an
enlisted Military Occupational Specialty match rate of 87.4 percent and
officer match rate of 75.8 percent.
As of February 29, 2004, our end-strength was 40,235, which is 635
above our authorized end-strength but within the allowable 2 percent
variation. Officer recruiting and retention remains our most
challenging concern. This is due to the low attrition rate for company
grade officers from the active force. The Marine Corps recruits Reserve
officers almost exclusively from the ranks of those who have first
served an active duty tour as a Marine officer. We are exploring
methods to increase the participation of company grade officers in the
Selected Marine Corps Reserve through increased recruiting, increased
command emphasis on Reserve opportunities and participation, and
Reserve officer accession programs for qualified enlisted Marines.
Further, the Marine Corps supports the legislative proposal to allow
bonuses for officers in the Selected Marine Corps Reserve who fill a
critical skill or shortage. We currently have a shortage of Reserve
company grade officers; this bonus could complement other efforts we
are making to increase their participation.
MARINES AND THEIR FAMILIES
Our future success will rely firmly on the Marine Corps' most
valuable asset--our Marines and their families.
Operational Tempo Relief
In addition to supporting Operations NOBLE EAGLE, ENDURING FREEDOM
and IRAQI FREEDOM, Reserve Marines provided operational tempo relief to
the active component. Notably, 96 Reserve Marines volunteered to
participate in the West African Training Cruise-04, a biannual 6th
Fleet sponsored exercise in West Africa (a first for the Marine Corps
Reserve). During the months of October and November 2003, the Marines
deployed to West Africa from various Reserve Training Centers
throughout the United States via Air Force strategic lift. There they
boarded the High Speed Vessel Swift and sailed Africa's West Coast
conducting training exercises with military forces from South Africa,
Cameroon, Ghana, Gambia, and Senegal.
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 supported 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.
Similarly, 335 Reserve Marines volunteered to deploy to South
America to participate in UNITAS 45-04. Sponsored by Commander, Naval
Forces Southern Command, UNITAS is an annual naval and amphibious
exercise that takes place throughout South America. This will be the
second UNITAS sourced primarily from the Selected Marine Corps Reserve.
This year the Selected Marine Corps Reserve Marines of Marine Forces
UNITAS will conduct a 13-week training program at Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina and subsequently embark on the U.S.S. Tortuga. From the
Tortuga the Marines will disembark to conduct bilateral training with
our allies in the Caribbean and the Pacific. In Peru, Marine Forces
UNITAS 45-04 conduct a multi-national amphibious exercise that includes
forces from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru
and Uruguay.
Mobilization Support
Mobilization readiness is our number one priority and the men and
women in the Marine Corps Reserve have responded enthusiastically to
the call to duty. Approximately 98 percent of Marines reported when
mobilized. One of the keys to this success is the support given to the
Marines and their family members prior to, during and after activation.
Programs such as Marine Corps Community Service One Source provide
Marines and their families with around-the-clock information and
referral service for subjects such as parenting, childcare, education,
finances, legal issues, elder care, health, wellness, deployment,
crisis support and relocation via toll-free telephone and Internet
access. Marine Corps Community Service One Source familiarizes our
activated Reserve Marines and their families not located near major
military installations to the requirements and procedures associated
with military programs such as TRICARE.
TRICARE
Marine Forces Reserve recognizes family readiness as an essential
part of mobilization preparedness. Upon activation, Reserve families
must make significant adjustments in lifestyle. Civilian jobs and/or
educational commitments must be correctly managed: proper notifications
provided to employers to ensure legal protections, continued good
Marine-employer relations and an eventual smooth return. The TRICARE
Prime-Remote provisions have made health care issues less challenging,
with families no longer required to shift providers in order to use
TRICARE benefits.
Since 9/11, Congress has gone to great lengths to improve TRICARE
benefits available to the Guard and Reserve. Reserve members are now
eligible for dental care under the TRICARE Dental Program for a minimal
monthly fee. Mobilized Reserves are granted additional transitional
benefits once their activation is complete. In an effort to increase
awareness of the new benefits, Reserve members are now receiving more
information regarding the changes through an aggressive education and
marketing plan. And finally, the newest, temporary changes include
provisional benefits to Marines and their family members 90 days prior
to their activation date and up to 180 after deactivation and extending
TRICARE coverage to members and their families who are either
unemployed or employed but not eligible for employer-provided health
coverage. The new reserve health program, being temporary, offers us
the ability to assess the impact of these benefits after the trial
period. We will review the effects of these programs on reservists and
their families as they transition to and from active duty and look at
the overall effect on retention and readiness.
Family Support
At each of our Reserve Training Centers, the Key Volunteer Network
Program serves as the link between the deployed command and the
families, providing unit spouses with official communication,
information and referrals. This creates a sense of community within the
unit. Additionally, the Lifestyle Insights, Networking, Knowledge and
Skills Program is a spouse-to-spouse orientation service offered to new
Marine spouses to acquaint them with the military lifestyle and the
Marine Corps, including the challenges brought about by deployments.
Online and CD-ROM versions of the Lifestyle Insights, Networking,
Knowledge and Skills Program make this valuable tool more readily
accessible to working spouses of Reserve Marines not located near
Marine Corps installations. The Peacetime/Wartime Support Team and the
support structure within the Inspector and Instructor staff provide
families of deployed Marines with assistance in developing proactive,
prevention-oriented steps such as family care plans, powers of
attorney, family financial planning, and enrollment in the Dependent
Eligibility and Enrollment Reporting System. Our deployed commanding
officers have confirmed the importance of this family readiness support
while they were away and as part of their homecoming.
The Department of Defense has proposed an impressive package of
legislative initiatives that will help us to effectively employ the
Marine Corps Reserve. Of particular note are provisions which support a
``continuum of service,'' a concept that makes it easier for an
individual service-member to move on and off of active duty depending
on his or her availability and willingness to serve.
PREPARATION FOR OIF II/OEF V
I am most pleased to report that every Reserve Marine deployed
during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and those
currently deployed into harm's way are fully equipped with the most
modern Individual Combat Equipment available. Reserve Marines deployed
in Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing the latest in individual ballistic
body armor protection, the Improved First Aid Kit, and the new digital
pattern Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform. Additional individual
equipment programs nearing production and distribution to our units
include the new Lightweight Helmet, the Improved Load Bearing Equipment
pack system, and the All Purpose Environmental Clothing System third-
generation Gore-Tex.
Operationally, since I last testified, over 40,000 pieces of
Reserve combat unit equipment including individual and crew-served
weapons, night vision devices, radios, computers, vehicles, and
engineer equipment have been deployed, engaged in theater, redeployed
back through our Marine Corps installations, processed through the
maintenance cycle, and returned to Reserve Training Centers. This
equipment is poised to resource and future contingencies.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT APPROPRIATION
The $44.6 million provided by fiscal year 2004 National Guard and
Reserve Equipment Appropriation will provide the Reserve Force with the
systems needed to improve mission capability and readiness now and into
the future. Important communications systems such as the Secure Mobile
Anti-Jam Reliable Tactical Terminal, the Enhanced Position Location
Reporting System and Iridium Satellite phones will greatly enhance our
ability to communicate on the battlefield and, most importantly, to
integrate with the active component. National Guard and Reserve
Equipment Appropriation funding has allowed the Marine Corps Reserve to
procure mission-critical night vision devices such as the AN/PVS-17B/C
Mini Night Vision Sight (used with individual weapon systems) and the
AN/PAS-13 Thermal Weapon Sight (used with crew-served weapons). These
sights increase our capability to fight at night and during reduced-
visibility conditions. This year's National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Appropriation also funded the Electronic Warfare Suite (AFC-230) for 47
percent of our AH-1W Super Cobra attack helicopters. We require 20
additional Electronic Warfare Suites to protect the remainder of our
AH-1W fleet. However, I want to assure you that every aircraft, both
rotary- and fixed-wing, deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan will have the
latest in Aircraft Survivability Equipment installed either prior to
departure, enroute while embarked aboard amphibious shipping, or
shortly after arrival in-theater. A contractor ``tiger team'' is
scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan tomorrow, April 8, from Iraq to
upgrade our UH-1N utility and AH-1W attack helicopters.
GROUND ELEMENT EQUIPMENT PRIORITIES
The increasing age of our equipment is also a challenge within the
Reserve ground component. I am pleased to report that we are meeting
these challenges in several areas. Of our 3,448 aging High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, Basic and A1 variants, Marine Forces
Reserve has so far replaced 1,162 with the High Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicle A2 variant. Of our 1,233 Five-Ton truck fleet, 604 have
been replaced with the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement truck. Both
new vehicle systems embrace the latest sustainability and
maintainability technological improvements available to the Marine
Corps.
We continue to receive over 300 new High Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicle A2s each year and project complete replacement of our
fleet by fiscal year 2009. We are scheduled to receive an additional
301 Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement trucks between now and November
2004 with the remaining balance scheduled to be delivered by the end of
fiscal year 2005.
Efforts to improve our communications capabilities have focused on
increased fielding of several tactical single-channel radio programs
including the PRC-117 satellite radios, PRC-150 high frequency radios
and PRC-148 squad radios. Previous National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Appropriation funding allowed Marine Forces Reserve to buy state-of-
the-art battery chargers, power adapters for single-channel radios, and
power inverters, providing a range of alternative power options
comparable to active component units.
As I mentioned earlier, mobilization readiness is my number one
priority. In order to continue seamless integration into the active
component, my ground component priorities are the sustained improvement
of individual Marine protective equipment and overall equipment
readiness. With your continued support, Marine Forces Reserve will
deploy Marines with the best available individual and unit equipment
needed to accomplish their mission and return home safely.
AVIATION ELEMENT EQUIPMENT PRIORITIES
Maintaining current readiness levels will require continued support
as our equipment continues to age at a pace exceeding replacement.
Within Reserve aviation, the average age of our youngest platform is
the UC-35 at 6 years, followed by the AH-1W Cobra at 11 years, the CH-
53E at 16 years, the KC-130T at 18 years, the F/A-18A at 20 years, and
the F-5 at 31 years. Our oldest platforms--platforms that have exceeded
programmed service life--include the UH-1N at 31 years (20-year service
life) and the CH-46E at 37 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 obsolescent parts and higher
rates of equipment failure. For example, for every hour the CH-46E is
airborne, an average of 25.2 maintenance man-hours are required.
Continued support for airframe and avionics upgrades--pending the
arrival of the next generation of aircraft--reduces maintenance man-
hours and increases the availability and capabilities of our aircraft.
We are thankful for and remain confident in the readiness of the
Marine Corps Reserve, and we seek your continued support in the fiscal
year 2005 President's Budget. Your continued support is critical in our
ability to maintain readiness and mission capability to support
operations in support of the Global War on Terrorism.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Marine Forces Reserve is and will continue to be a community-based
force. This is a fundamental strength of Marine Forces Reserve. Our
long-range strategy is to maintain that fundamental strength by
maintaining our connection with communities in the most cost effective
way. We do not want to be located exclusively in just several large
metropolitan areas or consolidated into a few isolated enclaves.
We seek every opportunity to divest Marine Corps-owned
infrastructure and to locate our units in Joint Reserve Centers. Marine
Forces Reserve units are located at 187 sites in 48 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; 33 sites are owned or leased by
the Marine Corps Reserve, 154 are either tenant or joint sites. Fifty-
three percent of the Reserve centers we occupy are more than 30 years
old, and of these, 37 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 and
budget accordingly. Similar to the active component, we do not expect
to be able to bring our facilities to acceptable levels of readiness
before fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2003 we funded seven Whole
Center Repairs in a step forward to meeting the fiscal year 2013 goal.
This will reduce the facilities currently rated below acceptable levels
to 58 percent. While the fiscal year 2005 Presidential Budget provides
a nearly 39 percent increase in our sustainment budget, we still face a
backlog in restoration and modernization across the Future Years
Defense Program of over $30 million. The majority of this backlog
requires Military Construction funding due to the deterioration of our
facilities, but it also includes Operations and Maintenance-funded
whole center repair projects and site improvements at Reserve Training
Centers in Texas, New York, Florida, and Washington. Maintaining
facilities adequately is critical to providing quality-training centers
that support the readiness of our Marines. Replacing inadequate
facilities is also part of our overall infrastructure program. The
yearly Presidential Budget average for new military construction of
$8.67 million for the previous six fiscal years has allowed us to
address our most pressing requirements.
Past vulnerability assessments identified $33.6 million in projects
to resolve anti-terrorism/force protection deficiencies at the 41 sites
that we own or at which we have responsibility for site maintenance. We
have expended $8.3 million the last two years to reduce these
vulnerabilities. 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
anti-terrorism/force protection resolution through structural
improvements, relocation, replacement or the acquisition of additional
stand-off distance. All these expensive solutions will be prioritized
and achieved over the long-term to provide the necessary level of force
protection for all our sites. We continue to improve the anti-
terrorism/force protection posture at our Reserve Training Centers and
are acting proactively to resolve the issues and deficiencies.
MODERNIZATION AND TRANSFORMATION
Command, Control, Communications, and Computers
With your help, we have made great strides in Command, Control,
Communications, and Computers equipment readiness during the past year.
Marine Forces Reserve's Command, Control, Communications, and Computers
readiness increased noticeably, due to the fiscal year 2003 National
Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation. As I speak to you today, a
detachment of our 4th Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company is in Iraq,
outfitted with high frequency and satellite radio equipment almost
completely procured with the fiscal year 2003 National Guard and
Reserve Equipment Appropriation funds. This marks the first time in the
past year and a half a Reserve Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company unit
performed its mission without provisioning radio equipment from its
gaining force commander.
There are a few areas that I would like to bring to your attention
in which you may again assist us. Because of the increased reliance on
Marine Forces Reserve's military police and civil affairs capabilities,
we have validated an additional requirements for 200 handheld radios.
Critical new requirements have emerged for our civil affairs groups'
coordination and command-and-control capabilities such as the
additional validated need for 100 AN/PRC-148 handheld radios and 50
single channel/satellite AN/PRC-117 radios to meet the unexpected
growth in civil affairs capabilities.
Digital Data Servers
Progress has been made in fielding new equipment to bridge the gap
between active component units and their Reserve counterparts. However,
there are areas of improvement in which you can help speed the closure
of the gap.
Prior to completion of Marine Forces Reserve fielding, 24 Digital
Data Server suites were reallocated to support training requirements
for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.
Enhanced Data Relay
Today, battalion-level units in the Total Force are unable to
receive robust data communications beyond line-of-sight. Regimental-
level units rely on satellite and multi-channel radios to maintain
reliable secure data communications to senior and parallel headquarters
across the battlefield. The data link down to battalion-level units is
the Enhanced Position and Location Reporting System, but it has a range
limited by line-of-sight. The range limitation does not allow the
secure data communications to be extended from the Regimental level to
distant or fast moving battalion-level and below units. The Marine
Corps Command-and-control on-the-move Network Digital Over-the-Horizon
Relay initiative is an attempt to extend data networks beyond line-of-
site. This initiative uses satellite and ground radio relays mounted on
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles in three variants. It also
allows units to use standard radios to connect to tactical data
networks. Though in the early stages of development, the Marine Corps
Reserve's tactical Command, Control, Communications, and Computers
effectiveness as well as that of the active component could be
significantly enhanced with funding and fielding of the Command-and-
control on-the-move Network Digital Over-the-Horizon Relay initiative.
Navy-Marine Corps Intranet
With the delay of Marine Forces Reserve's transition to the Navy-
Marine Corps Intranet, many Marine Reserve units have not received up-
to-date hardware to replace their aging computers. At least 12 percent
of our computers are incapable of running the Marine Corps-approved
operating systems, creating compatibility and reliability issues.
Marine Forces Reserve is advance-fielding Navy-Marine Corps Intranet
deployable computers to units deploying for operations to mitigate this
problem. While this is a quick fix, it does not solve the primary issue
of aging computers in the Force. Presently, Marine Forces Reserve is
only funded for approximately 8,000 Navy-Marine Corps Intranet
computers. Unfortunately this leaves 6,000 required Navy-Marine Corps
Intranet computers, in the form of user seats. Without the funding to
replace our aging computers, Marine Forces Reserve will have to contend
with critical long-term computer compatibility and reliability issues.
AN/PRC-150
The fiscal year 2004 National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Appropriation significantly mitigated our high frequency radio
readiness issues with the purchase of man-packed AN/PRC-150 radios to
replace the obsolescent AN/PRC-104s. However, the acquisition objective
for AN/PRC-150 radios will grow as more of the 20-year-old AN/PRC-104s
become unserviceable. We appreciate your continued support for the
funding of the AN/PRC-150s which will keep potential high frequency
radio readiness issues at bay.
As the transformation of our Force continues, there will be a
greater need for newer tactical Command, Control, Communications, and
Computers equipment to fill voids in satellite communications and data
communications areas. Requirements for the Lightweight Multi-band
Satellite Terminal will increase to provide the same wideband satellite
communications capability resident in the active component's major
communications units. Tactical data network requirements will continue
to grow and so will the need for a continued refreshing of computer
technology in the Force. During the next year, requirements for
additional Lightweight Multi-band Satellite Terminals and tactical data
network equipment will be identified for funding.
In the past few minutes, I pointed out several challenges in
Command, Control, Communications, and Computers readiness for Marine
Forces Reserve. However, I want to emphasize that while challenges
remain, your support in providing a path for us to replace and sustain
our Command, Control, Communications, and Computers equipment has
placed your Marine Reserve in a much better Command, Control,
Communications, and Computers posture than a year ago.
CONCLUSION
The Marine Corps Reserve is ready, willing and able to answer our
Nation's call to duty in the Global War on Terrorism, as has been so
well demonstrated by the mobilization and integration of Reserves into
the active component. Our greatest asset is our outstanding young men
and women in uniform. 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.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES E. SHERRARD, III,
CHIEF, AIR FORCE RESERVE
Senator Stevens. General Sherrard, I believe this is your
last visit with us. We thank you for your dedication to the Air
Force Reserve and for being with us in the past years. We wish
you well. We would be pleased to have your statement.
General Sherrard. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much.
On behalf of the almost 79,000 military and civilian members of
the Air Force Reserve, it is indeed my honor and privilege to
be here to speak on their behalf before this distinguished
committee.
I would tell you, sir, that we have had more than 28,000
Air Force Reservists mobilized since September 11th and
currently have over 5,600 serving today. They have served with
distinction and we are awfully proud of that. We believe that
their capabilities which they provide to our Air Force are
essential and they are truly a result of our priorities that we
have established over the years and continue to carry our top
three priorities, the first being people, the second being
readiness, and the third being modernization.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Under the people priority, recruiting and retention are
essential for us. On the recruiting side, as I have testified
before this committee previously, we continue to be challenged
by the smaller number of members that are separating from the
active force. So, therefore, we must place our focus more on
the non-prior service members. We are finding that we can
recruit those members. It certainly takes a longer time for our
recruiting force, but the major challenge is the longer period
it takes for them to gain the experience level that is
necessary for them to do the things that we ask of them. Our
history has always shown us that the high technological needs
of our service demands an experienced force, and we certainly
need to do that.
RETENTION
On the retention side, again as I have testified
previously, I continue to stress the need for us to be able to
retain our members, particularly those who have reached the
point of 20 satisfactory years of service and realizing that
the experience level is exactly the one we want to make sure
that we do not let leave our fold, and if we can retain the
members to their maximum military service separation date or
high year tenure date for our enlisted members, then we have a
much better and more capable force.
FAIR REPRESENTATION AND COMPENSATION
The third piece of the people side of the house is equal
and equitable or fair representation and compensation and
making certain that when our members are activated, they in
fact are receiving the benefits that do not put them at a
disadvantage to those that they are serving with.
READINESS
On the readiness side, we take great pride in the Air Force
that there is one tier of readiness. The active Air Force
creates the standard. We in the Air Force Reserve Command train
to that standard and the active force evaluates it, and that
has been the key to our success that when our members show up
in theater, they are ready to go as a full combat-ready force
ready to meet the challenges that come their way.
MODERNIZATION
And under modernization, I must tell you and echo what my
colleagues have said. We thank you so much for the NGREA
dollars that have been provided to us. They have allowed us to
modernize and maintain our fleet in a form that makes them
relevant and most assuredly capable. We need to continue to
pursue that, making certain that we give our members the very
best equipment possible to do the job, making certain that it
is relevant and interoperable with not only the active force
but with our coalition partners.
We need to continue to watch very carefully the
modernization side and work very diligently, as was mentioned
by the first panel, to look at integrating our units better
operationally. We in the Air Force Reserve Command have been
using the associate concept since 1968. It has served us well
and there are certainly different ways of utilizing that
particular endeavor and we are seeking and doing those today,
whether it be in the Airborne Warning Air Control System (E-3A)
(AWACS) mission in the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training
(SUPT) program and we continue looking in the fighter associate
and other arenas.
I look forward to your questions, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General James E. Sherrard, III
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Committee, I would
like to offer my sincere thanks for this opportunity, my last, to
testify before you. As of September 30, 2003, United States Air Force
Reserve (USAFR) has a total of 8,135 people mobilized under Partial
Mobilization Authority. These individuals are continuing to perform
missions involving: Security, Intelligence, Flight Operations for
Combat Air Patrols (CAPs), Communications, Air Refueling Operations,
Strategic and Tactical Airlift Operations, Aero Medical, Maintenance,
Civil Engineering and Logistics. The Partial Mobilization for the
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) is the longest sustained, large-scale
mobilization in the history of the Air Force. AFR mobilizations peaked
at 15,332 on April 16, 2003 during OIF with a cumulative 28,239
mobilizations sourced in every contingency supporting GWOT since
September 11, 2001. Early GWOT operations driven by rapid onset events
and continued duration posed new mobilization and re-mobilization
challenges, which impacted OIF even though only a portion of the
Reserve capability was tapped.
In direct support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF), Operation
IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF), and the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), Air Force
Reservists have flown a multitude of combat missions into Afghanistan
and Iraq. The 93rd Bomb Squadron is an example of one of the many units
to successfully integrate with active duty forces during combat
missions in OEF and OIF. Reserve crews, which comprise eight percent of
the conventional crews, flew on 42 percent of all B-52 combat missions
during four combat deployments in support of these operations. The 93rd
Bomb Squadron performed many operations that were a first for B-52
operations as well as demonstrating maximum flexibility as a war-
fighting unit. One of their B-52's was the first to employ Precision
Strike Laser Guided Bomb self-designate capability using the LITENING
II targeting pod. Reserve aircrews have also flown C-17 airland/airdrop
missions into Afghanistan and Iraq delivering humanitarian aid and
supplies for the warfighting effort. They also provided air refueling
tanker crews and support personnel from the 434th Air Refueling Wing at
Grissom ARB, Indiana (KC-135) and 349th Air Mobility Wing at Travis
AFB, California (KC-10). Additionally, Air Force Reserve F-16 units
have been involved in support of Operation NOBLE EAGLE (ONE) by flying
combat air patrols over key American cities (301st Fighter Wing, JRB
NAS Fort Worth, Texas, 482d Fighter Wing, Homestead ARB, Florida, and
419th Fighter Wing, Hill AFB, Utah). These units were also deployed at
various times in support of OEF and OIF operations.
RECRUITING
The Air Force Reserve continued to address new challenges in 2003.
Partial mobilization persists, though it's reducing day-by-day, but
volunteerism continues to be a significant means of contribution.
Dedicated members of the Air Force Reserve continue to meet validated
operational requirements. Recruiting and retention of quality service
members is taking top priority for the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC)
and competition for these members among other services, as well as
within the civilian community has reached an all-time high.
AFRC end strength for fiscal year 2003 was 98.8 percent of
authorized end strength.
Recruiting continues to pose other significant challenges as well.
The pool of active duty separatees continue to shrink from its peak
prior to force reduction over a decade ago, and a perceived likelihood
of activation and deployment are being cited as significant reasons why
separating members are declining to choose continuing military service
in the Reserve. These issues further contribute to the civilian
sector's ability to attract these members away from military service.
The Air Force Reserve is developing a strategy to take advantage of
an active duty Force Shaping initiative. Within this fiscal year, Air
Force will offer active duty members the opportunity to use the Palace
Chase program to change components. While the details are not fully
approved, the Air Force Reserve may have an unprecedented opportunity
to access prior service members in critical career skills.
We are hopeful that we will be able to preserve the training and
experience of some 16,000 personnel who may take advantage of the
opportunity to serve under Palace Chase, but we must ensure the right
force mix and the right faces to match our vacancies--it's not just a
``numbers drill''.
One consequence of the reduced success in attracting separating
members from Active Duty is the need to make up this difference through
attracting non-prior service members. While having enough Basic
Military Training and Technical Training School quotas has long been an
issue, the increased dependence on non-prior service accessions strains
these requirements even further.
RETENTION
Though retention was enhanced through ``Stop-Loss'' in the previous
two years, the eventual effects of this program may be felt in this
fiscal year. Even though ``Stop-Loss'' was terminated in June 2003, the
six-month manning policy provides an additional period of relief.
Coupled with the policy to establish a separation date six months from
the end of re-deployment, if there will be a subsequent impact on
retention, it will be felt in this fiscal year.
We continue to look for viable avenues to enhance retention of our
reservists. The reserve enlisted bonus program is a major contributor
to attract and retain both unit and individual mobilization augmentee
members in those critical (Unit Type Code tasked) career fields. We
successfully increased the prior service enlistment bonus amount to
$8,000 this past year for a maximum six-year enlistment in accordance
with related legislative authority granted in 2003. We continue to
explore the feasibility of expanding the bonus program across AFRC as
determined necessary; however, no decision has yet been made to
implement. The Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) continues to be offered
as an incentive for active duty (AGRs).
One of the most positive quality of life enhancements occurred when
the Department of Defense reduced the required threshold for dependent
eligibility for TRICARE Prime from 179 days of consecutive active duty
to 31 days of duty. This threshold reduction allows for greater
dependent health care for the vast majority of Reserve members serving
on periods of active duty, and will greatly increase volunteerism
across the force for a wide variety of requirements. Additionally, the
2004 NDAA provides for three temporary improvements to the overall
TRICARE system for Air Force Reserve members: access to heath care for
inactive members and their dependents, provided they are eligible for
unemployment compensation or not otherwise eligible for employer-
provided health care; earlier TRICARE eligibility for Air Force Reserve
members with delayed effective-date activation orders; and finally, the
period of time granted for transition health care coverage was expanded
from 60 and 120 days up to 180 days for certain members separating from
active duty. These vast improvements in the TRICARE program, though
temporary, will continue to pay dividends in the quality of life
characterization for our Air Force Reserve members, and ultimately
serve as a critical readiness tool.
Space Operations
Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) provides over 1,100 trained space
officer, enlisted, civilian, and contractor personnel at more than 15
locations to acquire, plan, launch, task, operate, assess, and protect
more than 28 weapon systems at 155 units worldwide for Air Force Space
Command, United States Strategic Command, Headquarters Air Force,
National Reconnaissance Office, and others. An annual budget of over
$22 million funds AFRC space operations and requirements providing
command, control, computers, communication, intelligence, surveillance,
reconnaissance (C\4\ISR), navigation, weather, missile warning, network
security and force protection support to warfighters around the globe.
--Nine associate units at four locations operate Global Positioning
System (GPS), Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS), Defense
Support Program (DSP), and Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program (DMSP) satellites; fully integrate with the Network
Operations and Security Center (NOSC) and Space AOC; conduct
test and space aggressor activities; and provide security
forces for land-based facilities.
--Nearly 700 individual mobilization augmentees (IMAs) at more than
15 locations provide support in all areas of the ``cradle-to-
grave'' life cycle of national space assets.
--AFRC space personnel have been fully involved in planning and
executing military activities supporting Operations NOBLE
EAGLE, ENDURING FREEDOM, IRAQI FREEDOM, and NORTHERN and
SOUTHERN WATCH.
--Reserve Associate Programs have been highly successful and are
projected for additional growth in the future. Associate unit
concepts being studied include space control, launch
operations, ICBM communications, and Space Operations School.
Associate Program
The Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) Associate Program meshes
reserve units with active-duty units at bases throughout the United
States. AFRC units use host aircraft and equipment for their training
and work directly with their active duty counterparts. Associate
mobility units fly C-141 Starlifter, C-5 Galaxy, and C-17 Globemaster
III transports along with KC-10 Extender and KC-135 Stratotanker tanker
aircraft. In the spring of 1996, AFRC began filling aircrew and
maintenance support personnel positions in the 513th Air Control Group,
an E-3 Sentry Airborne Air Control System unit.
AFRC is continuing to expand the scope of the associate program
into new mission areas. New units supporting Air Education and Training
Command's undergraduate pilot training program are being managed by the
340th Flying Training Group located at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas,
and the 301st Fighter Squadron, F-16 associate instructor pilot program
at Luke Air Force Base, AZ. AFRC has an associate fighter unit at Shaw
Air Force Base, SC, associate pilots flying F-16s with the
``Aggressor'' squadron at Nellis AFB, NV, and an associate flight test
unit integrated with the Federal Aviation Administration.
The flexibility of the Associate program allows for the effective
and efficient use of highly trained AFRC aircrew members. Associate
units also provide aircraft maintenance personnel to maintain the
active duty aircraft ensuring the utilization of our air frames to the
maximum extent.
The 919th Special Operations Wing, Duke Field, FL, trains in one of
the U.S. military's most unique missions--special operations. Wing
aircraft include MC130E Combat Talon I aircraft equipped for use in
night/adverse weather, low-level, deep-penetration tactical missions.
These aircraft have also been modified to conduct air-to-air refueling
with special operations helicopters. In February 2000, the 8th Special
Operations Squadron (active duty) joined the 711th SOS at Duke Field as
a reverse associate unit--meaning active duty personnel fly reserve-
owned aircraft. The 919th SOW manages all Talon I aircraft in the Air
Force inventory. This is a first for Air Force Special Operations
Command and the second time in Air Force history since the EC-121
mission.
The wing also flies the MC-130P Combat Shadow aircraft (5th SOS),
which has been modified with new secure communications, self-contained
inertial navigation, countermeasures systems and night vision goggle-
compatible lighting. The aircraft's primary mission is to conduct
single-ship or formation in-flight refueling of special operations
helicopters in a low to selected medium-threat environment. On October
1, 1999, the 5th SOS moved to Eglin AFB to join the 9th SOS (active
duty) as an associate Reserve unit. This marked another first in the
special operations mission area. Finally, as mentioned above, the
Associate program in the space operations arena is rapidly expanding.
Associate units provide several benefits and enhancements to
include the following: Force multiplier which increases surge
capability for war time or contingencies; continuity as AFRC forces
provide stability and a service option for departing active duty
personnel; experience as Reservists tend to have more years of service
and bring invaluable civilian experience and knowledge to the military;
and efficiencies due to Reserve cost savings and sharing of weapon
systems and equipment.
MODERNIZATION
Effective modernization of Air Force Reserve assets is a key issue
to remaining a relevant and combat ready force. It has been and
continues to be apparent that the Reserve Component is crucial to the
defense of our great nation. The events of September 11th cemented the
Total Force initiatives already in place and Air Force Reserve Command
(AFRC) is working shoulder-to-shoulder with the Active Duty and Air
National Guard components in the long battle to defeat terrorism. Even
before 9/11, USAFR was an active participant in day-to-day AF
operations. USAFR is no longer a force held in reserve solely for
possible war or contingency actions--we are an Operational Reserve, at
the tip of the spear. It is therefore imperative that we remain a
relevant and combat ready force for the future.
Our modernization strategy is sound but is dependent upon lead
command funding. Lead command funding of AFRC modernization priorities
continues to be one of our challenges. We continue to work with the
Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force to address
our requirements. We greatly appreciate your support for the increase
to the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Authorization (NGREA)
funding in the fiscal year 2004 NDAA, as we strive to utilize the best
technological advances available to us, to keep our people safe in
current theaters of operations. Success in meeting our modernization
goals depends on our cohesive and focused approach to accepting new
mission areas, while ensuring the continued success of current mission
areas and robust interaction with the lead commands, as well as,
keeping Congress informed of USAFR initiatives.
FLEET MODERNIZATION
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 Global Positioning System (GPS)
navigation system, Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) and NVIS
compatible aircraft lighting, Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL),
Targeting Pod integration, GPS steered ``smart weapons'', an integrated
Electronics Suite, Pylon Integrated Dispense System (PIDS), Digital
Terrain System (DTS), and the ALE-50 (towed decoy system). 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 Advanced
Technology (AT), an upgrade to 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. 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. AFRC will complete the purchase of AT upgrade kits
and finish pod purchases for the F-16 this fiscal year. 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 useable 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 are needed
to 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 Desert Storm,
OEF and OIF. 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. An interim solution using Avionics
Interface Modules to integrate LITENING II targeting pods was developed
by the Air Reserve Component to bring added combat capability quickly
to the battlefield. This capability must be integrated permanently to
bring full precision strike abilities to the fight. The Precision
Engagement and Suite 3 programs will further expand this combat
capability and help correct limitations of aged systems. Two other
programs, Embedded GPS and Integrated Flight and Fire Control Computer
(IFFCC) will increase the navigation accuracy and the overall
capability of the fire control computer, both increasing the weapon
system's overall effectiveness.
One of the A-10 challenges is resources for upgrade in the area of
high threat survivability. The Avionics to EW Buss modification will
enhance survivability by providing some automated flare dispensing.
Previous efforts have focused on an accurate missile warning system and
effective, modern flares; however a new preemptive covert flare system
may increase survivability. 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. In an effort to increase loiter
time, we are installing fire suppressant foam in our Sergeant Fletcher
external fuel tanks, allowing removal of current flight restrictions
regarding use of the external tanks in combat scenarios. 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. However, 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. AFRC A/OA-10s need upgraded structures and
engines.
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; 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 OOTW operation requires additional
avionics modernization and changes to the weapons capabilities such as
the Avionics Midlife Improvement (AMI), Conventional Enhancement
Modification (CEM), and the Integrated Conventional Stores Management
System (ICSMS). Effective precision strike capability was proven during
OEF/OIF using LITENING II Targeting Pods. Permanent targeting pod
integration is needed to retain this capability in the future. Changes
in the threat environment are also driving modifications to the
defensive suite including Electronic Counter Measures Improvement
(ECMI). Modifications to enhance stand off jamming capability are also
underway to bring the B-52 into the AEA arena. The B-52 in the AEA
configuration will provide the United States Air Force with the
capability to deny, deceive, and destroy the enemy.
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. Advanced weapons integration
programs are needed for Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM),
Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOF), and Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD)
capability to be fully realized. These integrated advanced
communications systems will enhance the B-52 capability to launch and
modify target locations while airborne. Other communications
improvements are Link 16 capability for intra-theater data link, 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 on 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. 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 has accelerated the
installation of the APN-241 radar as a replacement for the APN-59. All
AFRC assets will be upgraded to provide Night Vision Imaging System
(NVIS) mission capability for C-130 combat rescue aircraft. Necessary
upgrades include defensive capability for the increasing infrared
missile threat such as the Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures
(LAIRCM) system.
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 Para
rescue 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. 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; and
--Enhance availability, reliability, maintainability, and
sustainability of aircraft weapon systems.
Work continues on the Personnel Recovery Vehicle (PRV), a
replacement for the ageing HH-60G helicopter sometime in the 2011
timeframe.
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 war
fighting commanders and lays the foundation for tomorrow's readiness.
Ongoing and future modernization efforts by AFRC include APN 241 Radar
and Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) for our C-130H2/H3
aircraft. Fiscal year 2004 funds provided for APN 241 radar. LAIRCM is
required to protect the aircraft from current and future IR threats.
The AN/AAQ-24 LAIRCM system uses a laser beam to defeat the missile and
does not rely on hazardous and politically sensitive expendables that
highlight the aircraft to additional threat.
WC/C-130J Hercules
The current 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 six WC-130J models at Keesler AFB, MS undergoing
Qualification Test and Evaluation (QT&E). The remaining four aircraft
currently loaned to Lockheed Marietta, will be delivered to Keesler AFB
in January 2005. Deliveries are based on the resolution of deficiencies
identified during tests. This will impact the start of operational
testing and the achievement of interim operational capability (IOC).
Major deficiencies include: propellers (durability/supportability) and
radar tilt and start up attenuation errors. AFRC continues to work with
the manufacturer to resolve the QT&E documented deficiencies. The 815th
ALS has 5 C-130Js at Keesler AFB. Conversion to eight PAA C-130J
stretch aircraft is to be completed by fiscal year 2007.
C-5 Galaxy
Over the next five years, there will be important decisions made
that will change the complexion of the AFRC C-5 Fleet. Currently, there
are primarily sustainability modifications to the weapons systems to
allow it to continue as the backbone of the airlift community. Two
major modifications will be performed on the engines to increase
reliability and maintainability. Additionally, the C-5B fleet will
receive the avionics modernization that replaces cockpit displays while
upgrading critical navigational and communications equipment. AFRC C-
5As are not currently programmed to receive these modifications. The C-
5A fleet has no Defensive Avionics Systems, and this lack of capability
has significantly hampered the ability of the C-5A to participate
actively in the GWOT. If these aircraft are not upgraded, then they
must be retired starting in fiscal year 2008.
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, Air Force Reserve Command 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 transition to new mission
aircraft is completed.
KC-135E/R Stratotanker
One of Air Force Reserve Command's most challenging modernization
issues concerns our unit-equipped KC-135s. Seven of the nine 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. The remaining KC-135Es are being retired, and are
being replaced by KC-135Rs. The last AFRC FC-135E will be retired in 4Q
fiscal year 2005.
The ability of the 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.
CONCLUSION
I would like to thank this committee and the Senate for your
continuing support. I am proud to tell you that our Air Force Reserve
Command continues to be a force of choice whenever an immediate and
effective response is required to meet the challenges of today's world.
For more than 30 years the Air Force has relied upon the Reserve
components to meet worldwide commitments. The events of September 11,
2001 and the Global War on Terrorism continue to highlight that
reliance and have changed the way we think about and employ our forces.
About one in three Air Force reservists has been mobilized at some
point since that time. Transformation has proven to be an important
aspect of the Air Force Reserve as we become more and more relevant in
today's world.
We are ready in peace or war, available for quick response, and
able to stay the course when called upon. Although we are involved more
now in the daily mission of the Air Force, the focus of the Air Force
Reserve Command continues to be readiness--we train during periods of
peace so that we are ready to perform our wartime missions wherever we
are needed, whenever we are called.
Like our active duty partners, the men and women of the Air Force
Reserve are very busy. Trying to balance the demands of military
service, family, and a civilian profession can be a demanding task, but
ours is made easier by the support we receive from the American
taxpayers, Congress, the Department of Defense and the Air Force.
The Air Force Reserve Command made major Air and Space
Expeditionary Force (AEF) contributions in fiscal year 2003. AFRC met
virtually 100 percent of both aviation and support commitments,
deployed over 23,350 (14,130 aviation and 9,220 support) mobilized and
volunteer personnel to meet these commitments. The challenge for fiscal
year 2004 will be to meet the continued AEF demands of the Global War
On Terrorism primarily with volunteers if the number of mobilized
personnel decreases.
I would like to close by offering my sincere thanks to each member
of this Committee for your continued support and interest in the well-
being and quality of life of each Air Force Reservist. The recent pay
increases and added benefits of the last few years have helped us
through a significant and unprecedented time of higher operations
tempo, calling for each member of the Air Force Reserve to give 200
percent to the mission while still keeping families and employers
happy. This will be my final opportunity to represent these fine young
men and women as the Chief of Air Force Reserve, and I leave, knowing
that we are on the right path: a stronger, more focused, force. A force
no longer in Reserve, but integrated into the very fiber of the Air
Force; the tip of the spear.
Each of you can be proud of what we've accomplished together on
behalf of our great nation. Again, I offer my thanks to you and my
sincerest best wishes for the future.
PERSONNEL
Senator Stevens. Let me ask all of you this question if you
would respond, and I think that would take my time in the first
round anyway. The Washington Post recently had an article that
stated that three-quarters of Army spouses believed the Army is
likely to encounter personnel problems as soldiers and their
families tire of the pace and leave for civilian lives. They
quoted one expert that said 2005 is a make or break year as
some soldiers who have already served in Iraq for a year are
sent back for a second year.
Is this going to be a problem in 2005 and should we do
anything about so far as this budget is concerned? General
Helmly.
General Helmly. The article, if you remember, addressed the
Active component, but I would tell you that your concerns are
certainly applicable to the Reserve components, perhaps in some
cases to a greater degree.
We are vitally concerned. In our case I believe that the
tale will be told during the period of about May through
August. That cohort for us is about 78,000 soldiers in the Army
Reserve who were mobilized for the initial attack in Iraqi
Freedom. That group is the group that had the shortages that
the previous panel addressed in body armor, shortages of
equipment, in many cases had less than 10 days' notice that
they were being mobilized. That same cohort had about 8,000
Army Reserve soldiers who were demobilized only to have to be
remobilized about a month and a half to 2 months later. So that
is the group for us that has taken the greatest strain.
As the previous panel noted, the current mobilization--we
had to clean up, fix a lot of the equipment shortage problems.
We are giving much more notice to our troops now, and the flow
is much smoother and in a more predictable, practiced way.
Still I am very concerned.
As far as what this committee could do, we have sought help
in terms of extending the targeted selected reenlistment bonus
to Reserve component members. That is a $5,000 to $10,000 bonus
that is widely accepted by the soldiers in theater because, of
course, if they reenlist while they are in theater, then those
$5,000 to $10,000 come virtually tax free. We seek your help in
that.
We have forwarded a list of other policy changes to the
Department of Defense recently, seeking in many cases not
additional funding, but policy changes to put us on, as General
Sherrard noted, a more level footing with regard to Active
component members on recruiting and retention. So that is my
answer. I think that fiscal year 2005 will, indeed, be a year
which will tell us how well we are able to sustain an
operational force with an all-volunteer force while at war.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Admiral Cotton?
NAVAL RESERVISTS
Admiral Cotton. Sir, since 9/11, we have had about 22,000
naval reservists recalled to active duty, including--I see a
gentleman right behind you--Bob Henke who honorably served in
the gulf. That is about one-fourth of our force.
I will also say that we have integrated many of our
reservists into blended or associate type augment units where
they can be utilized each month or surge for a few weeks to
handle whatever OPTEMPO we need. So we have been able to hold
down the total numbers.
Our Chief of Naval Operations usually asks the question
first, let us go to the active component to mobilize someone
rather than always stress the Reserve component.
I have to add that today all Admirals in the Navy, Active
and Reserve, select Senior Executive Service, and our E-9, our
master chief force and fleet leadership, are in Annapolis at
the Naval Academy concluding a 3-day conference, the theme of
which is human resources policy for the future.
I also have to say that not only are we acting together as
one Navy, we are also recruiting together as one Navy, using
Reserve recruiters to recruit active, active to recruit
reservists, and the real recruitment for the future I think is
going to be at the active duty commanding officer when a young
woman or a young man is leaving the service for whatever
reason. We have to retain them in the Reserve component and
develop a continuum of service where these individuals can come
back in and re-serve their country. So the dynamic we are
looking for is how do we keep them serving, coming back, and
there will probably be some initiatives that we will come up
with to ensure that.
But overall, it is working well. Last month we recruited
116 percent of our goal. So we are maintaining our end strength
and doing well in the Navy, sir.
Senator Stevens. General McCarthy.
MARINE CORPS RESERVE
General McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, our situation is obviously
different, dictated by our force structure. Seventy percent of
the enlisted Marines in the Marine Corps Reserve are single, so
we do not have quite the same level perhaps of spouse
involvement that some of the other services do. But I think
that the concern about family support and continued family
support for service is one that is definitely going to be a
factor as we go forward.
I will tell you that the thing that I am probably most
concerned with is our ability to continue to recruit people who
complete their active service and in the past have affiliated
with the Marine Corps Reserve. I think that family pressures
that may induce them to conclude their active service may also
influence their decision as to whether to affiliate and
participate with the Marine Corps Reserve. So the next couple
of years are going to be telling.
In terms of what can be done, I think that a number of the
initiatives that the Department has put forward this year
regarding TRICARE are very positive. I think that anything the
committee can do to strengthen the Montgomery GI bill would be
a very strong plus. Forty percent of the young men and women in
the Marine Corps Reserve are college students, so there is a
very high interest in the Montgomery GI bill.
I would second General Helmly and everybody on the panel's
position with regard to equitable and the perception of
equitable treatment. But we all have to be watching this the
next year or 2 very carefully.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
General Sherrard.
MANPOWER
General Sherrard. Yes, sir. I echo the comments of my
colleagues, and I would tell you that we are watching our
manning, in particular, with great interest because of the fact
of ``stop-loss'' in 2002 and then it being on for a portion of
2003. The numbers in fact are slightly low in our world today,
but I am confident that we will end with our end strength on
target, as well as meeting our recruiting goals. The real
challenge is going to be retaining those members that we have
and, again, I am very proud to say that to date, those members
that have been activated are being retained at a higher rate
than the remainder of our force. But again, that is a small
piece compared to the larger picture that we have. We have got
to continue to pursue fair and equitable compensation. I really
believe that is the key to success as well as our ability to
retain the members after they have satisfactorily completed
their 20 years of service which qualify them for retirement,
but they still have in most cases 10 to 13 years remaining that
they can serve in our force.
The other caution that I would say is that while we all
seek those same things, each of us has different requirements
and we have to be very careful that we do not do something that
impacts on another service adversely. But I do believe that
fair and equitable compensation, as well as understanding and
looking at issues such as General McCarthy talked about,
equalizing the Montgomery GI bill benefits and things of that
type, will all enhance our ability to draw the very best to
serve in our forces.
RETENTION
Senator Stevens. Well, last year we provided the National
Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. I am thinking this year we
ought to think about some kind of a National Guard and Reserve
reenlistment account that you decide how to use it best to
increase your retention, aimed at retention rather than
recruiting. But think about that and let us know what you would
like us to do. I think each one of you has different needs and
clearly General McCarthy's are not the same as yours, but they
still have to have some kind of retention capability. I think
we ought to look to putting some of the money we have, either
this year or in the supplemental at the first of the year, to
work to assure that you have got that capability. Let us know,
please. We would like to work with you.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. First of all, I agree with your plan.
Senator Stevens. You probably thought of it and I said it.
ACTIVE AND RESERVE INTEGRATION
Senator Inouye. BRAC is upon us again. General Sherrard, I
have been advised that the Active and Reserve air forces are
now working out an integration plan. Can you describe that to
us?
General Sherrard. Yes, sir. The integration plans that we
are working are operational integration in terms of how we can
best utilize the assets that we in the Air Force will have. As
was mentioned by the first panel, one of the key ones that has
truly integrated all three components serving at the same time
within an organization is the Predator mission that we have at
Nellis. But as I mentioned, we have been doing associate
business in the large aircraft, the C-5, 141, the C-17, KC-10
business for a long time. We also have associate units in the
fighter business, as well as AWACS special operations and then
as I mentioned also in our undergraduate pilot training
program. I would tell you operationally we integrate and serve
our force very well based on the fact that, as I said earlier,
there is one standard to which we all train to.
We still will have the administrative control circumstances
that we have to take care of based on the law that mandates
what a commander is responsible for and that has been given to
each of us, as well as ensuring that we have promotion
opportunities and a structure which will allow progression up
through the ranks so that we, in fact, do not stymie someone
simply because there is no place for them to go.
But we will continue to look at operational integration and
the best utilization of the limited assets we will have
utilizing the highly experienced members that we bring to the
force.
Senator Inouye. Is that plan applicable to the other
Reserve components, General?
General Helmly. Senator, it is. First of all, regarding
BRAC, there is a single office in the Army that is overseeing
Army planning. We have representatives there. We are a part of
that. The chief of that office, a Senior Executive Service
employee, briefs me regularly regarding our integrated efforts
there.
I am in favor of additional joint basing and cooperation
with the various State National Guards, because to the extent
that we partner in that effort, we reduce the cost and
investments in facilities and we are allowed to reinvest those
dollars in operations training and such initiatives as the
chairman spoke to for recruiting and retention.
Regarding operational integration, we have similar
formations as the Air Force Reserve. We call them multi-
component organizations. Those organizations are serving us
very well in the logistic support and medical support areas of
the Army.
JOINT RESERVE CENTERS
Admiral Cotton. Yes, sir. I would like to add that the
Naval Reserve is a full participant in the Navy BRAC process
and all cross-functional teams, and so we will work through our
Chief of Naval Operations for the BRAC process.
I would also like to add that as I mentioned before, in
Desert Storm we got it. We started integrating more. Today
every naval aviator that goes into combat has been trained by a
naval reservist. It starts in the beginning, continues in
intermediate and in advanced training. Every carrier group that
gets trained in a joint task force exercise, the folks doing
the training are naval reservists. These predictable and
periodic missions that are easy to schedule are perfect for the
skill sets that our senior and experienced reservists bring. So
we have integrated and we are going to continue to do that and
combine where it makes sense.
I would like to echo what we have all said here. For the
future, when we build Reserve centers, they should be joint
centers. They should be joint operational support centers. They
should mirror what we have already done with the intel
community, with the very successful JRIC's, the joint Reserve
intel centers. There are 27 of them around the country. But if
we are going to build a facility, we need to have a SCIF. We
need to have a secure area, a T-1 line so that we can
communicate from wherever the center is via Secret Internet
Protocol Network (SIPRNET), via secured link to the supported
commands. And we find if you have these kind of links, you do
not need to move someone into theater. You can do the work from
Continental United States (CONUS) and support the warfighter
and not have to have a footprint in theater.
Senator Inouye. General McCarthy.
General McCarthy. Senator Inouye, I repeat everything
everybody else has said, especially with regard to joint
centers. The one point I would make is that I know it is true
for the Marine Corps Reserve, and I think it is true for most
everyone else. We are a locally based force and while I am 100
percent in favor of consolidating into joint centers, I think
we need to keep our local footprint. We need to keep those
joint centers in the communities where we exist today. That is
where we draw people from. That is where we represent a Marine
Corps presence. So I am opposed to the idea of clustering the
Reserve components in just a few large installations as
sometimes gets suggested.
Senator Inouye. The chairman and I served in the ancient
war. There were many differences. For example, in the regimen I
served, 4 percent of the officers and enlisted had dependents.
Ninety percent of us were 18, 19, 20 and unattached. I think
that was about what it was in all the United States Army. I
think 10 percent with dependents and 90 percent without. Today
I believe the Army has something close to 75 percent with
dependents. In addition, the fact that you have embedded
journalists in just about every unit brings live action into
every home which was not available in my time.
Although the number of those with uniforms number just
about 1 percent of the total population, it has become a
national concern, a national interest. Therefore, recruiting
and retention becomes a major concern to us. It may not be with
us today, but with all of this happening now, we should listen
to the chairman very carefully to come up with some program
that will further encourage our young men and women to consider
the military as a career because otherwise Congress and the
administration will be called upon to use that D word. I can
just see the concern in the populace when the D word comes up.
So whatever you can do to enhance the recruiting and retention
of our forces I think would be well received by this Nation of
ours.
Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
Once again, you are thinking along the same lines I was
thinking about in terms of the draft. Senator Goldwater and I
conspired to do away with the draft. I do not know if you know
that. We certainly do not want to see it come back. I think the
concept of the volunteer Army has proved itself not only in the
gulf war but in this engagement for sure.
You were in the room when I asked the National Guard
Generals about looking at the problem of those ammunition dumps
in Iraq. I would welcome your review of that and attention. We
took occasion to be briefed by the intelligence community just
recently and I think it is something that is going to come to a
head here fairly soon as far as Congress is concerned.
Last year Senator Feinstein asked for some specific money
for that purpose and we included that purpose in with the
HUMVEE upgrading and other things that really absorbed the
money before that subject could be totally reviewed. And I have
apologized to her for that because I think that some of us did
not understand the scope of it. I certainly did not. But when
you are dealing with 1,000 to 7,000 dumps of ordnance that is
still usable, as far as we are informed, that is a massive
problem for the world, not just for us.
So I would welcome your review and your suggestions on what
we might be capable of doing in the near future. I think it may
well be a problem for the United Nations and for the world to
tackle, but clearly it is one of the largest problems I have
ever looked at.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
We will reconvene on Wednesday, April 21 to hear testimony
concerning missile defense.
Thank you very much and good luck to all of the people
under your command.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., Wednesday, April 7, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
April 21.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Shelby, Burns, Inouye,
Dorgan, and Feinstein.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Missile Defense Agency
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD T. KADISH, U.S.
AIR FORCE, DIRECTOR, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning, General Kadish. We're
pleased to have you here. Pardon me for being a few minutes
late.
This is your 5th year before us, General, and we think
you've done a tremendous job in helping to secure a reliable
missile defense system for our Nation. You've provided the
leadership and vision to achieve that goal and we're grateful
and thankful for your service. And I'm pleased that I've been
able to travel with you and to understand your plans. We know
this is your last appearance before the subcommittee and we do
wish you the very best in whatever your endeavors may be. But
just keep in mind, my friend, my first father-in-law said that
the English language is the only language in which retire means
other than go to bed.
On December 16, 2002, President Bush stated the Department
of Defense (DOD) shall proceed with plans to deploy a set of
Initial Missile Defense capabilities beginning in 2004. By the
end of this year the United States will in fact have Initial
Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities and we're proud that you
chose Alaska to have a role in that development. Having such a
system will hopefully mean that we'll never have to use it in
the future. So we look forward to hearing about what you've
done to date and to giving us an update on the overall Missile
Defense program that you have fashioned and led so well.
Before I open, let me turn to my colleague, my co-chairman
for his remarks.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much. I wish to associate
myself with the remarks of the Chairman and to say to General
Kadish I thank you very much for your tireless dedication to
your country, to the Missile Defense program, and DOD. I wish
to congratulate you and best wishes on your future endeavors.
Thank you, sir.
May I have the rest of the statement made part of the
record?
Senator Stevens. Without objection, so ordered.
[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.
General, I understand that this will be your last time
testifying before us. You have held this position for nearly
five years--much longer than most agency Director tours. You
have certainly demonstrated your tremendous dedication and
stamina, and I thank you for your tireless dedication to the
missile defense program, to the Department of Defense, and to
our country--congratulations and best wishes on your upcoming
retirement.
Through your five years of service, General, you understand
better than anyone that missile defense is a program of great
interest to many, and one with plenty of controversy.
This September the Department plans to deploy a limited
national missile defense system. This is an exciting
achievement following decades of work in the field. Some of
your critics, however, argue that the system is not yet ready,
and more operational testing needs to be done to ensure that
this limited system actually works. I look forward to hearing
your response to these critics during our discussions today.
Missile defense is, by its very nature, a complex program.
Despite successes in recent tests--and for that I commend you--
there are still many technological hurdles to overcome, and
much work remains to be done.
This year's budget request continues the growth we have
seen in recent years for the missile defense programs. Over $10
billion is in the President's budget for missile defense
activities, an increase of $1 billion over last year's
appropriation. Sustaining this magnitude of increases in the
out-years will be challenging.
Despite these challenges, the missile defense program is
one of the most critical national security issues of today and
for the foreseeable future. The ballistic missile threat to the
United States, to our troops deployed overseas, and to our
allies and friends around the world will continue to
proliferate.
This committee understands the importance of a strong
missile defense to our national security, and we will do our
best to continue to support your efforts. Nevertheless, given
the risks and rising costs of this program we will remain ever
vigilant in our oversight.
General, I look forward to our discussions today on the
fiscal year 2005 budget request and the priorities and
challenges of the missile defense program.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo what you
and Senator Inouye have said about General Kadish. He served
with great distinction and he served in this post for 5 years.
That's extraordinary, General, and we wish you the best and we
all hope to see you before you actually retire.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Senator Burns was here before I was.
Senator Stevens. He's a stealth Senator. Senator Burns.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. The day I become a stealth, that will become
a great day. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to offer my
statement for the record today, and I also want to associate my
words with the chairman. General Kadish, we have traveled
together and 5 years is a long time, especially in the work
that you were doing and you've done it well. I don't know what
you're going to do in retirement and you know what? I don't
care. But we hope it's, you know, the last, General Fogelman
retired, you know, why, he thought he went from chief, you
know, he's got one of the great businesses there is in
Southwestern Colorado. And he's really enjoying it very much;
Ron's Johns. So retirement means many things to many people.
But I will tell you we see him every now and again and we want
to continue to see you around here every now and again too,
because we rely on your advice and your good sense about this
very important issue. So feel free to drop by any time and if
you're going to retire, why, just have a great retirement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
General Kadish, it appears you have come to brief this
Committee on the Missile Defense Agency budget for the last
time. Thank you for your service to our great Nation. You have
been critical to the continuing success of the Missile Defense
Agency. I wish you luck in your future endeavors.
I read daily of our forces in the field using American
ingenuity to develop unconventional solutions to solve problems
they face. I appreciate your efforts to pursue innovation in
technology, acquisition processes, and deployment strategy, to
meet the challenges of the evolving ballistic missile threat.
As we move into the phase of what you are calling ``Initial
Defensive Operations'', to provide an initial capability to
defeat an incoming ballistic missile threat, I look forward to
the growth of this capability to allow us to defeat
increasingly complex, and numerous missile threats launched
against our homeland, our fleet, and our deployed forces
overseas.
The technical challenges you face are formidable, but the
stakes are high for our Nation. We must counter the threat of
ballistic missile proliferation. I hope you are right in
stating that the deployment of the layered missile defense
program could persuade rogue states to forego their plans to
develop ballistic missiles, but I reserve a sense of skepticism
of this possibility.
We centralized missile defense system development with the
formation of your agency in DOD to synergize the service
solutions, which, at the time, competed for defense dollars
within and between the services. I look forward to the layered
system that leverages this centralization to develop open
architectures, common interfaces, and standardized subsystems,
minimize the system operational costs, and increase competition
among the Industry providers of these systems.
While I support the flexibility provided by the new
acquisition approach, this flexibility brings with it greater
exposure to risks. The budgetary classification of the
resources within the Missile Defense Agency, which are
primarily advanced technology development, do not require the
customary depth of oversight, which comes from Defense
Acquisition Boards making recommendations to transition between
budget resource types. I caution you to be judicious with the
resources we provide your agency.
You are developing international partnerships with some of
our allies, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan. I
support this effort to share the development burden and benefit
with our key allies in the war on terror. They have remained
part of our coalition in these difficult times, and our shared
values will keep our alliance strong.
Again, I thank you for being here today and look forward to
the discussion this morning. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. General Kadish,
congratulations to you on your successful tenure as Director of
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). And your skill has been quite
obvious in how you have helped mobilize the resources of our
Defense Department and our Government to carry out the
provisions of the National Missile Defense Act that the
Congress passed, and was signed by the President several years
ago. We think you've done a magnificent job and we appreciate
very much your hard work over this long period of years.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator.
General, we've all been around the military long enough to
know you made a real sacrifice in sticking to this job. You
could have moved on and had four stars but you have finished
this job and we congratulate you and we admire you and we're
thankful that you did it. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD T. KADISH
General Kadish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye,
members of the committee. I would like to express my
appreciation for the help of this committee in making the 5
years that I served as the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency as productive and pleasant as they have been. My
association with this committee has been one of the highlights
of my tenure in the Missile Defense Agency, and I'd just like
to point out for Senator Burns' benefit that I look at it as
leaving active duty, not retiring. But it is a change.
We have made tremendous progress in the Missile Defense
Technology Program over the last 5 years and certainly over the
last year. And if I might, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just have
a very brief statement this morning and I'd like for my full
statement to be entered into the record, if you so choose.
Our direction from the President and the Congress is 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. And I'm pleased to report today that
we're on track to do that just this year.
Beginning in 2001, we proposed building over time, a single
integrated ballistic missile defense system of layered
defenses, and we structured the program to deal with the
enormity and the complexity of that task. Our budget request
allows us to continue our aggressive research and development
effort to design, build and test elements of the system in an
evolutionary way, and it provides for modest fielding over the
next several years.
With an evolutionary capability based acquisition approach
and our aggressive research, development, test and evaluation
(RDT&E) program we can put capability into the field, we can
test it, we can train with it, we can get comfortable with it,
we can learn what works well and what does not and improve it
as soon as we can. That is, in a nutshell, what our program
does.
We are working routinely with Admiral Ellis from STRATCOM
and the war-fighting community. Once the system is placed on
alert we'll continue to conduct tests to gain even greater
confidence in the operational capability that we have. We are
working very closely with Mr. Christie and the operational test
community. The thousands of tests we have conducted in the air,
on the ground and in the laboratory with our modeling and
simulations help identify problems so we can fix them and
highlight any problems so we can address them directly.
The RDT&E program is working. We are focused on the
development of the most promising near-term elements, namely
the ground-based midcourse and Aegis ballistic missile defense
(BMD). But the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD,
is progressing very well and will add capabilities to engage in
the late midcourse and terminal layers very soon.
In this budget we increased the investment and development
of the boost phase layer, which we believe can offer a high
payoff improvement to the system. Two program elements, the
Directed Energy Laser Program and the Kinetic Energy
Interceptor Program for hit-to-kill capability, represent
parallel paths and complement each other.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, thanks to the tens of
thousands of talented and dedicated people across this country,
America's missile defense program is on track. The Missile
Defense Agency is doing what we told the Congress we would do,
and your support, in particular this committee's support, has
been critical to the progress we've made.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm ready to answer any
questions you might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Ronald T. Kadish
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. It is an
honor to be here today to present the Department of Defense's fiscal
year 2005 Missile Defense Program and budget.
Today, I would like to outline what we are doing in the program,
why we are doing it, and how we are progressing. I also will address
why we proposed taking the next steps in our evolutionary development
and fielding program. Then I want to emphasize the importance of the
acquisition strategy we are using and close with some observations
about testing and the Department's approach to Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) management.
Our National Intelligence Estimates continue to warn that in coming
years we will face ballistic missile threats from a variety of actors.
The recent events surrounding Libya's admission concerning its
ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction programs remind us
that we are vulnerable. Ballistic missiles armed with any type warhead
would give our adversaries the capability to threaten or inflict
catastrophic damage.
Our direction from the President is 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. This budget
continues to implement that guidance in two ways.
First it continues an aggressive Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation (RDT&E) effort to design, build and test the elements of a
single Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system in an evolutionary way.
Second, it provides for modest fielding of this capability over the
next several years.
We recognize the priority our nation and this President ascribe to
missile defense, and our program is structured to deal with the
enormity and complexity of the task. The missile defense investments of
four Administrations and ten Congresses are paying off. We are
capitalizing on our steady progress since the days of the Strategic
Defense Initiative and will present to our Combatant Commanders by the
end of 2004 an initial missile defense capability to defeat near-term
threats of greatest concern.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM
Layered defenses help reduce the chances that any hostile missile
will get through to its target. They give us better protection by
enabling engagements in all phases of a missile's flight and make it
possible to have a high degree of confidence in the performance of the
missile defense system. The reliability, synergy, and effectiveness of
the BMD system can be improved by fielding overlapping, complementary
capabilities. In other words, the ability to hit a missile in boost,
midcourse, or terminal phase of flight enhances system performance
against an operationally challenging threat. See Chart 1.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Chart 1.--BMD System Engagement Phases
All of these layered defense elements must be integrated. And there
must be a battle management, command and control system that can engage
or reengage targets as appropriate. And it all must work within a
window of a few minutes. We believe that a layered missile defense not
only increases the chances that the hostile missile and its payload
will be destroyed, but it also can be very effective against
countermeasures and must give pause to potential adversaries.
So, beginning in 2001 we proposed development of a joint,
integrated BMD system. Yet such unprecedented complexity is not handled
well by our conventional acquisition processes. At that time, the
Services had responsibility for independently developing ground-based,
sea-based, and airborne missile defenses. The Department's approach was
element- or Service-centric, and we executed multiple Major Defense
Acquisition Programs (MDAPs).
Today, as a result of defense transformation and a streamlined
process instituted by the Secretary of Defense in 2001 to enhance
overall integration, we are managing the BMD system as a single MDAP
instead of a loose collection of Service-specific autonomous systems.
We have come to understand over the years, though, that no one
technology, defense basing mode, or architecture can provide the BMD
protection we need. Redundancy is a virtue, and so we established a
system-centric approach involving multiple elements designed,
developed, and built with full integration foremost in our minds. When
we made this change, we instituted a ``capability-based'' acquisition
process instead of a ``threat-based'' process. Let me explain why this
is important.
Most defense programs are developed with a specific threat--or
threats--in mind. Twenty years ago, the ballistic missile threat was
pretty much limited to Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBMs) and sea-launched ballistic missiles. But today we have to
consider a wide range of missile threats posed by a long list of
potential adversaries. And those threats are constantly changing and
unpredictable. Our potential adversaries vary widely in their military
capabilities and rates of economic and technological development. Many
of them have a tradition of political instability.
Weapon systems developed using a threat-based system are guided and
governed by Operational Requirements Documents (ORDs). These documents
establish hard thresholds and objectives for the development and
deployment of every component. ORDs may be entirely appropriate for
most development programs because they build linearly on existing
systems. For example, aircraft program managers understand lift and
thrust from previous programs going all the way back to the Wright
brothers.
Not so for missile defense. Most missile defense development takes
place in uncharted waters. Any ORD developed for an integrated, layered
missile defense system would be largely guesswork. ORDs rely on very
precise definitions of the threat and can remain in effect for years,
making this process all the more debilitating for the unprecedented
engineering work we are doing. The reality that we may have to
introduce groundbreaking technologies on a rapid schedule and also deal
with threats that are unpredictable render the threat-based acquisition
structure obsolete.
A capability-based approach relies on continuing and comprehensive
assessments of the threat, available technology, and what can be built
to do an acceptable job, and does not accommodate a hard requirement
that may not be appropriate.
Perhaps the most telling difference between the two acquisition
approaches is that our capabilities to perform are updated every four
to eight months to reflect and accommodate the pace of our progress. We
are no longer compelled to pursue a one hundred percent solution for
every possible attack scenario before we can provide any defense at
all. We are now able to develop and field a system that provides some
capability that we do not have today with the knowledge that we will
continue to improve that system over time. We call this evolutionary,
capability-based development and acquisition.
INITIAL DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY--THE BEGINNING
On December 16, 2002, President Bush directed that we begin
fielding a missile defense system in 2004 and 2005. The President's
direction recognizes that the first systems we field will have a
limited operational capability. He directed that we field what we have,
then improve what we have fielded. The President thus codified in
national policy the principle of Evolutionary, Capability-Based
Acquisition and applied it to missile defense.
The President's direction also builds on the 1999 National Missile
Defense Act. Under this Act, deployment shall take place ``as soon as
technologically possible.'' The fact is that ballistic missile defense
has proven itself technologically possible. Not only have most of the
well-publicized flight tests been successful, but so have the equally
important computer simulations and software tests. Those tests and
upgrades will continue for a long time to come--long after the system
is fielded and long after it is deemed operational. After all, this is
the heart of evolutionary, capability-based acquisition. This is not a
concept designed to trick or mislead. It is simply the logical response
to the following question: Defenseless in the face of unpredictable
threats, which would we rather have--some capability today or none as
we seek a one hundred percent solution?
When we put the midcourse elements (GMD and Aegis BMD) of the BMD
system on alert, we will have a capability that we currently do not
have. In my opinion, a capability against even a single reentry vehicle
has significant military utility. Even that modest defensive capability
will help reduce the more immediate threats to our security and enhance
our ability to defend our interests abroad. We also may cause
adversaries of the United States to rethink their investments in
ballistic missiles. Because of this committee's continued support we
will have some capability this year against near-term threats.
I must emphasize that what we do in 2004 and 2005 is only the
starting point--the beginning--and it involves very basic capability.
Our strategy is to build on this beginning to make the BMD system
increasingly more effective and reliable against current threats and
hedge against changing future threats.
We have made significant strides towards improving our ability to
intercept short-range missiles. Two years ago we began sending Patriot
Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missiles to units in the field. Based on
the available data, the Patriot system, including PAC-3, successfully
intercepted all threatening short-range ballistic missiles during
Operation Iraqi Freedom last year. Today, it is being integrated into
the forces of our allies and friends, many of whom face immediate
short- and medium-range threats. We believe it is the only combat-
tested missile defense capability in the world.
This year we are expanding our country's missile defense portfolio
by preparing for alert status a BMD system to defend the United States
against a long-range ballistic missile attack. Chart 2 provides a basic
description of how we could engage a warhead launched against the
United States.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Chart 2.--Engagement Sequence
Last year, we made it clear that this initial capability would be
very basic if it were used. We also emphasized that instead of building
a test bed that might be used operationally, we would field more
interceptors and have them available for use while we continue to test.
Because the test bed provides the infrastructure for this initial
capability, the additional budget request for the twenty Block 2004
interceptors and associated support was about $1.5 billion in fiscal
year 2004 and fiscal year 2005.
Forces to be placed on alert as part of the initial configuration
include up to 20 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska and
Vandenberg AFB, an upgraded Cobra Dane radar on Eareckson Air Station
in Alaska, and an upgraded early warning radar in the United Kingdom.
We are procuring equipment for three BMD-capable Aegis cruisers with up
to ten SM-3 missiles to be available by the end of 2005. The Navy is
working very closely with us on ship availability schedules to support
that plan. Additionally, ten Aegis destroyers will be modified with
improved SPY-1 radars to provide flexible long-range surveillance and
track capability of ICBM threats by the end of 2005, with an additional
five destroyers with this capability by 2006, for a total of 15 Aegis
BMD destroyers and three Aegis BMD cruisers.
The fiscal year 2005 request funds important for Block 2006
activities to enhance those capabilities and system integration, which
I will discuss in a moment.
The Missile Defense Agency, the Combatant Commanders, the Joint
Staff, the Military Services, and the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation (DOT&E) are working together to prepare for Initial
Defensive Operations (IDO). Using the core capability provided by
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) and augmenting it with the
appropriate Command, Control, Battle Management and Communications
(C\2\BM/C) infrastructure between Combatant Commanders and exploiting
the Aegis contribution in a surveillance and track mode, we have
created an initial capability from which we can evolve.
Our current fielding plans have been built on the Test Bed
configuration we proposed two years ago and are within 60 days of our
schedule. Silo and facility construction at Fort Greely, Alaska and
Vandenberg Air Force Base in California is proceeding well.
Preparations at Eareckson Air Station in Shemya, Alaska are on track.
Over 12,000 miles of fiber optic cables connecting major communication
nodes are in place, along with nine satellite communications links. We
are in the process of upgrading the Early Warning Radar at Beale Air
Force Base and are well underway building the sea-based X-band radar.
Our brigade at Schriever Air Force Base and battalion fire control
nodes at Fort Greely are connected to the Cheyenne Mountain Operations
Center. The C\2\BM/C between combatant commanders, so essential to
providing situational awareness, is progressing well and is on
schedule. Upgrades to the Cobra Dane Radar are ahead of schedule. The
Chief of Naval Operations has identified the first group of Aegis ships
to be upgraded with a BMD capability, and the work to install the
equipment on the first of these ships has begun.
Once the system is placed on alert, we will continue to conduct
tests concurrently to gain even greater confidence in its operational
capability. Additionally, we plan activities to sustain the concurrent
test and operations and support of the system. We are laying in the
infrastructure to build, test, sustain, and evolve our system as a part
of the capabilities-based approach inherent in our strategy.
An integral working relationship with the warfighter, the BMD
system user, is critical to the success of this mission. We are working
together to ensure that we field a system that is militarily useful and
operationally supportable and fills gaps in our defenses. The support
centers we are establishing will provide critical training to
commanders in the field. The necessary doctrines, concepts of
operation, contingency plans, and operational plans are being developed
under the lead of U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) and in
cooperation with U.S. Northern Command, Pacific Command, European
Command, and United States Forces in Korea.
IMPROVING FIELDED CAPABILITY THROUGH EVOLUTIONARY ACQUISITION
The system's evolutionary nature requires us to look out over the
next three or four years and beyond in our planning. Although it is not
easy, we have laid out a budget and a plan to shape the missile defense
operational architecture beyond the Block 2004 initial defensive
capability.
In this budget, beginning with Block 2006 we will increase GMD
Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) and Aegis SM-3 interceptors, deploy
new capabilities (such as THAAD), expand our sensor net (with a second
sea-based midcourse radar and forward deployable radars), and enhance
the C\2\BM/C system integration. The fiscal year 2005 request begins to
fund important Block 2006 activities to enhance existing capabilities
and system integration. Our improvement plan is to add up to ten GBIs
to the site at Fort Greely and possibly initiate long-lead acquisition
of up to ten more for fielding at a potential third site or at Fort
Greely. We will continue to augment our sea-based force structure with
additional SM-3 interceptors and BMD-capable Aegis-class ships.
Much of this system augmentation effort involves extending and
building on capabilities that we have been working on over the past
several years, so I am confident that what we are doing is both
possible and prudent and in line with our missile defense vision.
The confidence we achieve through our entire test program is
reinforced by the fact that many missile defense test articles fielded
in the existing test bed are the same ones we would use in an
operational setting. Except for interceptors, which are one-time use
assets, we will use the same sensors, ships, communications links,
algorithms, and command and control facilities. The essential
difference between an inherent capability in a test bed and the near-
term on-alert capability is having a few extra missiles beyond those
needed for testing and having enough trained operators and logistics on
hand and ready to respond around the clock. Once we field the system,
we will be in a better position, literally, to test system components
and demonstrate BMD technologies in a more rigorous, more operationally
realistic environment. Testing will lead to further improvements in the
system and refinement of our models, and the expansion and upgrades of
the system will lead to further testing.
The system we initially will put on alert is modest. It is modest
not because the inherent capabilities of the sensors and interceptors
themselves are somehow deficient, but rather because we will have a
small quantity of weapons. The additional ten missiles for Fort Greely
will improve the overall system by giving us a larger inventory. Yet
today, and over the near-term, we are inventory poor. Block activities
throughout the remainder of this decade will be focused in part on
improving the system by delivering to the warfighter greater
capabilities with improved performance.
Why is this important? In a defense emergency or wartime engagement
situation, more is better. A larger inventory of interceptors will
handle more threatening warheads. Our planning beyond the Block 2004
initial configuration has this important warfighting objective in mind.
There are no pre-conceived limits in the number of weapon rounds we
should buy. We will build capabilities consistent with the national
security objectives required to effectively deter our adversaries and
defend ourselves and our allies.
We also must think beyond the initial defensive capability if we
are to meet our key national security objective of defending our
friends and allies from missile attack. In Block 2006, we are preparing
to move forward when appropriate to build a third GBI site at a
location outside the United States. Not only will this site add synergy
to the overall BMD system by protecting the United States, but it will
put us in a better position to defend our allies and friends and troops
overseas against long-range ballistic missiles. For the cost of ten
GBIs and associated infrastructure, we will be able to demonstrate in
the most convincing way possible our commitment to this critical
mission objective. The location of this site is still subject to
negotiation with no final architecture defined nor investment committed
until fiscal year 2006.
As I have said all along, we are not building to a grand design. We
are building an evolutionary system that will respond to our technical
progress and reflect real world developments. We added about $500
million to last year's projected fiscal year 2005 budget estimate to
begin funding our Block 2006 efforts. As you can see, the system can
evolve over time in an affordable way in response to our perception of
the threat, our technical progress, and our understanding of how we
want to use the system. Yet even as it does evolve, our vision remains
constant-to defeat all ranges of missiles in all phases of flight.
TESTING MISSILE DEFENSES--WE NEED TO BUILD IT TO TEST IT
Another key question surrounds the nature of missile defense
systems themselves. How do you realistically test an enormous and
complex system, one that covers eight time zones and engages enemy
warheads in space? The answer is that we have to build it as we would
configure it for operations in order to test it. That is exactly what
we are doing by building our test bed and putting it on alert this
year.
By hooking it all up and putting what we have developed in the
field, we will be in a better position to fine-tune the system and
improve its performance. Testing system operational capability in this
program is, in many ways, different from operational testing involving
more traditional weapon systems. All weapon systems should be tested in
their operational environments or in environments that nearly
approximate operational conditions. This is more readily accomplished
for some systems, and is more difficult to do for others.
For example, an aircraft's operational environment is the
atmosphere. Similarly, when we conduct rigorous operational tests of
our Navy's ships, we do so at sea--in their environment. The BMD
system's operational environment is very different. It is a
geographically dispersed region that is also a test bed. For both
missile defense testing and operations, geography counts. After we have
gone through the simulations, the bench tests, and the flybys, we want
to test all missile defense parts together under conditions that are as
nearly operationally realistic as we can make them--with sensors
deployed out front, with targets and interceptors spaced far enough
apart to replicate actual engagement distances, speeds and sequences,
with communication links established, and with command and control
elements in place. We in fact have conducted a number of events that
exercise the projected communication and command and control paths
required to link elements of the BMD system in what we call
``Engagement Sequence Groups,'' building our confidence that we can
combine threat data from different systems across a third of the globe
to allow for the engagement of ballistic missiles threats to the entire
United States.
One of the key questions that we have to answer is: What is the
role of operational testing in an unprecedented, evolutionary,
capability-based program? The answer is that the Director, Operational
Test and Evaluation, and the Operational Test Agencies play a critical
role in missile defense. Since evolutionary, capability-based processes
do not fit the traditional ORD-based operational test methodology, we
have applied an assessment approach that provides for a continuous
assessment of the capabilities and limitations of the BMD system. Since
testing is central to our RDT&E program and our operational
understanding of the system, we are continuing to modernize and improve
our test infrastructure to support more operationally realistic
testing.
We are working very closely with Mr. Christie, the DOT&E, and the
operational test community. As our tests are planned, executed, and
evaluated, the BMD system Combined Test Force, which brings together
representatives from across the testing community, is combining
requirements for both developmental and operational capability testing.
Wherever possible we are making every test both operationally realistic
and developmental. We have been working daily with the appropriate
independent operational test agencies (OTA) to ensure they are on board
with our objectives and processes. There are approximately 100
operational test personnel embedded in all facets of missile defense
test planning and execution who have access to all of our test data.
They have the ability to influence every aspect of our test planning
and execution.
Now, how much confidence should we have in using this test bed in
an alert status? The full range of missile defense testing--from our
extensive modeling and simulation and hardware-in-the-loop tests to our
ground and flight testing--makes us confident that what we deploy will
work as intended. We do not rely on intercept flight tests to make
final assessments concerning system reliability and performance. Our
flight tests are important building blocks in this process, but the
significant costs of these tests combined with the practical reality
that we can only conduct a few tests over any given period of time mean
we have to rely on other kinds of tests to prove the system. System
capabilities assessed for IDO will be based on test events planned for
fiscal year 2004 as well as data collected from flight and ground tests
and simulations over the past several years.
The missile defense test program helps define the capabilities and
limitations of the system. The thousands of tests we conduct in the
air, on the ground, in the lab, and with our models and simulations in
the virtual world predict system performance and help identify problems
so that we can fix them. They also highlight gaps so that we can
address them. This accumulated knowledge has and will continue to
increase our confidence in the effectiveness of the system and its
potential improvements. None of our tests should act as a strict
``pass-fail'' exercise telling us when to proceed in our development or
fielding. We can approximate realistic scenarios, though, after we have
put interceptors and sensors in the field and integrated them with our
C\2\BM/C network.
We conduct other kinds of tests that provide valuable information
about the progress we are making and the reliability of the system.
Integrated ground tests, for example, are not subject to flight test
restrictions and can run numerous engagement scenarios over the course
of a few weeks. Our modeling and simulation activity is an even more
powerful system verification tool. It is important to understand that
in the Missile Defense Program we use models and simulations, and not
flight tests, as the primary verification tools. This approach is
widely used within the Department, especially when complex weapon
systems are involved.
Currently, we have very good models for each one of our system
components, and we are able to use these together to run scenarios so
that we can understand the environments within which we operate and
characterize the margin we have in the system design. Missile defense
ground and flight tests anchor the data we produce in our models, which
in turn enhance our confidence regarding the operational capability we
can achieve, because we can understand the system's behavior in many
hundreds of test runs. These models are regularly updated using test
data from our ground and flight tests. Over time we are building up our
modeling and simulation capability at the system level to approximate
more closely the type of end-to-end testing we would like to have to
verify that the system is doing what we want it to do.
For example, our modeling and simulation capabilities are very
accurate and allow us to mirror the achieved outcome of a flight test.
The graphic below provides an example of why we believe our simulation
capabilities to be the most powerful tools for projecting the
reliability of the initial BMD system. In Figure 1 we have mapped out
the predicted performance of the Integrated Flight Test 13B interceptor
and matched it up with performance data we collected during the flight.
The match up is nearly exact, and it shows that the Exo-atmospheric
Kill Vehicle Mass Simulator was very close to the predicted insertion
point velocity.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Figure 1. Booster Velocity/IFT 13B
Generally, when we deploy a weapon system in a traditional mission
area, it is appropriate to conduct initial operational testing to
ensure that the replacement system provides a better capability than
the existing system. Put another way, there is a presumption that the
deployed system should be used until a better capability is proven. In
the current situation, where we have no weapon system fielded to defend
the United States against even a limited attack by ICBMs, that
presumption must be re-examined. With the provision of a militarily
useful capability, even if it is limited, it is presumed that the
capability can be fielded unless it is determined that operating the
initial capability is considered to be an unacceptable danger to the
operators, or any other similar reality.
USSTRATCOM will factor in all available test information into its
military utility assessment of the fielded condition.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
We have requested $7.6 billion in fiscal year 2005 to continue our
investment in missile defense RDT&E. Why do we need this level of
investment in RDT&E? We need to press forward with our missile defense
research and development if we are to improve the system by integrating
upgraded or more advanced components and by exploiting new basing modes
to engage threat missiles in, for example, the boost phase of flight.
We have to lay the RDT&E foundation for evolutionary improvements to
the BMD system. We intend to improve the capability of the midcourse
phase while adding additional layers.
The RDT&E program is working. The ability to make trade-offs among
our development activities has allowed us to focus on the development
of the most promising near-term elements, namely, GMD, Aegis BMD and
PAC-3. GMD and Aegis BMD make up elements of the midcourse defense
layer while PAC-3 provides capability in the terminal layer. The GMD
fiscal year 2005 budget request is $3.2 billion; the request for Aegis
is $1.1 billion.
In this budget we increase investment in the development of a boost
layer. Two program elements, a high energy laser capability and a new
kinetic energy interceptor (KEI) or ``hit to kill'' capability,
represent parallel paths and complement each other. Achieving
capability in the boost phase as soon as practicable would be a
revolutionary, high-payoff improvement to the BMD system. Although the
technologies are well known, the engineering and integration required
to make them work are very high risk. Therefore, having parallel
approaches, even on different timelines, is a very prudent program
management approach. We expanded our efforts in the boost phase as soon
as we were able after withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile
(ABM) Treaty, which specifically prohibited boost phase development
against long-range missiles.
The Airborne Laser (ABL) program has been in development since
1996. Development of an operational high energy laser for a 747
aircraft is a difficult technical challenge. Although we have had many
successes in individual parts of the program, we have not been able to
make some of our key milestones over the past year. The last 20 percent
of the program effort has proven to be very difficult, and some of the
risks we took early in the program have impaired our present
performance. Consequently, I reviewed the program late last year and
directed a restructure that focused on our near-term efforts, delaying
the procurement of the second aircraft until we could gain more
confidence in our ability to meet schedules. I have adjusted the
resources accordingly.
We no longer plan for ABL to deliver a contingency capability in
Block 2004. There have been, nevertheless, several technical
accomplishments to date. We have demonstrated the capability to track
an ICBM in the boost phase using ABL technologies and improved beam
control and fire control technologies. At this time there is no reason
to believe that we will fail to achieve this capability. This is such a
revolutionary and high payoff capability; I believe we should again be
patient as we work through the integration and test activities. But the
risks remain high. The fiscal year 2005 budget request is $474 million
for ABL.
We undertook the KE boost effort in response to a 2002 Defense
Science Board Summer Study recommendation. In December 2003 we awarded
the contract for development of the KEI boost effort. This was the
first competition unconstrained by the ABM Treaty. It was also the
first to use capability-based spiral development as a source selection
strategy. The contract requires development of a boost phase
interceptor that is terrestrial-based and can be used in other
engagement phases as well--including the midcourse and possibly exo-
atmospheric terminal phases. In other words, it could provide boost
phase capability as well as an affordable, competitive next-generation
replacement for our midcourse interceptors and even add a terminal
phase capability should it be required. In 2005, we will begin
conducting Near-Field Infrared Experiments to get a close-up view from
space of rocket plumes to support the development of the terrestrial-
based interceptor seeker and provide additional data needed for the
development of a space test bed.
We have budgeted about $500 million for the KE boost effort for
fiscal year 2005. I believe this funding is necessary for a successful
start. Those who would view this amount as a significant increase that
is unwarranted for a new effort do not understand the importance of
prudent programming and the preparatory work required to make such a
program ultimately succeed. There are many examples of an under-funded
systems engineering effort, where engineering costs sky-rocketed
because adequate upfront work was not done. Mr. Chairman, I urge the
committee to look carefully at our proposal and allow us to get a solid
start on this essential piece of the layered BMD system.
OTHER BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
Funding in the fiscal year 2005 request supports the Block 2004
initial configuration as well as activities to place the BMD system on
alert. It also lays the foundation for the future improvement of the
system. We are requesting $9.2 billion to support this program of work,
which is approximately a $1.5 billion increase over the fiscal year
2004 request. The increase covers costs associated with fielding the
first GMD, Aegis BMD, sensor, and command, control and battle
management installments and will allow us to purchase long-lead items
required for capability enhancements in Block 2006.
We have made a successful transfer of the PAC-3 program to the Army
and remain convinced that the Department made the right decision in
doing so. In the Patriot system, missile defense and air defense are so
intertwined that attempting to manage them separately would be
difficult if not futile. We continue to believe that the Army is in the
best position, given the maturity of the PAC-3, to manage future
enhancements and procurements. Meanwhile MDA remains fully cognizant of
the Army's efforts and maintains the PAC-3 in the BMD system as a fully
integrated element, with interfaces controlled by our configuration
management process. PAC-3 is part of our ongoing system development and
testing.
The fiscal year 2005 funding request will buy equipment to ramp up
the testing of THAAD, which, once fielded, will add endo-atmospheric
and exo-atmospheric terminal capabilities to the BMD system to defeat
medium-range threats. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) is
progressing well and will add capabilities to engage in the late
midcourse and terminal layers. THAAD recently completed the Design
Readiness Review, and development hardware manufacturing is underway.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request is $834 million for THAAD. Delivery
of the THAAD radar was completed ahead of schedule and rolled out this
month. Flight testing is scheduled to begin in the first quarter of
fiscal year 2005 at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.
We will be able to begin assembly and integration of two Space
Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) satellites. The fiscal year
2005 budget request for STSS is $322 million.
We will continue development of the C\2\BM/C ``backbone'' to
provide real-time sensor-netting to the warfighter for improved
interoperability and decision-making capability. Additional BMD system
C\2\BM/C suites and remote capability will be deployed to Combatant
Commanders as the system matures.
We also have several Science and Technology initiatives to increase
BMD system firepower and sensor capability and extend the engagement
battle space of terminal elements. One of our main efforts is to
increase BMD system effectiveness in the midcourse phase by placing
Multiple Kill Vehicles on a single booster, thus reducing the
discrimination burden on BMD sensors. We also are conducting important
work on advanced systems to develop laser technology and laser radar,
advanced discrimination, improved focal plane arrays, and a high-
altitude airship for improved surveillance, communication, and early
warning. In support of this, we have requested about $200 million in
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for the development of advanced
systems.
INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS
In December 2003, through a formal Cabinet Decision, the Government
of Japan became our first ally to proceed with acquisition of a multi-
layered BMD system, basing its initial capability on upgrades of its
Aegis destroyers and acquisition of the SM-3 missile. In addition,
Japan and other allied nations will upgrade their Patriot units with
PAC-3 missiles and improved ground support equipment. We have worked
closely with Japan since 1999 to design and develop advanced components
for the SM-3 missile. This project will culminate in flight tests in
2005 and 2006 that incorporate one or more of these components. These
decisions represent a significant step forward with a close ally and we
look forward to working together on these important efforts.
We are undertaking major initiatives in the international arena in
this budget. Interest among foreign governments and industry in missile
defense has risen considerably over the past year. We have been working
with key allies to put in place mechanisms that would provide for
lasting cooperative efforts.
We will begin in fiscal year 2005 to expand international
involvement in the program by encouraging international industry
participation and investment in the development of alternative boost/
ascent phase element components, such as the booster, kill vehicle,
launcher, or C\2\BM/C. This approach reduces risk, adds options for
component evolution for potential insertion during Block 2012, and
potentially leads to an indigenous overseas production capability. We
intend to award a contract for this effort this year.
In 2003 the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding on
Ballistic Missile Defense with the United Kingdom and an annex enabling
the upgrade of the Fylingdales early warning radar. We are continuing
our consultations with Denmark regarding the upgrade of the Thule radar
site in Greenland. Australia has announced plans to participate in our
efforts, building on its long-standing defense relationship with the
United States. Canada also has entered into formal discussion on
missile defense and is considering a BMD role for the U.S.-Canadian
North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Our North Atlantic
Treaty Organization partners have initiated a feasibility study for
protection of NATO territory against ballistic missile attacks, which
builds upon ongoing work to define and develop a NATO capability for
protection of deployed forces.
We are continuing work with Israel to implement the Arrow System
Improvement Program and enhance its missile defense capability to
defeat the longer-range ballistic missile threats emerging in the
Middle East. We are also establishing a capability in the United States
to co-produce specified Arrow interceptor missile components, which
will help Israel meet its defense requirements more quickly and
maintain the U.S. industrial work share. We are intent on continuing
U.S.-Russian collaboration and are now working on the development of
software that will be used to support the ongoing U.S.-Russian Theater
Missile Defense exercise program.
We have other international interoperability and technical
cooperation projects underway as well and are working to establish
formal agreements with other governments. Our international work is a
priority that is consistent with our vision and supportive of our
goals.
WORLD-CLASS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING--THE KEY SUCCESS FACTOR
The President's direction to defeat ballistic missiles of all
ranges in all phases of flight drove us to develop and build a single
integrated system of layered defenses and forced us to transition our
thinking to become more system-centric. We established the Missile
Defense National Team to solve the demanding technical problems ahead
of us and capitalize on the new engineering opportunities created by
our withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. The National Team brings together
the best, most experienced people from the military and civilian
government work forces, industry, and the federal laboratories to work
aggressively and collaboratively on one of the nation's top priorities.
No single contractor or government office has all the expertise needed
to design and engineer an integrated and properly configured BMD
system. Let me give a perspective on why the National Team is so
important.
What we have accomplished is an unprecedented integration of
sensors communications infrastructure, and weapons that cut across
Service responsibilities on a global scale. Even our first engagement
sequence involves an unparalleled accomplishment.
The BMD system will engage a long-range ballistic missile threat
across 9,500 miles. Threat messages sent by an Aegis destroyer will
pass this data across eight BMD system communication nodes. System data
travels across approximately 48,000 miles of communication lines. The
engagement takes place 3,500 from Fort Greely at an altitude of 100
kilometers. At no time in history has there been an engagement
performed by detection and weapon engagement systems separated by such
distances. Over the past year and a half, we have rapidly built
confidence in this weapon engagement capability through the use of
proven systems and technologies coupled with robust integrated tests
and exercises.
The National Team's job has not been easy. System engineers work in
a changed procurement and fielding environment, which in the missile
defense world means making engineering assessments and decisions based
on technical objectives and goals and possible adversary capabilities
rather than on specifications derived from more traditional operational
requirements documents. This unified industry team arrangement does not
stifle innovation or compromise corporate well-being. There is firm
government oversight and greater accessibility for all National Team
members to organizations, people, and data relevant to our mission. We
accomplished this without abandoning sound engineering principles,
management discipline, or accountability practices.
Significant benefits have resulted from this unique approach. Early
on, this team brought to the program several major improvements,
including: system-level integration of our command and control network;
adoption of an integrated architecture approach to deal with
countermeasures; development of a capability-requirement for forward-
based sensors, such as the Forward Deployable Radar and the Sea-Based
X-Band Radar; and identification of initial architecture trades for the
boost/ascent phase intercept mission. The National Team also developed
and implemented an engagement sequence group methodology, which
optimizes performance by looking at potential engagement data flows
through the elements and components of the system independent of
Service or element biases. If we had retained the traditional element-
centric engineering approach, I am doubtful that any one of the element
prime contractors would have entertained the idea of a forward-based
radar integrated with a ``competing'' system element. The National Team
is central to this program.
RESPONSIBLE AND FLEXIBLE MANAGEMENT
Congressional support for key changes in management and oversight
have allowed us to execute the Missile Defense Program responsibly and
flexibly by adjusting the program to our progress every year, improving
decision cycle time, and making the most prudent use of the money
allocated to us.
One of the key process changes we made in 2001 was to engage the
Department's top leadership in making annual decisions to accelerate,
modify, or terminate missile defense activities. We take into account
how each development activity contributes to effectiveness and synergy
within the system, technical risk, schedules, and cost, and we then
assess how it impacts our overall confidence in the effort. We have
successfully used this process over the past three years.
Today's program is significantly different from the program of
three years ago. In 2001 and 2002 we terminated Space-Based Laser
development in favor of further technology development; restructured
the Space-Based Infrared Sensors (Low) system, renaming it the Space
Tracking and Surveillance System, to support more risk reduction
activities; cancelled the Navy Area program following significant cost
overruns; and accelerated PAC-3's deployment to the field. We also
proposed a modest beginning in fielding the BMD system and put Aegis
BMD and its SM-3 interceptor on track to field.
This year we have restructured the ABL program to deal more
effectively with the technical and engineering challenges before us and
make steady progress based on what we know. We also decided to end the
Russian-American Observation Satellite (RAMOS) project because of
rising levels of risk. After eight years of trying, RAMOS was not
making the progress we had expected in negotiations with the Russian
Federation. So we are refocusing our efforts on new areas of
cooperation with our Russian counterparts.
These periodic changes in the RDT&E program have collectively
involved billions of dollars--that is, billions of dollars that have
been invested in more promising activities, and billions of dollars
taken out of the less efficient program efforts. The ability to manage
flexibly in this manner saves time and money in our ultimate goal of
fielding the best defenses available on the shortest possible timeline.
Such decisive management moves were made collectively by senior
leaders in the Department and in MDA. I believe these major changes are
unprecedented in many respects and validate the management approach we
put in place. The benefits of doing so are clearly visible today. When
something is not working or we needed a new approach, we have taken
action.
CLOSING
Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the many talented and
dedicated people across this country who have made, and are continuing
to make, our efforts successful. I have met with people from
manufacturing facilities, R&D centers, and test centers. I have met
with people from many different parts of the world who are working on
our international efforts. Our fellow citizens should be proud of the
talent, commitment, and dedication that every one of these people
provides.
We take our responsibilities very seriously. We have an obligation
to the President, the Congress, and the American people to get it
right. With the continued strong support of Congress and this
committee, we will continue our progress in defending the United
States, our troops, and our allies and friends against all ranges of
ballistic missiles in all phases of flight.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I will turn to
Senator Inouye first.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, if I may, may I submit my
questions?
Senator Stevens. Yes sir.
Who was first? Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Yes sir. Thank you.
EXOATMOSPHERIC KILL VEHICLE (EKV) REPAIRS
General, could you give us the progress update on the EKV
repairs as we approach IFT-13C.
General Kadish. Yes Senator, I'd be glad to. I'd like to go
back in history just a little bit. About 1 year ago we decided
that some design changes were needed to both the kill vehicle
and our booster to make it better. And that was a result of a
number of flight tests that we'd done prior to that time.
Senator Shelby. What have you learned here?
General Kadish. We've learned, I guess the biggest thing
we've learned is, it's pretty hard to make some major changes
in less than 1 year. But we've done it. And we made those
changes, we put it into the workflow and there's about seven or
eight kill vehicles in work right now for the balance of this
year. But in the process of doing that we discovered a circuit
board that was not manufactured properly. And when we found
that particular effort we not only decided to fix that circuit
board, which would have taken about 3 or 4 weeks, or a month,
of a delay. But we decided that it was in the best interest of
quality and mission assurance practices to go back and put a
team of experts--and we put about 40 or 50 people on this
effort--and we went through each and every aspect of the design
of the kill vehicle, to make sure that we didn't make any of
those mistakes that we didn't know about. And we have completed
that effort, we are in the process of changing a few things
that we found and that has resulted in a little bit more of a
delay to the flight tests this year. But I am confident that
when we complete that process and we actually do the flight
tests we will have done everything we could possibly do to make
that kill vehicle work properly.
GROUND-BASED MISSILE DEFENSE (GMD) FUNDING
Senator Shelby. General, the ground-based midcourse defense
segment, the multiple kill vehicle program and the Kinetic
Energy Interceptor program I think are very important. In the
2005 funding request it's increased to $9.2 billion, $1.2
billion over 2004. There's some concerns, though, that GMD is
underfunded due to greater internal competition for funds. MDA,
I believe, must find the proper funding balance to accomplish
its goals and beyond for the Ballistic Missile Defense System
architecture. I know that you've requested a significant
increase in funding for the MDA programs, but I'm concerned
about the health of GMD and success there. Are you trying to do
too much with too little? I know you never have enough funds.
Do you want to speak on that?
General Kadish. Well Senator, that's a problem we deal with
every day, internally. And you're right. We never have enough
funds for what we would like to do in any program.
Senator Shelby. Do you have enough funds to meet your GMD
development testing and deployment objectives at this point?
General Kadish. We believe when we balance everything out
we will have enough resources to do that. I think the GMD part
of this is about $3.2 or so billion this year, a little bit
less than that next year, and I think we're working on $2
billion the following year. In fact, we've added about $1.5
billion for fiscal year 2004, most of that goes to GMD in the
sense of further building out missiles and doing the test
program that we need to do. And we'll continue to look at the
other aspects of what we need to do and whether it's the multi-
kill vehicle or the Kinetic Interceptor (KI) boost or Aegis,
and make sure that we do the best we can with the money we
have. And so far----
MDA FUNDING
Senator Shelby. If you had more money it wouldn't hurt
anything, would it?
General Kadish. Senator, I'd never turn down more money.
But I think it's incumbent on us, internally MDA, to make sure
that we get the most out of every dollar that we get. And we're
trying to do that, and it's a constant balancing of effort in
the process.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, General.
Senator Stevens. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. General, the Missile Defense Agency's annual
budget requests are somewhere between $8 and $10 billion. Does
this funding cover only development, and how are the
traditional acquisition procurement wedges incorporated with
the Ballistic Missile Defense System? In other words, have you
changed anything in there, in that process?
General Kadish. Yes we have, Senator, and the $8 to $10
billion request, at least for 2004, 2005, 2006 and part of 2007
right now includes about anywhere from $1 billion to $2 billion
a year of money for fielding equipment. Now, I didn't use the
word procurement here because it has very defined meaning in
the way the Department talks about procurement money versus
RDT&E and so forth. Because the Congress has allowed us to use
research and development money, we're able to do very modest
procurement or fielding of these types of equipment in the
beginning. Now, one of the problems we have with the Missile
Defense in general, is trying to fit it into the mold that the
Department uses, in that typically we posture a force
structure. For instance, we might say that there's a need for
100 or 200 or 300 ground-based interceptors. And we would go
and we'd fund those, fully fund them in a procurement account
and we'd have a major growth in the overall process. We're not
doing that, primarily because it is not clear what mix of
interceptors we're going to ultimately need for the threats
that we're going to face. So it is a non-standard approach.
We're taking it a step at a time. Somewhere in the neighborhood
of $1 to $2 billion a year right now is programmed to actually
field equipment out of the RDT&E effort and make it better over
time, and then when we reach a point where we reach clarity
with the threat and how many pieces of the system we need,
we'll go ahead and transition to the normal mode. That's the
plan that we have.
HIGH ALTITUDE AIRSHIP
Senator Burns. There was another part of what you're doing
that sort of caught my attention too, and that's high altitude
airship. I can't help but think that this, if successful, they
call it the Airship Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration,
you cut back a little bit on its funding but I happen to think
that, you know, when we started to talk about space and
shuttles and we started talking about reuseables and unmanned
reuseables, I think this program has application, both military
and commercial, in the civilian end of the world. Is this
program adequately funded, do you think, to move forward with
this new technology?
General Kadish. Senator Burns, I share your desire for this
type of program because I believe it could be a more affordable
approach for persistent high altitude and not go to space in
some cases. I believe it is adequately funded because there are
big risks in making an airship of this nature to fly at the
altitudes that we're talking about. So, the program's
structured to actually reduce those risks by demonstrating we
can do this initially, and if we can demonstrate we're doing it
then I wouldn't hesitate to come to you and ask for money to go
ahead and take it to the full production of those types of
systems. It's so revolutionary that it could be a major change.
Senator Burns. It sure is, and I think it has spillover
into our fuels and the kind of composites and different
materials that we'll need. It affords a lot of possibilities
for commercial application as well.
General Kadish. It certainly does.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran.
BMD FIELDING ACCELERATION
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. General Kadish, I
understand that your plans for fielding the Ballistic Missile
Defense capability later this year are proceeding and that
eight of the planned 20 ground-based interceptors will be
available for initial defense operations later this year. Can
you give us some specific current time line expectations for
this program and whether or not we can help accelerate that
with additional funding in your budget request?
General Kadish. Senator, about 1\1/2\ weeks ago we went to
Huntsville and did what we call 180-day review; 180 days to our
planned internal MDA dates that we're using for September. And
I came away from that review very encouraged that we were
within 30 to 60 days of those schedules right now, and more on
the on-time than not being on-time. It's still a major
challenge for us over the next 6 months to do this but right
now what I see is that we will, in fact, have up to 8 ground-
based interceptors by the end of this calendar year and 12 the
following year, available for alert capability. As far as
accelerating anything, I think we set a few years ago the
schedule and we've actually been meeting it fairly well. So I
don't see over the next 6 months or even the next 12 months
that we're going to be able to accelerate anything over and
above the schedules that we have. I think the major success
criteria that I'm using is to do it on time, in the process,
and as quickly as we set up the schedules a few years ago,
because it was a major challenge to accomplish it. So as much
as it pains me to say this, but I don't think extra money will
accelerate the process. It would help us in other areas but not
necessarily in acceleration.
Senator Cochran. One of the important----
General Kadish. And I would not recommend trying to
accelerate.
SPACE BASED SENSORS--SPACE TRACKING AND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (STSS)
Senator Cochran. Right. One of the important elements in
our Missile Defense System is space-based sensors, terrestrial
sensors. In your statement you mention assembling and
integrating two space tracking and surveillance system
satellites, and I understand that these could be launched in
tandem in 2007. What is your view of where this program is
headed and how will it contribute to an effective Ballistic
Missile Defense?
General Kadish. The space tracking and surveillance system
is what we used to call SBRS-Low, and we changed the name
because we got confused with SBRS-High, which was a different
program, among other things. But the way this would contribute
is it would provide a low Earth-orbiting set of satellites to
continuously watch for missile launches and once they're
launched, track it through the entire phase of flight. If we
could do that then our ability to engage those ballistic
missiles and warheads and destroy them would be greatly
enhanced. I'd like to point out that over the years this
program has morphed into different aspects and I think the last
count was that we had 85 separate studies on whether or not to
do STSS-like constellations or not. And what we decided to do
was to, rather than do another study, was to put two satellites
in orbit, get the data that we need to confirm whether or not
we're going to be able to make this work as we intended, and
then make a decision subsequent to that on whether or not we'll
recommend the full constellation of these satellites. We're on
track to do just that. And the tandem launch in 2007, the
program activity we have to do that, is on schedule and on
budget and doing very well.
Senator Cochran. Is there any particular risk or high risk
associated with the tandem launch?
General Kadish. Well, I wouldn't normally like to do a
tandem launch of this type but it is the most efficient use of
money and what we found is that if we launched them separately
and then we lost one satellite we wouldn't be able to do the
mission anyway. Because these are stereo-viewing satellites;
you need two of them to accomplish this. So we figured that the
tandem launch was the best balance of risk and benefit.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I have several other
questions. I think my time may be expired and I'll reserve my
other questions for later in the round.
Senator Stevens. Senator Feinstein.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
General. I know you're under the weather and I don't want to
aggravate your condition, so if I could submit my statement for
the record I will confine my questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein
I believe National Missile Defense is one of the key
foreign policy and national security issues that we will face
in the coming decades. The Administration's decisions on this
issue should be made in a deliberate and thoughtful manner and
in close consultation with our allies, and, most importantly,
the United States Congress.
Previously, I have stated that my concerns about NMD
revolve largely around four issues: the nature of the threat;
the implications for arms control and the international
security environment; the feasibility of the technology; and
the cost.
Given the high cost and the still uncertain and untested
technology, I found it surprising that President Bush has
declared his intention to deploy a nation-wide missile defense
this year. Given our mounting budget deficit, the threats to
United States national security interests around the world and
the numerous problems facing our military such as aging
helicopters, aircraft with high accident rates, and a lack of
bullet proof vests, the Administration's decision to seek $10.2
billion for a largely untested and unproven missile defense
program raises serious concerns.
While we no longer fear the threat of all-out nuclear war,
the likelihood that America will be attacked with a nuclear,
chemical, or biological weapon has increased. The proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, and the increasing availability
to other nations as well as transnational groups such as
terrorist organizations, to the technology and material
necessary to develop and deliver WMD is perhaps the most
serious threat to U.S. national security today.
We need to spend our resources wisely to make sure that we
can protect our nation from these threats. But the odds that
terrorists or non-state actors will use ballistics missiles to
attack the United States in this manner remains, in my
estimation, relatively low. Missile defense would have done
nothing to stop 9/11. And missile defense would do nothing to
stop a bomb smuggled into this country on a container ship or
through another ``soft'' point of entry.
National Missile Defense is not and should not be seen as a
one-size-fits-all substitute for an effective non-proliferation
strategy. The United States must have a balanced program to
effectively safeguard our interests and clearly calibrate and
allocate resources to meet the real challenges that face U.S.
national security interests including providing for effective
strategies for non-proliferation activities, deterrence,
homeland defense, and counter-proliferation.
I believe it would be folly and far too costly to place too
much of an emphasis on missile defense and to unilaterally
develop and deploy NMD before we even know what defensive
systems are feasible. And likewise I am greatly concerned that
even as we spend large sums on missile defense, we are not
doing enough to make sure that resources are allocated to such
areas as port security. We simply cannot afford to gamble with
a national security strategy based on cultivating a missile
defense system of unknown effectiveness on one hand with a less
stable and less secure world on the other.
SYSTEM READINESS AND A RUSH TO DEPLOYMENT--WHY?
Senator Feinstein. I am still puzzled, well, I was puzzled
last year and I'm still puzzled this year by the rush to deploy
this system. In March, on the 11th, Senator Jack Reed asked
this question. At this time we cannot be sure that the actual
system would work against a real North Korean missile threat.
And Tom Christie, the director of the Pentagon's Office of
Operational Tests and Evaluation, replied, I would say that's
true. There are enormous technical difficulties with
deployment. The booster rocket has suffered problems; the
ground-based X-band radar, needed to enhance satellite
tracking, isn't scheduled to be fielded anytime soon; the sea-
based X-band radar is not scheduled to be fielded until 2005;
the infrared satellite system, which discriminates warheads
from decoys and helps guide the interceptor won't be in place
for many years, and the system can't deal with decoys and
countermeasures, as I understand the reports. And yet it's
going to be deployed. My question is why?
General Kadish. Senator Feinstein, I guess I'd like to go
back and address specifically those things that you pointed out
as being apparent deficiencies.
Senator Feinstein. Good.
General Kadish. And I use the word ``apparent'' because I'm
not sure that we have the right description of the problems
that we're facing. When we say we cannot be sure that we would
be able to destroy the warheads, I don't think in any of the
procurements that I've done in the DOD that were 100 percent
sure of anything. So if 100 percent sure is the standard we're
not going to meet it so we might as well stipulate that at the
beginning. However, where we do not have missile defense
capability today against long-range missiles and that's been
for 40 years or more now, if we have greater than zero chance,
and I mean substantially greater than zero, I'm not going to
tell you exactly what we think it is right now.
Senator Feinstein. Is it over 50 percent?
General Kadish. I think that--I'd rather not get into the
percentage but we have very high odds of engaging and
successfully destroying the threats that we think we're going
after right now.
Now, in the case of the booster and the kill-vehicles and
the technical challenges, I think you're absolutely right. I
mean, 4 years ago, almost 5 now, I began testifying in front of
this committee saying that fiscal year 2005 was the earliest we
were going to be able to do anything along these lines. And I
think that has turned out to be true right now. So it's not
like we, over the last year or two or three this is a rush to a
particular effort. When we were doing the old National Missile
Defense (NMD) program, we were saying that fiscal year 2005 was
probably the earliest, with some risk. We have reduced that
risk tremendously and we believe we're going to make fiscal
year 2005 in the process.
Now, we set internal dates, September that you hear about
from time to time, but those are MDA dates, they're not
mandated or dates ascertained by the Department of Defense. So,
we believe that the sensors that we have on orbit today, the
Defense Support Program, the radars that we intend with Cobra
Dane and Fylingdales and then the addition of the X-band radar
later on will give us the sensors we need. The booster, the
kill vehicle, they're coming along and we should be flight
testing them over the next few months to prove out our modeling
and simulation.
So, things are going all in the right direction. And I
guess the best way to characterize the effort, in terms of its
performance, may sound a little trite, but if someone shoots at
us we're going to be able to shoot back, whereas we couldn't do
that today.
Senator Feinstein. Even if we don't hit anything?
General Kadish. There's a good chance we're going to hit it
and we can come talk to you about that in some detail and more
classified setting. And if I was on the other side right now
I'd be very worried whether or not the systems that they are
producing would work against our system. And we're going to
only make it better after that. The idea that the radar comes
in in 2005, we've got other plans for further activities as we
test and make it better that, over time, the countermeasure
issues and the things that we're dealing with, we're going to
be very good at.
COST JUSTIFICATION OF A BMDS
Senator Feinstein. One last question. Because you've been
very straight with us and I really appreciate that. I think
you're really a class act. I just want you to know that. I
mean, this is so much money, $10.2 billion a year for what, 7
years? That's a lot of money to deploy a system that really
hasn't been really tested in its complete form and at a time
when our best case for war is asymmetric and non-State and not
likely to be waged with Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
(ICBMs) but with something coming in in a container. Do you
really think, in view of what the next 10 years looks like,
that a ballistic missile system is the best way to spend our
money in terms of guaranteeing the safety of our people?
General Kadish. Well, I can give you a personal opinion on
that issue; it has two parts to it. The first is that, from
where I've sat for a number of years, it is a very difficult
job to know what's likely and unlikely and what our adversaries
are going to do to defeat us. And we make those judgements but
we've got to do it with the idea that there's risk involved.
And I had the unfortunate experience on September 11, sitting
in my office in the Missile Defense Agency, watching the
Pentagon burn as a result of the airlines. And, you know, I
know there's a big debate over whether folks could have
anticipated that or not, but the likelihood equations of one
thing over another is a very risky business for us to determine
in the Missile Defense Agency. But there's one thing I do know,
and that is we have no missile defense capability except for
Patriot today against short-range missiles. And that didn't
happen except with the support of this committee for many
years, and we struggled with that effort. We had some failures;
it was a difficult technology but it worked very well in the
last war. And we're building up. And I believe that the same
will occur with the systems that we're talking about at Fort
Greely and Vandenberg, Aegis and THAAD and the ones that we're
building. Because that $10 billion is not only for the ground-
based program effort at Fort Greely and Vandenberg this year,
it's for airborne laser, the THAAD program, the Aegis program
and the radars that support all that. So it's very expensive
but it's also very comprehensive and complex.
I don't know if that helped in terms of the answer but it's
a tough business for us to say, in the missile defense business
anyway, that we ought to choose to leave ourselves vulnerable
to missiles anymore now that we can do something about it.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, General. And I'd appreciate that
briefing. Thank you very much.
General Kadish. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Dorgan.
DEVELOPMENT OF BMDS WITHOUT ADEQUATE TESTING
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I share
some of the same concerns expressed by my colleague from
California. Most of the significant new weapons programs that
we've been discussing with the Department of Defense I support.
I think they are important for this country and for its
defense. But the Senator from California asked questions that I
think need to be asked. Are we rushing to deploy a system that
has not been adequately tested, that has not been subject to
the same rigorous testing strategies that other weapons
programs have been required to meet? And, you know, there's so
much, with respect to the more urgent, immediate threats that
we know exist, there is so much as yet undone because we can't
afford it. The question I think the Senator from California
poses is in the rear view mirror of 5 years, will we look back
and say we would have better used that $10 plus billion in
another area for a more urgent threat? I think the answer
probably will be yes, but none of us know for sure.
Let me ask the question. You talked about the booster and
the kill vehicle and in answer to the question posed by my
colleague from California, no one can be 100 percent sure. I
understand that and no one is asking, with respect to any of
these systems, that we are 100 percent sure. But will this
system be deployed without the same kind of rigorous testing
that is applied to other systems? Because we are rushing here
to deploy it, as you know.
CONCURRENT TESTING
General Kadish. Well Senator Dorgan, I guess I would
characterize what we're trying to do here as not a rush to
deployment. What it is is building the system so we can test it
in its operational configuration and since we've done that it
has the capability to defend the country so we will use it in
that role simultaneously, or concurrently. So one of the things
I have to point out, and I have a very hard time explaining
this because it gets to be very technical in terms of the rules
that we use within the Department, but let me try it this way.
When we do operational testing, what that means is we want the
people who are going to use it to push the buttons and do all
the things that we need to do so that in an operational
environment, day to day, we can be sure it works. And you might
want to ask the question, well, why do we do that? Well, 99
percent of the time we do that because we're replacing another
system, and what we want to do is make sure good management
practice is that what we're replacing, the system that we're
replacing something with can work better or at least as good
as, in the operational environment, after having spent a lot of
money. So these things usually occur after a very long
development cycle. We do an operational test, we check some
boxes, make sure that things work better than what we have in
the field and we move on. In the case of missile defense, we
don't have a system in the field today against long-range
missiles. So we have to build it in order to test it in its
operational configuration. We get criticized a lot about not
having the radars in the right spot and that type of thing. I
can go on at length, but the simple answer to that is we need
to build it to test it in its operational configuration and
therefore we can actually use it as well.
Senator Dorgan. Well, building it and deploying are
different circumstances, but General Kadish, the only anti-
ballistic missile program that has ever been deployed was
deployed in my State back in the early 1970s and was moth
balled almost immediately, I believe within 30 days after being
declared operational, for a number of reasons.
RUSH TO DEPLOY OR POSTPONE?
But I have received a letter that was sent around on this
program from 49 generals and admirals who call for postponing
missile defense. They say the Pentagon has waived the
operational testing requirements essential to determine whether
the highly complex system is effective and suitable, and they
make the case that this money, the billions of dollars, should
be spent on other defensive systems, which are more urgent.
If I might just make the case, I think there is a threat of
nuclear weapons against this country. I think the least likely
threat, by the way, is from an intercontinental ballistic
missile. Perhaps the most likely threat is from a suitcase
nuclear weapon in a rusty car on a dock in New York City. But
if you take the threat meter, which many of us have seen,
regarding what are the likely threats against this country, the
threat of a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile
is perhaps the least likely of those threats. It would be
deadly, were we attacked by someone with such a weapon. But
such an attack is deterred because we, of course, know the
return address of the missile, and whoever attacks us will be
vaporized quickly. I mean, I think the question that the
Senator from California asked is a critical one; is this the
most urgent defensive system for which we should be spending
$10 billion at this point, and I don't think any of us know the
answer to this. My own impression, I just might say, is that we
are rushing to deploy a system that is costing a great deal of
money and one which we do not know whether it will work. And
I'm concerned about that because there are so many other things
as yet undone.
Let me add, however, my compliments to your service,
General Kadish. I've been in briefings that you've been
involved in for many years; you served this country with great
distinction. I know you care about this program and nurture
this program with great skill and professionalism; I want to
say that and thank you very much, General, for your service.
General Kadish. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
Senator Stevens. General, are we about ready to wind this
up?
General Kadish. I'm fine, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Are you? All right.
I will submit my questions.
Senator, do you have any further questions?
Senator Shelby. Let me be brief if I can. I know we need to
let General Kadish go.
General Kadish. Yes sir.
SYSTEM TEST AND EVALUATION PLANNING ANALYSIS
Senator Shelby. General, you might want to answer these
questions for the record, that would be fine. That is, I've
been impressed with the systems test and evaluation planning
analysis lab. How will system-integrated flight testing help
meet the architecture integration challenge in the future? How
rigorous will this testing be? Do you want to answer that for
the record?
General Kadish. It will become more and more rigorous,
without a doubt. I think that if we--I'd like to take the
specifics of the systems tests analysis lab for the record.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
[The information follows:]
The System Test and Evaluation Planning Analysis Lab
(STEPAL) is the Missile Defense Agency's choice for in-depth
analyses and credible flight test planning. We currently use
STEPAL resources to perform vigorous pre-mission analysis that
includes supportability, evaluation of test requirements,
flight safety, and other factors necessary for the successful
execution of integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS)
test scenarios. The support provided by the STEPAL has provided
MDA with a quick look capability that allows us to observe
additional important mission aspects such as safety, debris
effects; telemetry coverage; as well as the adequacy of test
range assets.
General Kadish. But I'd like to point out that because
we're able to build it like we are, calendar year 2005 is going
to be a very, very interesting year in missile defense from a
test standpoint because we'll be able to do an awful lot of
flight testing and ground testing that we haven't been able to
do before.
SCIENTIFIC, ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (SETA) CONTRACTORS
Senator Shelby. General, for the record, would you give us
your views on the importance of SETA contractor support and how
valuable their contributions have been to MDA?
General Kadish. The SETA contractors, the support
engineering? It's been invaluable to MDA from across the
country, especially from the State of Alabama and Huntsville,
which is a major center for missile defense. But we couldn't do
it without the talented people that we have across the country,
especially the SETA contractors, the prime industrial partners
and the Federally Funded Research and Development Center
(FFRDCs) and folks.
Senator Shelby. You made some cuts there. Is that wise? I
know you're constrained by your budget from time to time. Will
you address that some?
General Kadish. Well, what we've been doing is trying to
balance out the skills that we need at any given time. And that
can look like a cut in certain areas but basically we're trying
to balance the skills that we need in the process.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY FUNDING
Senator Shelby. General, advanced technology funding; I
think you've got to invest for the future. You know, some
people, and I at times ask about money, and we're spending a
lot of money but if we don't spend for the future we'll be
shortchanged, I believe. Development funding for sensor
improvement, better software, faster communication systems,
improved propulsion systems, lighter and strong structures,
better thermal control, enhanced signature discrimination,
decoy concepts and detection techniques are vital to all of us
and for this program. Does MDA have an adequate technology
development budget to support spiral development here or will
you need more money?
General Kadish. Well, I think that we can get the specifics
for you for the record but overall I'm satisfied with where we
are on the deep technology activities. Because when I look at
what's happening in the THAAD program and the GMD program and
the other efforts that we have, we're doing an awful lot of
that work in the application of technology right now. And it's
a tough balance but I think the balance is right, right now.
SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND (SMDC) AND MDA RELATIONSHIP
Senator Shelby. General, lastly, I'm just going to touch on
the relationship between SMDC and MDA. You can do this for the
record. What are your thoughts on this relationship and the
importance of SMDC to supporting MDA's mission?
General Kadish. I can expand for the record but the bottom
line, Senator, is that it's a great relationship now, and we
have people working together on some very tough problems.
[The information follows:]
The relationship between MDA and SMDC is strong. The
success of my organization is dependent on the technology
support that SMDC provides. As the Army's proponent for the
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System and operational
integrator for global missile defense, the Army's Space and
Missile Defense Command (SMDC) plays a key role in supporting
MDA to develop, field, and test a fully integrated and
operational Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) capability
for the nation. SMDC is a strong and effective advocate for
global missile defense and works closely with MDA to ensure our
national goals of developing, testing and deploying an
integrated missile defense system are met. SMDC conducts
research and develops and matures new and emerging technologies
to enable missile defense capabilities. SMDC's Reagan Test
Facility on Kwajalein Atoll supports missile defense testing.
SMDC participates in deploying and operating the GMD System,
including oversight of GMD Brigade and subordinate GMD
Battalion operations. SMDC also works closely with MDA to focus
attention on improving Theater Air and Missile Defense (TAMD)
Systems. The long legacy and continuing research and
development by SMDC in the missile defense arena has made
possible the recently fielded missile defense systems and will
provide the means for future enhancements and new weapon
systems.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
indulgence. General, I hope you feel a little better today.
General Kadish. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions that
I'll be happy to submit, particularly one relating to the
capability for Aegis destroyers and cruisers to play an active
role in missile defense and what your plans are for
coordinating the operations with the Navy and helping to offset
costs associated with these modifications and other questions
as well. I'd be happy to submit those, Mr. Chairman, and
express our appreciation for the continued good work of General
Kadish.
Senator Stevens. General, I think that Senator Inouye and I
have been privileged to spend probably more time with you than
other members of this committee and we thank you for the time
you've spent with us to keep us posted on the developments. I
have a series of questions that I would like to send to you for
the record.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, could I just mention, we have
a Major General sitting behind General Kadish, General Obering,
here today, and I think we'll probably see more of him in the
future, will we not, General Kadish?
General Kadish. Yes sir, he's been nominated to the Senate
to replace me and he's a great guy.
Senator Shelby. And Mr. Chairman, he's from Birmingham,
Alabama, it just happened to happen that way.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Stevens. Well, since he wasn't from Alaska I didn't
introduce him but I knew he was there. Thank you.
[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 Ted Stevens
GROUND-BASED MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM
Question. General Kadish, can you assure the Committee that the
Missile Defense Agency will continue to improve the ground-based
missile defense system? I am concerned about technical obsolescence of
the program--technology will continue to move forward--how will you
deal with this?
Answer. The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program will
continue to improve well beyond the Initial Defense Capability that is
being fielded this year. We are planning upgrades to the current
system, and our upcoming budget submissions will include funding for
these upgrades. For example, the processor on the Exoatmospheric Kill
Vehicle (EKV) will be upgraded to avoid obsolescence. This upgrade will
be ready to be included in Ground Based Interceptors that are scheduled
for fielding in the 2006-2007 timeframe. We are also planning upgrades
to the GMD Fire Control (GFC) system as additional sensors are fielded.
We have several programs to develop software upgrades to provide more
advanced discrimination capability, and our testing will become
increasingly more challenging to validate our progress in this area.
Question. Once this program is fully fielded in Alaska and at
Vanderburg Air Force Base over the next several years, how will you use
the concepts of spiral development and block upgrades to improve the
program five years from now?
Answer. The program for spiral upgrades to the GMD components of
the Initial Defensive Capability include an enhanced EKV (an upgrade to
the processor), additional GMD Fire Control capability as a result of
additional sensor capability such as the Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX),
a program to mitigate potential countermeasures, multi-sensor fusion
improvements, and advanced discrimination capabilities. All of these
efforts are currently programmed within the FYDP.
AIRBORNE LASER PROGRAM
Question. General Kadish, the airborne laser program was
restructured earlier this year. Please explain some of the progress
that has been made on this program and some of the remaining
technological challenges?
Answer. The Airborne Laser (ABL) program has made significant
technical progress to date. We have successfully modified and conducted
initial flight-testing of the Boeing 747-400F which will accommodate
the lasers and optical control systems. We have completed the
manufacturing, optical coating, and end-to-end testing of the beam
control system and have begun integration of this system into the
aircraft. The six-module high power laser has been fully installed in
the System Integration Laboratory (SIL) at Edwards AFB and is currently
undergoing initial testing. Finally, we have successfully demonstrated
our capability to safely mix and handle the chemical laser fuel and we
are making steady progress towards the first firing of the high power
laser.
The program was restructured to improve the focus on two near term
efforts that will give us a better indication of the ABL's viability:
(1) first flight of the beam control system during late 4th qtr CY 2004
and (2) first light of the six-module high power laser in the Systems
Integration Laboratory (SIL), during December 2004.
Apart from these two milestones, there are a few other remaining
technological objectives for the ABL program, to include integration of
the turret ball on the front of the aircraft, integration of the target
acquisition/tracking lasers onboard, and finally demonstration of the
entire system with the shoot down of a ballistic missile. These
technological objectives are significant, but at present we do not
foresee any showstoppers.
Question. I note that the 2005 budget reflects this restructuring.
Are you concerned about losing momentum in the program and that we have
a clear way ahead on directed energy programs?
Answer. It is true that the technical challenges we are working to
resolve have delayed fielding the first ABL aircraft and that the
restructure has delayed acquisition of the second aircraft. However, we
will maintain program momentum by resolving the pacing technical
challenges and achieving laser ``first light.'' The record of technical
achievement by ABL is cause for confidence that we will solve these
challenges. Only decreased funding could cause a loss of momentum at
this time. Funding stability will be critical for resolving the
remaining technical challenges and moving forward with fielding this
capability.
FORT GREELY MISSILE DEFENSE FACILITIES
Question. General Kadish, could you explain the importance of the
2005 budget request to the ground-based midcourse system? What would be
the consequences to the Fort Greely program and the overall system
effectiveness if this funding is not provided?
Answer. Fiscal year 2005 funding is essential to continue
development of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) capability and
to put the Ballistic Missile Defense System on alert. Decreased funding
would impact development and procurement of hardware necessary for the
GMD element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System, including
procurement of additional ground-based interceptors (GBIs), the Sea-
Based X-Band radar (SBX), and upgrades to existing Early Warning
Radars. Testing of new systems would be impacted. A funding decrease
could cause a break in production and cause distress in the industrial
base, potentially forcing the smaller vendors out of business. The time
and cost to develop and qualify a new vendor base would be prohibitive.
Decreased fiscal year 2005 funds would also impact our ability to
sustain the Initial Defensive Capability. Included in the fiscal year
2005 budget is funding for the Sustainment Development Program. The
Sustainment Development Program pays for spares and technical support
from the GMD prime contractor. Without this effort the existing GMD
hardware cannot be maintained.
Question. Please provide us a status report on how the construction
at Fort Greely is proceeding?
Answer. The following is a look at some of the wide variety of GMD
facilities at Fort Greely that will support IDO, and their status for
alert.
--Six Fort Greely silos complete;
--Alaska fiber optic ring complete;
--Battalion Fire Control Node at Fort Greely: tested satisfactorily;
--SATCOM links (nine total): tested satisfactorily;
--Fort Greely In-Flight Interceptor Communications System (IFICS)
Data Terminal (IDT) complete and tested satisfactorily;
--Fort Greely buildings: 10 complete; five on schedule; one behind
schedule (no impact).
Question. Are there any significant issues as you deploy an initial
operating missile defense capability later this year?
Answer. There are no significant issues, but challenges remain. Our
schedule to begin Initial Defensive Operations is aggressive and
depends on many interdependent activities proceeding as expected. We
are attempting to remain as agile as possible to account for unforeseen
events. Additionally, the outcome our flight tests this year will be
important. Overall, however, we expect to remain on schedule.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. General, I understand Aegis destroyers and cruisers will
play a key role in the missile defense of the United States and our
allies. Could you summarize the capability to be fielded by the Navy
and tell us how you coordinate operations with the Navy and help offset
their costs?
Answer. The Aegis BMD element of the Ballistic Missile Defense
System (BMDS) builds upon the mature, operationally-proven, globally
deployed Aegis Combat System (ACS) to detect, track, intercept, and
destroy Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs) to Intermediate Range
Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) in the midcourse (spanning ascent to early
terminal) phase of flight while deployed in defense of the nation,
deployed U.S. forces, friends, and allies.
The heart of the Aegis BMD system is the Aegis Weapon System (AWS),
including the AN/SPY-1 radar. The AWS detects, tracks, and identifies
the ballistic missile target, and guides the SM-3 close enough to the
target for the SM-3's Kinetic Warhead (KW) to close for intercept. The
KW tracks the target with its Long Wavelength Infrared seeker and uses
its propulsion system to divert to complete a hit-to-kill intercept. A
total of three Aegis Cruisers (CGs) and 15 Aegis Destroyers (DDGs) will
be Aegis BMD capable by the end of CY 2006.
Aegis BMD will evolve through spirally developed block improvements
as part of the MDA's block upgrade strategy. Block 2004 will be a
spiral development, with the Initial Defensive Capability (IDC) (Aegis
BMD 3.0E) completed, verified, and tested for Initial Defensive
Operations (IDO). This capability will provide long-range surveillance,
detection, and tracking of long range ballistic missiles in support of
the BMDS. It will be fielded initially on two Aegis destroyers by
September 30, 2004, quickly expanding to four DDGs before the end of
calendar year 2004.
The test bed version of the engagement capability (Aegis BMD 3.0
plus SM-3 Block I) will be available for ship installation by December
2004 and flight tested in early CY 2005. This capability is not
intended for operational employment, but could be available for
emergency use. There will be five SM-3 Block I missiles available by
December 2004 and BMD 3.0 will be installed on two Cruisers in CY 2005.
The final Block 2004 capability (Aegis BMD 3.1 plus SM-3 Block IA)
will be delivered in December 2005 and certified by April 2006 for
Fleet use against SRBMs and MRBMs, as well as contingency to provide
Long Range Surveillance and Track (LRS&T) data to the BMDS. This
configuration also includes the integration of basic Anti-Air Warfare
(AAW) self-defense that will be installed in three Cruisers and up to
15 Destroyers by the end of Block 2006. Installation schedules are
based on ship deployment and maintenance schedules
The Aegis BMD element builds upon the existing Aegis Weapon System
(AWS) and STANDARD Missile infrastructure already deployed in Aegis
TICONDEROGA class Cruisers, ARLEIGH BURKE class Destroyers, and Japan's
KONGO class Destroyers.
MDA is funding the development, integration, and testing of Aegis
BMD upgrades to the existing STANDARD Missile, AWS, and command and
control systems. MDA funding also covers the cost of BMD specific ship
equipment sets, initial installation, missile purchases, establishing
integrated logistics support (ILS), including initial training and
spare parts, and developmental flight tests. MDA continues technical
and logistic support until six months after the delivery of the block,
when sustaining funding responsibility transfers to the Navy, and MDA
pursues the next block upgrade. The Navy pays for ship operations and
support (O&S) costs and Manpower and Personnel (MPN) costs for the
crews throughout development and operational phases.
For developmental tests, Aegis BMD coordinates closely with
Commander, Third Fleet (C3F) to assign ships to test events,
particularly USS LAKE ERIE, the assigned BMDS test ship. C3F also
provides Destroyers to participate in test events, as appropriate. MDA
funds marginal costs for these test events, such as fuel.
Operational employment of the ships in support of BMDS will be
under the Commander, Pacific Fleet (CPF), in coordination with NORTHCOM
and STRATCOM. CPF will fund the marginal costs for ship operations.
This approach fully leverages the U.S. investment in the Aegis fleet to
provide an affordable missile defense capability.
Question. General, I see that you have requested funding for boost
phase development for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. With the next
generation Navy Cruiser, the CG(X), in the early planning stages, I am
interested to know what discussions you are having with the Navy for
sea-basing options for this interceptor and what would be the fielding
timeframe?
Answer. The KEI program office commissioned the Navy to conduct a
CONOPS study to determine what interim platforms are feasible for the
KEI mission until the CG(X) is fielded. The results of the study may be
available as soon as September 2004. The projected fielding timeframe
for sea-based KEI is in Block 2012 on an interim platform. The Navy
CG(X) will be ready for fielding around 2020. The Navy can provide more
specific dates for the CG(X) fielding.
Question. General, I understand that there is an industry proposal,
supported by our Japanese allies, to develop a sea-based interceptor
that would fit in existing Navy missile launchers. Given the
Administration's desire to involve the international community in
missile defense and the fact that this proposed missile would not
involve modifying existing ships, what is your opinion of spiral
developing the SM-3 missile to a 21 inch missile instead of using the
36 inch Kinetic Energy Interceptor?
Answer. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has initiated a
comprehensive Joint Analysis with Japan to evaluate future ballistic
missile defense options for the defense of Japan and the United States.
This analysis will allow Japan and the United States to make informed
decisions regarding the development, production, deployment and
enhancement of interoperable missile defenses. Enhancements to the SM-3
will be addressed as part of the Joint Analysis.
Question. General Kadish, in your statement you indicate you have
experienced some difficulties with the Airborne Laser as that system
has moved from the drawing board to actual flyable hardware. For
example, I have been informed the aircraft is somewhat heavier than had
been hoped and that the testing of the system has faced numerous
delays. Would you characterize the challenges you've encountered as
something expected for a program of this sort or are they what some
might call ``showstoppers?''
Answer. The challenges we have faced to date are typical for a
program of this nature, which is the first of its kind. However, we
have encountered nothing to date, which we would categorize as a
showstopper. In fact, you could say we have achieved some unique
successes since beginning the development of the ABL to include work in
the areas of chemical and solid-state lasers, precision optics, and
even aircraft design and modification. Given the advanced nature of the
technology we are using to produce the ABL, we have really made
tremendous progress. Furthermore, I am confident that we can complete
the remaining technical requirements in order to successfully
demonstrate this system.
Question. General Kadish, I understand the Terminal High Altitude
Air Defense (THAAD) radar was completed ahead of schedule and delivered
last month and the THAAD program is scheduled to have its first flight
test late this year. However, I am told that it will not achieve
operational capability for several years. General, how would you assess
the program's risk at this point, and is there anything that can be
done to move this program along a little faster?
Answer. The overall program risk assessment for the THAAD program
is moderate. For the first flight (December 2004), the missile
component has moderate technical and schedule risks. For the first
intercept (June 2005), the launcher component has moderate schedule
risk. All risks will be retired by ground testing prior to first flight
and intercept, with the exception of schedule risk for a production
booster motor and thrust vector assembly source.
The recent incidents at the boost motor supplier (Pratt & Whitney)
have put enormous pressure on the fiscal year 2004/fiscal year 2005
program. The additional cost to recover from these incidents and bring
on an alternate boost motor supplier is projected to be $120 million
through fiscal year 2007. This has resulted in a significant deferral
of activities out of fiscal year 2004 into later years, with an
immediate impact of $95 million in fiscal year 2005 ($45 million to
recover the necessary deferred activities and $50 million for the boost
motor supplier alternate source issues).
The current THAAD program includes the first Fire Unit for which
fabrication will begin in fiscal year 2007, with delivery for
operational assessments and potential deployment scheduled for mid-
fiscal year 2009. The Fire Unit cost is $483 million, with a current
funding plan for Fielding based on $360 million in fiscal year 2007 and
$123 million in fiscal year 2008. There are three options for
accelerating the availability of this equipment.
Option 1: To accelerate the Fire Unit by six months, the current
approved $483 million for THAAD fielding would be required to start in
fiscal year 2006 (vice fiscal year 2007). This includes $75 million in
fiscal year 2006 for radar long lead items, with the additional $309
million is fiscal year 2007, and $99 million in fiscal year 2008. This
is a low risk option that moves the Fire Unit availability from mid-
fiscal year 2009 to late-fiscal year 2008.
Option 2: To accelerate the Fire Unit by 12 months, the current
approved $483 million for THAAD fielding would be required to start in
fiscal year 2006 (vice fiscal year 2007). This option would move the
$360 million from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2006 and the $123
million in fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2007. This is a low risk
option that moves the Fire Unit availability from fiscal year 2009 to
fiscal year 2008.
Option 3: To accelerate the Fire Unit by 18 months, the current
approved $483 million for THAAD fielding would be required to start in
fiscal year 2005 (vice fiscal year 2007). This includes $75 million for
radar long lead items, with the additional $360 million in fiscal year
2006, and $48 million in fiscal year 2007. This is a more aggressive
option that increases risk and requires an early decision on the
purchase of hardware prior to an intercept flight test. It moves the
Fire Unit availability from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2007.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. General Kadish, the Missile Defense Agency plans include
funding for 10 ground-based interceptors at a third missile site
overseas. What is the benefit of having an additional site overseas,
and what are the candidate countries that you are looking at to house
this site? Do you expect that there will be international contributions
for a third ground-based intercept site, or will the United States have
to assume the entire bill?
Answer. We have included funding in fiscal year 2005 for long-lead
items for an additional 10 GBIs that could be deployed at a potential
third site, or at Fort Greely. No determination has been made as to the
actual location of this third site. In our analysis we have examined
potential third sites in the United States as well as overseas. The
benefit of an overseas site is that it provides additional protection
to the United States as well as protection to our allies and friends.
Several overseas regions, including Europe, are potential candidates
for a GBI site from a performance perspective. There are, however, many
other factors that would determine whether a particular site is viable.
If a determination was made that an overseas site is desirable, in
addition to the many domestic considerations, we would expect the
nature of non-U.S. contributions to factor into a final decision.
Question. General Kadish, your budget request includes nearly $80
million for space-based weapons-related research and development. $68
million of the request is for launching a short-range kill vehicle into
space for the Near-Field Infrared (N-FIRE) program. What is the goal
for the ``N-Fire'' program, and could you use alternatives to a kill
vehicle in space to collect data for this program?
Answer. The Near Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE) is a major risk
reduction project for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program. The
primary NFIRE objectives are: Collection of near field rocket plume and
rocket hardbody IR data for model validation and algorithm
verification; and near term KEI kill vehicle development and testing
(hardware and software).
Yes there are other methods to collect IR data however NFIRE is the
only method that will provide near field IR data.
Aircraft observations using a variety of sensors allow us to
collect IR data at aircraft altitude and speed, but do not provide the
near field resolution we need because the distance to the target is
typically 150-250Km. Range safety prohibits aircraft from getting
closer than that.
Sub orbital tests, simultaneously launching a one use sensor and a
target, require both rockets to fly to the same point time in space.
This approach is a one shot opportunity with a specific sensor.
An orbital based test, like NFIRE, uses the highly predictable
nature of a satellite to reduce the risk for both objects to arrive at
the same point time in space. An orbital platform allows us to have
multiple opportunities to collect near field data in various wavebands
at a variety of engagement ranges and geometries.
Question. I understand that the reason the kill vehicle portion of
the Near-Field Infrared Experiment is not considered a space weapon is
that it is restricted from moving forward or backward. How difficult is
it to put this forward-backward movement back into the kill vehicle?
Answer. Including an axial stage (forward-backward movement) was
never part of the NFIRE kill vehicle. Consequently, to add an axial
stage to the current NFIRE kill vehicle would require a redesign of all
portions of the experiment (satellite, KV, launch vehicle, ground
support). This redesign would be difficult, costly, negatively affect
the schedule, and prevent our delivery of near field rocket plume and
rocket hardbody IR data in time to reduce the risk to Block 10 KEI kill
vehicle development.
Adding an axial stage to the kill vehicle does not contribute to
the primary NFIRE objectives: Collection of near field rocket plume and
rocket hardbody IR data for model validation and algorithm
verification; and near term KEI kill vehicle development and testing
(hardware and software).
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Stevens. But continuing on, we hope that you will
feel free to keep in touch with us and be a Monday morning
quarterback for us, and we invite you to return to our States
and be treated as you should be, as one of our favorite people
in military uniform, whether you're wearing the uniform or not.
Thank you very much and thank you for continuing on under
difficult circumstances, General. But since this is your last
meeting here, let me again repeat what I said to you. We
congratulate you and thank you on behalf of the people of the
United States for your commitment to the system, and your
willingness to spend the hours you have spent, long days away
from your family, to make certain that it is the best system we
can devise today. And I hope it will continue to improve with
your guidance. Thank you very much, General.
General Kadish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., Wednesday, April 21, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
April 28.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2004
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, Inouye, and Leahy.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Medical Programs
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES B. PEAKE, SURGEON
GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning. We are pleased to see you
here this morning.
We are going to have a hearing on the medical programs. Two
panels are scheduled. First, we will hear from the Surgeon
Generals, followed by the Chiefs of the Nursing Corps. We have
joining us today from the Army Surgeon General, Jim Peake; from
the Navy, Admiral Michael Cowan; from the Air Force, General
George Taylor. We welcome you all back again.
I understand this is your last appearance before the
committee, General Peake.
General Peake. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. And Admiral Cowan.
Admiral Cowan. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. We do thank you for your service and
assistance to this committee and value your views.
This is a very difficult period for defense health
programs, as we all know. The President's fiscal year 2005
request for the defense health program is $17.6 billion, a 15
percent increase over the fiscal year 2004 request. The request
provides for the health care of 8.8 million beneficiaries and
for the operation of 75 military hospitals, 461 military
clinics.
Despite the increase that is requested this year, this
committee remains concerned that the funding may not be
sufficient to meet all our requirements. We recognize that the
continuing conflict in Iraq and the global war on terrorism,
along with rising costs for prescription drugs and related
medical services, will continue to strain the financial
resources that are requested in this budget and place increased
demands on our medical service programs and providers.
Now, Senator Inouye and I are both personally familiar with
the value of military medicine and have worked with your
organizations for many years. We committed to work with you and
to address the many challenges that you face.
Let me take a moment to commend the Department's medical
service personnel for their work in the global war on
terrorism. Their performance has been nothing short of
extraordinary. From the moment our soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and marines go into harm's way military medics are deployed as
part of the fight. We applaud their efforts and your efforts in
serving jointly to meet the medical needs of our warfighters
and their families, and we commend all of our witnesses here
today for your leadership and compassion for those who serve.
We have taken visits, as you know, to Walter Reed and to
Bethesda and have been really honored to meet some of the young
men and women that are there. I have got to tell you that
almost every person said, ``Senator, can you help us go back to
our unit.'' The morale of these people is just overwhelming and
we are proud of them all.
I want to yield to my co-chairman for his comments.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to join you in welcoming our witnesses this morning
as we review our Department of Defense (DOD) medical programs.
Since this will be General Peake's and Admiral Cowan's last
appearance before this committee, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank them for their dedicated service to the
military.
Lieutenant General James Peake assumed command of the
United States (U.S.) Army Medical Command in September 2000. In
the years following, he oversaw 24,000 medical personnel
deployed for overseas operations and an increased demand on
military treatment facilities back home. He is the son of a
medical service corps officer and a nurse, and your entire life
has been in service to this Nation. Your time as an infantry
officer gave you a unique warrior's perspective on how our
wounded should be cared for, and it has helped to shape your
vision for the Army medical department.
Vice Admiral Cowan has served in the U.S. Navy for 32 years
and as Surgeon General of the Navy and Chief, Bureau of
Medicine and Surgery since August 2001. One could not have
expected that just 1 month after taking that new
responsibility, the military would be deployed at unprecedented
levels and you would oversee the deployment of over 4,300 naval
medical personnel. In addition to the extensive overseas
operation, the Navy was also on the forefront of domestic
events such as the lead laboratory for the recent ricin
incident in the Senate.
Admiral Cowan and General Peake, I commend and thank you
for the service you have rendered to this country, and I am
certain my colleagues all join me in this.
Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I have
heard numerous personal accounts and read dozens of articles
indicating lifesaving changes made in medical deployments,
technology, equipment, body armor, and unit configuration. From
positioning surgeons closer to the front line than ever before
and using new hemorrhage control dressings and embedding
physical therapists in deployed units, decreasing the size of
equipment, and aeromedical evacuation teams, they have
drastically altered the fate of hundreds of lives. We will
continue to support the personnel and programs that improve
your capability to save lives.
We will also look forward to an open discussion today 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, deployments of medical personnel, recruiting
and retention, among others.
Once again, I would like to thank the chairman for
continuing to hold hearings on these issues which are so
important to our military and their families.
Mr. Chairman, you should forgive me. I think I need some
help here. I have got a cold. Any cold medicine here?
Senator Stevens. Is there a doctor in the house?
Senator, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I thank you
for having the hearing. I would suggest to Senator Inouye what
he needs is time in the sun and maybe a few days in--oh, I do
not know--Hawaii?
Senator Inouye. It is a good place.
Senator Leahy. I wanted to come to this hearing because I
am concerned about the adequate health care for our armed
services, whether it is active duty or Reserves. I know
everybody here is concerned.
I have gone out and visited some of our wounded soldiers
out at Walter Reed. It is one of the most moving and impressive
things. My wife is a registered nurse and she probably
understood better than I did some of the injuries of some of
the people that she has talked with at greater length.
One of the most impressive things, Senator Stevens and
Senator Inouye, I remember one young man who was trying on a
new prosthetic leg. He had lost his leg. He was trying on a
prosthetic, high-tech leg, microchips. General, I see you
shaking your head. You know exactly what I am talking about.
Microchips check to see how best to design it. The two of us
asked him, what are you going to do now? And he looked at us
like, well, I just want to get the training with the leg done
so I can go back to the service. And I thought what a
wonderful, wonderful answer.
Yesterday's Washington Post had a front page article, and
if you have not read it, please do. It is a heartbreaking story
about the devastating wounds our soldiers are suffering, and
they are devastating. The good news is we can save more lives
that I guess in other past combats we might not have been able
to save them. The bad news, of course, is that they are
horribly wounded, maimed, blinded, and things like this. I
think what we have is a real responsibility because of that to
do our best.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate
your having this hearing. I think it is an extremely important
one.
Senator Stevens. Well, we all know General Shinseki who was
entitled to a full military discharge based upon his injuries
and he continued in the service to become the Chief of Staff of
the Army. So they have great examples from our past and we are
pleased to be part of the process to help encourage them.
Our first panel is General Peake. We call on you first.
General Peake. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, distinguished
members, it really is an honor to represent Army medicine
before you.
Senator Stevens. We will put all your statements in full in
the record.
General Peake. Thank you, sir.
It really is a unique time in our history. I reviewed the
first testimony I gave before this committee in April 2001 I
think it was, and we talked then about the new set of benefits
that came out of NDA01, TRICARE for life, pharmacy benefit for
over 65 retirees, reduction of catastrophic caps, school-age
physicals, many other things, and we spoke about the need to
adequately fund that benefit.
But I also made mention then of the fundamental importance
from a readiness base of medical support to soldiers that comes
from our direct care system then, and I commented on the U.S.S.
Cole response of wounded sailors passing through our joint
system on their way back to Portsmouth back then. I also said
that it was an exciting time to have this job. I had no idea.
That hearing seems like a long time ago. Since then, your
military medical system has responded to 9/11, was a key part
of the response to the anthrax letters, played a major role of
the cleanup right here on Capitol Hill. Our medics supported
the take-down of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Forward surgical
teams, linked with the special operations forces, combat
support hospitals providing the only sophisticated level of
care in that war-ravaged country, medics fighting uphill on
treacherous terrain to save lives. Even the march to Baghdad
now seems like a long time ago, a march where medical assets
leap-frogged forward with the combat troops. One of our forward
surgical teams set up nine different times in that march to
Baghdad, integral to the fighting formations and operating on
our own soldiers and Iraqi civilians and enemy prisoner of war
(EPW's) as well.
Army medical evacuation helicopter crews have sustained
their legacy as heroes, serving Army and cross-attached to the
marines. Our combat support hospitals operated in split-based
modes, covering each sequential setup of the log bases as we
moved forward. The front ends of that system linked back
through Europe where our jointly staffed facility at Landstuhl
in Germany has continued to be the primary hub for patients
who, under our construct of essential care in theater, could
find themselves there within 24 to 48 hours of wounding, linked
back to centers of excellence like the amputee center that you
mentioned here at Walter Reed or our burn center at Brook in
San Antonio. All of these efforts supported by a base of an
integrated health care system that trains to the highest
standards, that inculturates our physicians and our nurses to
the men and women that they support by a base of research that
focuses on things relevant to the soldier so that we could
field things like new skin protectants, hemostatic dressings,
one-handed tourniquets. It is a base that can provide teams of
world-class experts that go into country to look at things like
Leishmaniasis or investigate pneumonia deaths or to study the
mental health aspects of combat in an active combat zone.
We are about to complete the largest troop movement since
World War II. Across this country, each of our power projection
platforms and power support platforms, our soldiers have had
medical screening, have been medically protected with
immunizations, received care when required as they martialed
for deployment, have received post-deployment screening and
reintegration training and care and counseling, a tremendous
medical effort focused on our balance scorecard objective, a
healthy and medically protected force.
As a health system, our business has increased during this
time not only with the soldiers I have described, but with
family members of the deployed reservists and with the
remarkable increase in our retirees who appreciate the quality
of the benefit that has been legislated. I do believe the next
generation of TRICARE contracts creates the correct incentives
to maximize the use of our direct care system and ensure our
contract partners meet the same high standards for those not
around our military treatment facilities.
But it is not a magic bullet to contain the cost growth of
medicine, of which we are really a microcosm, especially with
the increase in those using our system. It is a cost growth
that is faster than the overall DOD budget growth, as you have
recognized in the past with a history of supplementals.
All of this at the same time that General Shinseki's legacy
of transformation is being carried forward aggressively to make
us more modular, agile, ready, and relevant to the challenges
militarily of today and tomorrow.
We are fortunate to have really great leaders in our Army
from our Secretary, Mr. Brownlee, who is a soldier himself, to
our Chief, General Schoomaker, whose focus on the soldier is
extraordinary.
But equally extraordinary are those soldiers. They inspire
me and they inspire all of us who lead them at all levels. I am
going to close with a couple of quotes from this last week in
Iraq. I got this e-mail.
Since Sunday evening, a little more than 72 hours ago, we
have done almost 60 cases with essentially nonstop surgery. I
am awed at the excellence and dedication of the soldiers in my
command. They have truly done an incredible job, and I am proud
to be associated with them. That is from Steve Hetz, who is the
commander of the 31st Combat Support Hospital in Ballad, a
soldier, a surgeon who ran our teaching program at William
Beaumont Army Medical Center for many years.
From Michael Oddie, a cardiac surgeon from Akron, Ohio, a
reservist, a commander of the 848 Forward Surgical Team who is
commanding the medical facility at the prison near Baghdad. He
sent me a note after an attack that gave them 78 casualties, of
which they air evacked 13, admitted 26, operated on 10 that
night and the next day. He says, it was awesome and inspiring
to see this group of soldiers perform so well and so cohesively
in a dire situation. We really do have a great group of
soldiers. This hospital commander stuff is as headache, but it
is rewarding to see such an effort. It would have made you
proud.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Well, sir, I am proud and I am proud of them and I am proud
to have been a part of this team at this table. On behalf of
all of our soldiers and their families and the medics, I deeply
appreciate the unwavering support that you and this committee
have given us all. Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Part of our group visited Ballad. It is a
very interesting operation, an enormous base. Those facilities
are well operated and obviously very modern.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General James B. Peake
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today. This will likely be the last
time I appear before your committee as the Army Surgeon General, and I
wish to express my gratitude for your unwavering support for our
military and especially for our medical personnel.
CORE COMPETENCIES
Our Nation is at War, and there is nothing that brings the missions
of military medicine into focus like war. Healthy and medically
protected Soldiers; a trained and equipped Medical Force that deploys
with the Soldiers, providing state-of-the-art medical care; and
managing the health of all Soldiers and their families back home while
keeping the covenant with our retirees--this is the mission of the
United States Army Medical Department (AMEDD). We are keeping our
promise to all of our beneficiaries by providing quality and timely
healthcare.
HEALTHY AND MEDICALLY PROTECTED SOLDIERS
This is a part of ongoing health maintenance informed by research
in military relevant areas and about which few outside the military
have much interest. From the development of vaccines for diseases
seldom seen in the United States to formulating an insect repellent
that can serve as a sunscreen and camouflage paint all at the same
time, to working with the Food and Drug Administration to establish
workable protocols for new drugs in remote locations, we meet our
obligations to medically protect soldiers. It requires an integrated
approach to educate soldiers about their health and about the things
they can do to protect themselves day to day and in whatever region of
the world they may find themselves deployed.
CURRENT DEPLOYMENTS
There have been many improvements in military medicine since I last
appeared before this committee. These improvements are making a
difference in how well we are taking care of our Soldiers on the
battlefield.
To spearhead the Army Medical Department Transformation initiative,
we have implemented the Medical Reengineering Initiative or MRI. MRI
was approved by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army in 1996 as an Army
medical force design update (FDU), which reorganizes Echelon Above
Division and Echelon Above Corps deployable medical units. These are
the medical units that provide levels of battlefield medical care above
the Battalion Aid Station and Division level medical companies. MRI
will provide the Army with the modular organizational structure that
supports the Current Force and will provide a bridge to the Future
Force. MRI is versatile as exemplified by unit designs that are
modular, scalable and possess standardized medical capabilities that
can be deployed around the globe. The Army Plan (TAP) and the Army
Strategic Planning Guidance (ASPG) 2006-2023, recognizes MRI as an
example of modularity. MRI promotes scalability through easily
tailored, capabilities-based packages that result in improved tactical
mobility, reduced footprint, and increased modularity for flexible task
organization. This design enables the Joint Forces Commander to choose
among augmentation packages, thus enabling rapid synchronization of
desired medical capabilities. MRI is enabling us to provide better care
further forward on the battlefield and faster than ever before.
With your help we are also saving lives through the deployment of
the hemostatic dressings and the chitosen bandage. These are two new
lifesaving wound dressings that are being used in Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Approximately 1,200
hemostatic dressings were deployed under an Investigational New Drug
battlefield clinical protocol. A team medic successfully applied a
hemostatic dressing to a left thigh wound after he was unable to
completely control femoral arterial bleeding with a pressure dressing
and tourniquet. Similar success was achieved in two documented reports
of Special Forces Medics using these bandages to treat severe bleeding
caused by gunshot wounds to the extremities. Approximately 5,800 of
these bandages have been deployed to the theater of operations. Our
researchers continue to look for solutions for non-compressible
hemorrhage wounds to the chest or abdomen. A hemostatic foam that can
be injected into the body cavity is currently under research as well as
a hand held high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) device. Our
researchers at Medical Research and Materiel Command (MRMC) are working
on a number of projects which will improve health care on the
battlefield and in our treatment facilities. Some examples include the
Hemoglobin-Based Oxygen Carrier (HBOC) a temperature stable, oxygen
carrying solution that can be readily available to treat combat
casualties with life threatening hemorrhage. MRMC is working with
several companies to design Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials with
the goal of attaining FDA approval and licensure. MRMC is also
sponsoring research on developing a better insect repellent, especially
to protect our Soldiers from sand flies. In OIF over 400 of our
Soldiers have been diagnosed with Leishmaniasis, which is a disease
caused by parasites transmitted by sand flies. Leishmaniasis includes a
wide spectrum of diseases ranging from the cutaneous form to the
potentially fatal visceral disease. No prophylactic drugs or vaccines
exist to combat this disease, hence personal protective measures are
currently being used in theater. Each infected Soldier must be
evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center or Brook Army Medical
Center of a 10-28 day therapy. Our researchers are looking for ways to
identify and treat this disease in theater to avoid evacuation and
reduce long-term scarring.
We are progressing in transforming the combat medic to the new 91W
Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). These medics train for 16 weeks
versus the previous 10 week course and gain National Registered EMT-
Basic certification. The 91W combat medic training is conducted at the
Army Medical Department Center and School. Active duty medical
specialists and clinical specialists who have not converted to the 91W
MOS are required to complete the training in their units that include
not only EMT certification, but pre-hospital trauma training and
advanced airway and IV management.
Not only are we improving our training for personnel, but we are
also improving our capability to transport patients on the battlefield.
In order to treat Soldiers on the battlefield we have to be where they
are. The 507th Medical Company (Air Ambulance) and the 126th Company
(Air Ambulance) took our most advanced casualty evacuation helicopter,
the HH-60L Black Hawk, to support operations in Southwest Asia and
Afghanistan. These aircraft include a digital cockpit, on-board oxygen
generation system, external electric hoist, advanced communications,
improved litter support system, medical suction and electrical power
for medical equipment. We currently have nine HH-60Ls and are working
on upgrading the entire medical evacuation fleet. On the ground, we
have the medical evacuation vehicle variant (MEV) of the Stryker. This
vehicle is integrated into the fighting formation of the 3rd Brigade,
2nd Infantry Division that deployed to Iraq last November. The new
ground ambulance can carry four litter patients or six ambulatory
patients while its crew of three medics provides basic medical care. It
can be delivered to the battlefield in a C-130 aircraft, has the speed
and mobility to keep up with fighting forces and can communicate with
the most advanced combat formations.
RESERVE COMPONENT AND NATIONAL GUARD INTEGRATION
This war has reinforced a lesson we learned long ago: the AMEDD
could not do its wartime mission without the Army National Guard and
Army Reserve. Guard and Reserve medical units play key roles in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and also in replacing active-duty personnel deployed from
our stateside and European hospitals. We rely on Reserve Medical
Support Units to process deploying Soldiers. Without them, active duty
medical forces at mobilization sites would not be able to continue
normal care for Soldiers and families.
Professional Filler System
The Army Medical Department has been very successful in supporting
contingency operations and the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) by using
a Professional Filler System or PROFIS to man early deploying units.
Our PROFIS system takes AMEDD personnel from our fixed facilities and
assigns them to deploying units who do not have their full complement
of medical personnel. Medical Command (MEDCOM) is currently prepare to
5,787 PROFIS personnel to deploying units. Of the 5,787: 1,177 are
Active Component personnel slated against spaces in Reserve units and
the remaining 4,610 personnel are PROFIS to active component units or
multi-component units. We currently have 839 PROFIS deployed to support
OIF and OEF and all the while, our Regional Medical Commands are still
maintaining their baseline medical care workload despite personnel
being deployed.
Medical Holdover
A small percentage of Reserve Component Soldiers who mobilized in
support of Operation Iraqi Freedom were not medically fit to deploy.
Personnel guidance prior to October 25, 2003 stated Soldiers who were
not medically fit to deploy would remain on active duty until maximum
therapeutic benefit had been accomplished. If the Soldier's condition
was still not at the point where he or she could deploy, then a Medical
Evaluation Board would ensue and the Soldier would be released from
active duty. By the end of October 2003 there were 4,452 Soldiers in
the Medical Holdover (MHO) population and the numbers were growing.
Personnel guidance changed on October 25, 2003 and the Army now returns
Soldiers to their units and their homes if they are found medically
unfit during the first 25 days of mobilization. The number of Soldiers
who enter MHO during mobilization is now less than 1 percent. In
October 2003 the Army also instituted enhanced access standards for MHO
Soldiers, realizing these Soldiers were not near their homes and
family, were living in quarters that were intended for short-term
housing, and that the process of providing maximum therapeutic benefit
was taking too long. The enhanced standards include 72 hours for
specialty referrals, one week for magnetic resonance imaging and other
diagnostic studies, two weeks for surgery, 30 days for the medical
portions of the medical evaluation board processing, and one case
manager for every 50 MHO Soldiers. Currently the AMEDD is meeting or
exceeding those standards more than 90 percent of the time. Of the
Soldiers in MHO on November 1, 2003, 871 remain on active duty. The
total number of MHO Soldiers is 4,393 which is what our modeling
predicted given the number of Soldiers mobilizing for OIF2 and the
number of Soldiers demobilizing from OIF1. It is important to note the
military is in the middle of the one of the largest troop movement
operations since World War II.
Soldier Readiness Processing
As indicated above, a very small percent of Reserve Component
Soldiers are mobilized, but are not medically ready to deploy. Soldier
Readiness Processing (SRP) evaluates Soldiers to ensure they are
medically and dentally ready to deploy. This means the Soldier has the
required immunizations, is medically healthy, has a dental readiness
classification of 1 or 2, and has his personal medical equipment such
as ear plugs, eye glasses and protective mask inserts. Active Component
units participate in the SRP process on a routine basis and are
constantly maintained in a deployable status. RC Soldiers have a
limited amount of time to participate in SRP's hence their medical
status sometimes is not up to par to deploy with the rest of their
unit. An integral part to the successful mobilization of our Army
Reserve (USAR) and National Guard (ARNG) troops is providing medical
and dental services by using the Federal Strategic Health Alliance
(FEDS-HEAL) Program. The FEDS-HEAL program brings together resources of
the DOD, Department of Health and Human Services and Veterans Health
Administration to create a robust provider network. FEDS-HEAL delivers
readiness services to USAR, ARNG, and United States Air Force Reserve
service members in all 50 states and territories. The FEDS-HEAL
provider network performs medical examinations, dental examinations and
treatment, immunizations, and other medical readiness services through
Veterans Administration medical centers, Federal Occupational Health
clinics, and a network of over 1,100 physicians and nearly 2,250
dentists. In addition to exams and treatment, FEDS-HEAL provides a data
management service and inputs patient care data into the Army's Medical
Protection System (MEDPROS). The FEDS-HEAL Program Office provides 100
percent Quality Assurance Reviews prior to MEDPROS reporting. In
Calendar Year 2003, Reserve and Guard forces received 42,624 dental
exams, 44,730 dental treatments, 29,971 physical exams, 54,108
immunizations, and 2,427 vision exams.
90 Day Rotation Policy
From late 1995 to early 1998, one-third of RC physicians who
deployed to the Balkans left the USAR due to the 270 day length of
rotations. Recruitment and replacement of these physicians was
difficult. The loss resulted in personnel shortfalls of physicians,
dentists, and nurse anesthetists. A 1996 survey of 835 RC physicians
found that 81 percent could be mobilized up to 90 days without serious
impact to their civilian practice, however, extended deployments beyond
90 days had a severe negative impact. In late 1999 the Army conducted a
pilot program deploying RC physicians, dentists, and nurse anesthetists
for 90 day rotations. In 2001 a follow-on survey was conducted which
validated the finding that RC physicians, dentists, and nurse
anesthetists could deploy for that period of time without adversely
affecting their private practice. The Army rotation policy was modified
in early 2003 to provide for 90 day ``Boots on the Ground'' or BOG
rotations either in the continental United States or outside of the
continental United States for these specialties. Many medical
professionals want the opportunity to serve their country. This policy
enables them to stay with us in the Reserves and contribute to the
mission.
PRE AND POST HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
We place a high priority on maintaining the health of Soldiers
before, during, and after deployment. Before Soldiers deploy we closely
monitor their Individual Medical Readiness (IMR). That means up-to-date
immunizations, periodic health assessments, screening tests and medical
equipment (ear plugs, eyeglasses, etc.). We are working on uniform
metrics to inform commanders on the state of medical readiness of their
troops.
For the first time in military history, we are implementing a
systematic process of capturing this information. All of this data is
part of the pre-deployment health assessment, which provides baseline
information on the Soldier's health status before deploying. Upon
redeployment all Soldiers are required to fill out a post-deployment
health assessment form. We are working on ways to improve the
collection of this data, to include using hand-held devices that can
electronically download the information into the central record-keeping
repository. Once the information is captured electronically, the
TRICARE online web portal can be used by the Soldier's medical provider
to access the record. Department of Veterans Affairs can also access
the information from the individual's medical record, which is
available to the VA upon the Soldier's separation from the military.
Despite these advances in management and use of our databases, we
in the Army recognized the need for improvement. First and foremost, we
realized the limitations of paper forms for pre- and post-deployment
health assessment. Completing, copying and shipping paper forms from a
worldwide deployed and busy Army was a process that was difficult to
comply with, and almost impossible to oversee. In September 2002, we
launched an initiative to improve our assessment process by automating
the collection, distribution, and archiving of the data. The first
automated assessment form on the internet was activated on April 1,
2003. A hand-held computer variant of the enhanced (four-page) post-
deployment program was deployed to the Central Command Area of
Operations (CENTCOM AOR) and to Europe beginning in August 2003. From
June 1, 2003 through February 27, 2004, we have received 127,696
automated health assessment forms, which comprise about one-third of
all forms received during that period. Automated pre-deployment health
screening was accomplished for the entire Stryker Brigade Task Force
before it deployed in November 2003, and is approaching 100 percent for
the 39th and 81st enhanced Separate Brigades. In Kuwait, all post-
deployment health assessments are automated; in Iraq, about half of all
screening is performed using the automated form.
In November 2003, the Army initiated a formal deployment health
quality assurance program. This program includes audits of the
deployment health assessment program on Army installations. Audits have
been conducted at six Army installations (Forts McCoy, Drum, Lewis,
Hood, Stewart, and Bragg). These audits reveal that compliance with the
Army pre- and post-deployment health assessment program is generally
higher than indicated by comparison with Army personnel databases, and
is likely to rise further with automation support and standardization
and centralization of Soldier readiness processing on installations and
across the Army.
LOWEST KIA/WIA RATIOS
Our died of wounds rate after receiving some level of care in OIF
is 1.5 percent, the lowest in recorded warfare. A variety of factors
have contributed to this, to include body armor and Forward Surgical
Teams (FST). FSTs bring resuscitative surgical skills far forward on
the battlefield and apply life-saving techniques that preserve the A-B-
Cs of life: airway, breathing, and circulation. They target the 15-20
percent of wounded who, without care within the first hour after
wounding, would die while being evacuated to the combat support
hospital. Uncontrollable hemorrhage has been the major cause of death
in this group in previous wars. The FST is well equipped to identify
and stop bleeding by using a hand held ultrasound machine which can
identify internal bleeding.
TRANSITION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Our goal for injured and ill Soldiers is to effect a seamless
transition of care from DOD to the VA health care system. In September
2003, Secretary Brownlee put together a Disabled Soldier Liaison Team
(DSLT) specifically to look at the transition process for our most
severely disabled Soldiers and make recommendations to improve that
process. The mission of the DSLT was to assist Soldiers in their
transition from the Army to the Department of Veterans Affairs Health
Care system. The team was chartered to help Soldiers understand the VA
system and their benefits. Our efforts in the medical department
focused on identifying and appointing case managers/discharge planners
who served as the primary point of contact with the VA. The VA also
designated OIF/OEF coordinators in each of their regional offices and
provided staff at our busiest medical centers to facilitate a Soldier's
transition into their system. We currently have five VA coordinators
physically located at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who provide
personal liaison support between Soldiers and the VA.
READINESS
One of the key successes in fighting the war on terrorism has been
our use of special medical augmentation teams (SMART). The Army Medical
Department has used this reach back capability to our sustaining base
to provide world-class expertise on the ground to support the
Warfighter. We have rapidly deployed subject matter experts in
leishmaniasis, pneumonia, mental health and environmental surveillance,
to name a few, into Iraq or Afghanistan to provide assessments and
recommendations to the command. A prime example of this capability is
the environmental surveillance team from the U.S. Army Center of Health
Promotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM) that was deployed to Iraq to
assess an evolving concern near a nuclear research facility. An
infantry regiment was operating within a few kilometers of the Tuwaitha
Nuclear Research Facility. Concerns were raised about possible
radiation and chemical exposures to U.S. service members and local
civilians due to looting. A SMART Preventive Medicine Team from CHPPM
deployed into the area to assess the Tuwaitha facility, which included
a site inspection and environmental sampling. All of the field data,
reports, and potential health risks were communicated to field
commanders and Soldiers. Due to weather conditions, short exposure
time, conditions of exposure, and location of troops relative to the
site, the resultant health risk was low based on U.S. peacetime
standards.
In July 2003 the Army Medical Department chartered a team of mental
health experts from CONUS treatment facilities around the nation to
assess mental health issues in Iraq. Specifically, the mental health
team was organized to assess the July increase in suicides in OIF,
evaluate the patient flow of mental health patients from Theater, and
assess the stress-related issues Soldiers were experiencing in a combat
operation. This was the first time a mental health assessment team has
ever come together and conducted a mental health survey with Soldiers
in an active combat environment. The team remained in Iraq for six
weeks and with the support of the combatant commanders, traveled to
several base camps conducting their assessment.
The AMEDD also has nationally recognized experts in the chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) field, which can be formed
into SMART teams to rapidly respond to a CBRN threat either CONUS or
OCONUS. These experts come from our medical centers, the U.S. Army
Medical Research and Materiel Command, CHPPM, and the Army Medical
Department Center and School. Their expertise ranges from medical
surveillance and epidemiology to casualty management. The AMEDD Center
and School also has developed a number of short and long courses
addressing CBRN topics which can be taught in house or exported to our
treatment facilities. CBRN training has been incorporated into the
Soldiers' common skills training, advanced individual training,
leadership courses, primary care courses, and a number of other
avenues.
Our partnerships and collaboration with civilian counterparts is
crucial in training our medical force. The U.S. Army Medical Research
Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, MD, is a
great national resource of expertise on testing methods to eradicate
dangerous diseases. USAMRIID is partnering with the National Institutes
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) towards building a synergistic biodefense campus.
The goal is to leverage the knowledge and capabilities of these
research institutions by co-locating them on a single campus to fight
the Global War on Terrorism.
GARRISON CARE
The AMEDD is a $9 billion per year enterprise whose business is to
take care of the Soldier, the family member and the retiree. Managing
this complex organization with its many missions requires a structured
system that directs the members towards a common goal. The system in
place today is the balanced scorecard, which uses a building block
approach to guide the organization in making the right decisions at the
right time. The AMEDD is continually measuring itself and using
assessment tools to ensure best business practices are in place and
being used. The Decision Support Center sends out patient satisfaction
surveys to measure a patient's satisfaction with a provider at a
particular treatment facility. This type of feedback is invaluable in
identifying where the organization is doing well or where the
organization needs to improve.
The AMEDD has used funds to establish venture capital projects and
advanced medical practices initiatives to help military treatment
facilities improve delivery of health care. Such projects include
hiring certain specialties in a particular field to bring in more
patients, renovating clinic space or purchasing new equipment to
capture a particular market niche. Each project is required to have a
business case analysis that must demonstrate the project will pay for
itself within three years. This type of program helps commanders make
better business decisions and saves money for the AMEDD in the future.
Our health care delivery system is poised to move into the next
generation of TRICARE contracts. The new contracts are performance
based and have been designed to control costs through incentives for
the direct care system and for the contractors. Its goals are to
increase beneficiary satisfaction and improve portability. Transition
activities at every level of the military health care system and within
contractor organizations demonstrates a full commitment to a successful
transition. For the AMEDD specifically, there is a TNEX Transition Task
Force that has developed a transition task list that identifies
critical, time sensitive tasks that must be accomplished in sequence
for the transition to be successful at the MTF level. Transition
activities include training and educating staff on market management
and revised financing. The Transition Task Force trains and develops
personnel in key positions such as future commanders, data analysts,
and health care administrators in executive level positions. We look
forward to this exciting era of change, which will begin in June of
this year.
Complimenting our delivery of health care is the availability of
housing for visiting family members. Through the philanthropic efforts
of the Fisher Foundation, there are 14 Fisher Houses operating at 9
locations. In fiscal year 2003 the Army Fisher Houses served 2,560
families, providing 39,680 family-nights of lodging. We estimate that
staying in a Fisher House saved these families over $1.5 million in out
of pocket lodging costs. The average length of stay per family was 15.5
days. The contributions that the Army Fisher Houses have made in
supporting the families of our combat casualties from Afghanistan and
Iraq have been uniquely valuable. Since March 2003, Army Fisher Houses
have accommodated 851 families attending to service members who were
injured in combat operations or in support of combat operations. The
occupancy rate for the Fisher Houses at Landstuhl Regional Medical
Command in Germany, Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the National
Capitol Region and at Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio has averaged over
97 percent. Its obvious that the Army Fisher Houses provide a valuable
benefit for military families.
In an effort to protect direct care funds, the Congress passed
legislation restricting the flow of funds from the direct care system
to the private sector care system and vice versa. With the new health
care contracts using the best business practices, there are incentives
built into the system to use the direct care side as much as possible.
Restricting movement of Defense Health Program funds will not allow the
military treatment facilities the flexibility to manage their resources
efficiently. In the new management environment, military treatment
facilities are incentivized to increase productivity by pulling more
beneficiaries into their facilities. The Army appreciates the
congressional intent to protect direct care funding, but we recommend
that the fiscal year 2005 Defense Appropriations Act language remove
this restriction and allow flexibility to move funds to wherever care
is delivered without a prior approval reprogramming.
SUMMARY
Health care is a key quality of life issue for our military. I am
committed to providing that quality care throughout the spectrum of
operations, from the foxhole to the regional medical center. The Army
Medical Department recognizes its responsibility to the men and women
who defend our nation, to their families who support them, and to the
retirees who have contributed so much to our country. We are committed
to providing all of them exceptional healthcare. Army medicine is more
than an HMO. Our system of integrated care includes teaching centers,
research and development organizations, health clinics, field
hospitals, and much more. The direct care system is truly the medical
force projection platform for our Army; the Army we support across the
world and across the spectrum of conflict. We do this quietly and on a
daily basis all the while integrating active, guard and reserve units
in support of the Chief of Staff's vision of THE Army.
I would like to thank my fellow Surgeons General. Their support,
teamwork, and camaraderie are much appreciated. I would also like to
thank the Committee for its continued commitment to our men and women
in uniform, the civilian workforce, and our beneficiaries.
Senator Stevens. Admiral Cowan.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL MICHAEL L. COWAN, SURGEON
GENERAL, UNITED STATES NAVY
Admiral Cowan. Thank you, Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee for inviting me
here today.
We frequently hear it said that post-9/11 everything
changed, but for us in Navy medicine much remains the same. In
fact, the events that have occurred since September 2001 have
continually reemphasized the importance of our total mission of
force health protection.
The four pillars of force health protection are: first, to
prepare a healthy and fit force that can go anywhere and
accomplish any mission that the defense of this Nation requires
of them; second, for our medical personnel to go with them to
protect them from the hazards of the battlefield and
deployment; third, to restore their health wherever protection
fails while also providing outstanding and seamless health care
for their families back home; and finally, to help a grateful
Nation thank our retired warriors by providing them health care
for life through TRICARE for Life.
We strive to create a healthy and fit force by supporting
healthy lifestyles not just for our sailors and marines but for
their families as well. Our long-term goal is to form
partnerships with families to adopt healthy lifestyles that
have positive effects through their lifetimes. Healthier
behaviors result in a fit and healthy force and also reduce the
need for restorative medicine later in life. We work closely
with our people so they are less likely to become our patients.
Nearly one in six of naval medicine's deployable personnel
are deployed today in support of operations on the global war
on terrorism and in Iraq, and we will continue to operate at
that rate for the foreseeable future. Forward medical personnel
provide first responder, stabilization and forward
resuscitative care at modular theater facilities, both ashore
and afloat. Our theater hospitals are deployed independently or
combined with other modules in a Lego-like fashion, a building
block fashion, to provide essential care in theater. Definitive
care is through a medevac process in fixed overseas and
continental United States (CONUS) medical treatment facilities
(MTF).
Naval medicine's most vital asset is our people. Attracting
skilled professionals and, equally importantly, retaining them
to take advantage of their experience and enhanced skills
represents one of our more significant challenges.
We continue to support ongoing efforts implementing the
Presidential task force recommendation to pursue sharing
collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs,
specifically to optimize the use of Federal health care
resources. I believe that our progress in these collaborations
is one of our great success stories.
We worked hard to get the best value from every dollar that
Congress has provided, and your assistance is needed to help
restore the flexibility to manage funds across activity groups.
Fenced private sector funds prevent transfer from the MTFs to
private sector and prevent transfer from private sector to the
MTF's. This does not allow us to increase productivity in the
MTF's without the burden of prior approval reprogramming. This
is very important in the upcoming year because the new T-NEX
contracts with their incentives to move care into the MTF's
make restoration of the flexibility all the more vital.
We continue to work on the forefront of technology, and I
would specifically highlight information technologies to
include the development of naval medicine online. This
communication tool will be the key to knowledge sharing
throughout naval medicine as an enterprise, allowing the right
information to flow to the right people at the right time
whenever and wherever it is needed. Naval medicine is also
committed to transforming the naval/Marine Corps infrastructure
and services.
We are further committed to the Chief of Naval Operations
(CNO) transformational vision for projecting decisive joint
capabilities from the sea, SeaPower 21. Examples of that
transformation abound throughout naval medicine where hard work
in identifying deficiencies and cutting costs have resulted in
multiple opportunities to support the recapitalization of the
Navy. This transformation is not limited to shore facilities.
It includes remaking our fleet assets to include the
reconfiguration of forward medical assets from cold war era
platforms to the smaller and more agile task-oriented units
that we deploy today.
Finally, we are right-sizing our active forces to the best
mix of active, civilian, and contract personnel to bring the
right capability to bear and in alignment with the CNO's
vision. We have reconfigured and integrated naval reserve
components in very different ways to shape missions, along with
the active component, creating a single unified force and
assuring the very best use of the skills and talent of all of
our medical personnel.
We are effecting positive change throughout naval medicine,
embracing the CNO's vision, and I am confident that we are on
the right course for the challenges ahead.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I share General Peake's gratitude and sense of having been
honored by the work and the interest of this committee, and I
thank you for everything that you have done with us and for us
during my time as the Navy Surgeon General. It has been a
privilege to serve.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Michael L. Cowan
Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today. Each year, the Navy
Surgeon General has the privilege of appearing before the Senate
Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense to provide an update
on the state of Naval Medicine. It has been a year of challenges met
and rewards reaped, and of maturing of programs that we undertook in
the wake of September 11, the anthrax attacks by terrorists unknown,
and the prosecution of the Global War on Terrorism.
Force Health Protection is the primary focus of Naval Medicine.
Force Health Protection is comprised of four mission objectives: (1)
Preparing a healthy and fit force that can go anywhere and accomplish
any mission that the defense of the nation requires of them; (2) go
with our men and women in uniform to protect them from the hazards of
the battlefield; (3) restore health, whenever protection fails, while
also providing outstanding, seamless health care for their families
back home; and (4) help a grateful nation thank our retired warriors
with TRICARE for Life.
Naval Medicine balances all these actions to make force health
protection work and see that all our beneficiaries get the outstanding
healthcare they deserve. Wherever our Marines and Sailors at the tip of
the spear deploy, we are along side them as we provide operational
support in the Global War on Terrorism, achieving very low disease and
combat casualty rates on the battlefield. The lessons we've learned
from previous wars have led us to innovations toward a new level of
agility and capability. Today, Expeditionary Medical Units are being
built and fielded. These are complete lightweight tent hospitals that
can be airlifted on site within days, and smaller units, Forward
Resuscitative Surgery Systems, can be deployed to the action and made
ready for patient care within hours. They, staffed with their ``Devil
Docs,'' have proven to be lifesavers for wounded Marines.
In defense of bio-terror attacks against our Nation, including the
recent ricin attack at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Naval
Medical Research Center, has made great advances in developing
enhanced, rapid analysis and confirmation processes. These innovations
have directly supported the nation's security and are a vital component
in protecting our military fighting a war both abroad and here in the
homeland.
Naval Medicine provides the most visually recognizable healthcare
facility in the world--the military treatment facilities aboard the
distinctive white with red-crossed hospital ships USNS COMFORT and USNS
MERCY. These ships are symbols of life saving and caring that also send
a clear message to our enemies: We are committed to our mission, and
are prepared to take care of the casualties we may suffer to accomplish
it.
Naval Medicine is an effective defensive weapon system for the Navy
and Marine Corps Team. Naval Medicine treated every combat casualty
within the critical ``Golden Hour'' through the use of new and
innovative surgical units, such as the Forward Resuscitative Surgery
System (FRSS). We reconfigured our Cold War era Fleet Hospitals to
become more agile, mobile 116 bed Expeditionary Medical Facilities that
are being used to support operations around the world. Sailors and
Marines can be confident that they will have world class health care
professionals at their side at all times--at sea or ashore.
Force Health Protection remains our primary mission. We strive to
create a healthy and fit force through encouraging and supporting
healthy lifestyles not only for our Sailors and Marines, but for their
families as well. Our goal is to form a partnership with our families
to help them adopt healthier lifestyles that will have a positive
effect throughout their lifetimes. These healthier behaviors will not
only result in a fit and healthy force, but will reduce the need for
restorative medicine later in life. We work with our people so that
they will be less likely to become our patients.
We recognize that health care is a major retention and recruitment
issue as well as a readiness issue, and strive to provide world-class
care not only to the families of our Sailors and Marines, but to
retired service members and their families as well. Naval Medicine is
implementing Family Centered Care initiatives to increase patient
satisfaction and continuously improve on our delivery of patient care.
If we can retain our families within the direct health care system,
Naval Medicine can continue to assist them with the tools to form
healthy habits throughout their lives.
FORCE HEALTH PROTECTION
Force Health Protection is a continuum of services designed to
create and maintain a healthy and fit force. This continuum begins with
medical and dental screening during induction into the service,
followed by annual preventive health assessments, regularly scheduled
physical examinations, pre and post deployment assessments and ending
with separation or retirement physicals. Health care professionals
participate and review every assessment along the continuum. The same
schedule of physical assessments is followed for both active duty and
reserve service members.
Over 100,000 Navy and Marine Corps personnel completed post
deployment health assessment forms since April 2003. Primary care
providers then interview service members if there are any indications
of deployment related illnesses or injuries, or changes in their health
concerns. Service members may be referred for additional specialty care
if indicated. As of March 2004, 7 percent of active-duty and 15 percent
of reservists required post deployment medical referrals.
DEPLOYMENT MEDICINE
In support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), over 7,300 active and
reserve Naval medical personnel were deployed or mobilized, at sea or
shore. From the battlefield Hospital Corpsmen to the Forward
Resuscitative Surgery System (FRSS), the Fleet Hospitals (FH) and the
hospital ship USNS COMFORT, and to the National Naval Medical Center
(NNMC), Bethesda, wounded, injured, and sick Coalition Force warriors,
Iraqi prisoners of war, Iraqi civilians (displaced persons) received
the highest quality medical care possible.
Our readiness platforms include two 1,000 bed hospital ships, 6
active duty and 2 Reserve Fleet Hospitals as well as special medical
units supporting Casualty Receiving and Treatment Ships (CRTS) and
smaller, organic units assigned to augment the Marine Corps and
overseas hospitals.
Nearly one in six of Naval Medicine's deployable personnel are
deployed today in support of operations fighting the Global War on
Terrorism and will continue to operate at that rate for the foreseeable
future. Forward medical personnel provide first responder,
stabilization and forward resuscitative care at modular theater
hospitals, both ashore and afloat in theater. Our modular theater
hospitals can be employed independently or combined with other modules
to provide essential care in theater. Definitive care is provided in
fixed overseas and CONUS military medical treatment facilities.
During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Naval Medicine employed a new type
of unit to provide far forward surgery. The Forward Resuscitative
Surgery System (FRSS) was developed to provide forward surgical
capability to support the Marine Corps' Regimental Combat Teams. The
FRSS is staffed with a team of two general surgeons, one
anesthesiologist, one critical care nurse and four Hospital Corpsmen.
The FRSS can accommodate 18 casualties in 48 hours without re-supply.
During OIF, six FRSS teams treated 96 casualties and performed 153
surgical procedures during combat operations.
This year has also seen the introduction of the Forward Deployable
Preventive Medical Unit (FDPMU) designed to assess, prevent, and reduce
health threats in support of deployed operating forces. Other missions
for the FDPMU include humanitarian assistance, consequence management,
and disaster relief operations. Capabilities can include chemical,
biological, and radiological agent detection and identification, as
well as toxic environmental chemical detection and identification.
The Forward Deployable Preventive Medical Units are capable of
deploying within 96 hours, can serve as a joint force asset to provide
specialized preventive medicine, and CBRN response services in support
of force health protection to combatant commanders and Joint Task Force
Commanders. Naval Medicine has elements of two FDPMUs currently
deployed to Iraq and elements of another FDPMU currently deployed to
Haiti.
Our mobile platforms continue to be refined, making them more agile
and adaptable to specific missions. Transformation efforts continue by
the Fleet Hospital Program with the continued development and
refinement of the Expeditionary Medical Unit (EMU). The EMU provides
both forward stationed and CONUS-based forces the ability to rapidly
deploy, employ, sustain and redeploy scalable medical capabilities to
austere regions of the globe. The transformation process from Fleet
Hospitals to EMUs is planned to continue over the next several years as
we reshape our forward presence to a lighter, smaller and more agile
force.
EMU Alpha was deployed to Djibouti in September 2003 and is still
receiving patients. NH Jacksonville is providing the staff for EMU
Alpha.
As part of the post Operation Desert Storm lessons learned
analysis, Naval Medicine embarked on an extensive effort to better
organize and train our wartime-required active and reserve medical
force, while at the same time optimizing our peacetime healthcare
benefit mission. Naval Medicine developed and implemented a CONUS
readiness infrastructure strategy that aligned specific operational
platforms to a single Military Treatment Facility (MTF), along with the
active duty and reserve manpower required to perform both wartime and
peacetime missions. This readiness alignment strategy provides the MTF
commander with the authority and the resources to balance wartime
readiness and peacetime benefit missions.
As a result of this new structure, Naval Medicine can employ
``Tiered Readiness.'' This strategy allows platform rotation to support
ready surge requirements. Each platform and their parent Medical
Treatment Facility (MTF) will be on a scheduled rotation: for six
months, two MTFs and their supporting Fleet Hospital personnel will
have to be ready to deploy within 10 days. Three additional Fleet
Hospitals and their parent MTFs have sixty days to prepare for a
possible deployment. Finally, there is a sixth Fleet Hospital, in
reserve, which must be ready to deploy within 120 days. Tiered
Readiness enables Naval Medicine to plan, prepare and meet our
operational commitments and is in synch with the Chief of Naval
Operations' transformational vision for the United States Navy.
NAVAL MEDICINE OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Winning the Global War on Terrorism is job #1 and Naval Medicine
brings many assets to bear in this fight. As its Surgeon General, I
think of Naval Medicine as a ``Defensive Weapon System'', which, in
addition to providing the highest quality medical care to our
warfighters, also can take action to deter threats through such
mechanisms as delivering vaccines that eliminate specific disease
threats. We have sophisticated technologies designed to detect
biological, chemical and radiological threats before they cause harm,
and we have highly trained medical personnel who can identify early
signs of an intentional or natural disease outbreak that could degrade
our military effectiveness if unrecognized. Naval Hospitals and clinics
are vital national security assets that are a cornerstone of both force
health protection and the National Disaster Medical System.
The Naval Medicine Office of Homeland Security, only in its second
year, continues to make great contributions to our Force Protection,
disaster preparedness, and homeland security missions, both here and
abroad. Naval Medicine continues to execute cutting edge initiatives to
ensure our hospitals and clinics around the world can continue to
provide care for all who depend upon us--even in the event of an attack
or disaster. Presently, we are executing an enterprise-wide program to
strengthen our effectiveness in responding to disaster. The Disaster
Preparedness, Vulnerability Analysis, Training and Exercise (DVATEX)
Program has been conducted at 24 of our 30 military treatment
facilities. It employs a comprehensive vulnerability analysis of all
hospital operations in a disaster or terrorist attack. DVATEX provides
emergency preparedness education thus far to over 5,000 Naval Medicine
personnel, and it has exercised hundreds of our people, alongside their
loyal civilian counterparts, to improve integration during an
emergency.
DOD is about to deploy a web-based training program that will be
used to educate physicians, nurses and other health care providers on
response to chemical and biological emergencies. Originally developed
for Navy use, the program has been adopted by the MHS and the Defense
Medical Readiness Training Institute is preparing it now for educating
personnel in all three Services.
NAVAL MEDICINE'S PEOPLE: A MANPOWER STATUS
Naval Medicine's most vital asset is its people. Attracting skilled
professionals and, perhaps more important, retaining them to take
advantage of their experience and enhanced skills, is one of Naval
Medicine's greatest challenges.
Naval Medicine strategies to recruit and retain the best people
include a multi-faceted and highly coordinated approach: The
professional and educational needs of our health care professionals
must be met to ensure they, at a minimum, are equal to their civilian
counterparts. Their work environment must be supportive of their
contributions and accommodating to their special needs, missions and
requirements, while continuously challenging them professionally.
Finally, their financial compensation must be sufficiently competitive
with their civilian counterparts for us to attract and retain the right
people.
We require our Naval Medicine professionals to have the same skills
and qualifications as their civilian counterparts, and also require of
them additional unique personal and professional challenges. A status
of Naval Medicine's people is below:
Medical Corps
At the beginning of fiscal year 2004, the Navy's Medical Corps was
manned at approximately 101.8 percent. Navy Medicine is working on
community management initiatives to ensure more of a balance between
specialties. The attrition rate for fiscal year 2003 was 9.2 percent,
with the three-year average rate at 8.9 percent. Attrition is expected
to be higher in fiscal year 2004, due to the number of requests for
resignation and retirement that have already been received. High
operational tempo and longer deployment durations have been cited as
major reasons for this increase.
Despite success at manning and retaining skilled professionals at
the Medical Corps' top line, several critical specialty areas remain
undermanned. These specialties are: Anesthesia (85 percent), Cardiology
(57 percent), Pulmonary/Critical Care (76 percent), Gastroenterology
(79 percent), General Surgery (88 percent), Infectious Disease (89
percent); Pathology (85 percent), Urology (85 percent), and Radiology
(75 percent). Not surprisingly, surgical specialists,
anesthesiologists, cardiologists, gastroenterologists, and radiologists
continue to be the most difficult to recruit and retain because of the
high salaries offered in civilian practices.
Medical Special Pays
To be competitive in a marketplace with a limited number of
qualified applicants and retain them once they have chosen Naval
Medicine, adequate compensation is critical. The civilian-military pay
gap has increased steadily, which makes it difficult to recruit and
retain physicians in high demand specialties.
Dental Corps
At the close of fiscal year 2003, the Navy Dental Corps was manned
at 91 percent. Despite aggressive efforts to improve Dental Corps
recruitment and retention, the annual loss rate between fiscal year
1997 and fiscal year 2003 increased from 8.3 percent to 11.7 percent.
In addition, declining junior officer retention rates has negatively
impacted applications for residency training programs, which have
dropped 18 percent over the last five years. The civilian-military pay
gap and the high debt load of our junior officers are the primary
reasons given by Dental Corps officers leaving the Navy.
Nurse Corps
At the close of fiscal year 2003, the Navy Nurse Corps was manned
at just under 98 percent. The nursing shortage nation-wide has made the
Navy's competition for recruiting and retaining skilled nurses a
challenge. It has been further challenged by the Nurse Reinvestment
Act, which offered loan repayment and sign-on bonuses to nurses in the
civilian sector. Naval Medicine continues to meet military and civilian
recruiting goals and nursing requirements by using a broad range of
accession sources, pay incentives, graduate education and training
programs, and retention initiatives that include such quality of life
and practice opportunities as leadership challenges, operational
experiences, promotion opportunities, and diversity in assignments with
job security. The Nurse Accession Bonus, Certified Nurse Anesthetist
(CNRA) Incentive Pay, Board Certification Pay, and Special Hire
Authority are all initiatives that are critical in supporting Naval
Medicine's success in meeting its nursing wartime and peacetime
missions.
Medical Service Corps
Medical Service Corps manning at the beginning of fiscal year 2004
was 95.6 percent. The loss rate increased from 6.8 percent in fiscal
year 2002 to 7.2 percent in fiscal year 2003. Loss rates vary
significantly between specialties and certain specialties continue to
have either shortages or experience gaps caused by low continuation
rates at the junior officer pay grades. The potential effects of
successive military deployments and the military to civilian billet
conversions on retention and recruiting are being monitored closely.
The majority of Medical Service Corps officers enter military
service directly from the private sector and have funded their own
professional education. Many Medical Service Corps officers incur
significant educational debt prior to commissioning and active Naval
service. Additionally, there is an increasing number of doctoral and
masters level educational requirements for certain healthcare
professions with the increase in qualifying degree requirements,
further exacerbating the educational debt load of our newest officers.
Biochemists, microbiologists, entomologists, environmental health
officers, radiation health officers and industrial hygiene officers are
integral members of Chemical, Biological, Radiation, Nuclear &
Environmental (CBRN&E), homeland security, and operational readiness
requirements and initiatives. With their strong educational background,
significant work experience and security clearances, these officers are
prime recruiting targets for civilian enterprises working in parallel
with Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security
missions.
Hospital Corps/Dental Technicians
The Hospital Corps manning at the end of fiscal year 2003 was 94
percent. Like the Medical and Dental Corps, some specialty areas,
identified by their Navy Enlisted Classifications (NEC) struggle to
remain manned above 75 percent. In the operational forces, the Marine
Corps reconnaissance Hospital Corpsman specialty is currently manned at
44 percent. In Naval Military Treatment Facilities, cardio-pulmonary
technicians are manned at 72 percent, bio-medical repair technicians at
72 percent, morticians at 56 percent, respiratory technicians at 73
percent, and basic SEAL hospital corpsman at 70 percent of authorized
levels. Manning for the Dental Technician rate is at 95 percent of
authorized levels.
Initiatives to ensure consistent manning levels, as well as to
bolster undermanned NECs, include the Navy's Perform to Serve program,
which allows sailors in other rates to transfer or ``cross-rate'' into
the Navy Hospital Corps and acquire NECs in critically undermanned
areas. A current initiative to merge the Hospital Corpsman and Dental
Technician rates into a single rate may help bolster NECs with poor
manning levels.
Rightsizing the Force
Navy Medicine is converting 1,772 non-readiness military manpower
positions (billets) to civilian/contract positions in fiscal year 2005.
All of these positions are at CONUS MTFs or DTFs. OCONUS and
operational commands are unaffected.
The final determination of which billets will be converted has not
occurred yet. The draft list of the 1,772 billets under consideration
was identified from a larger list of approximately 5,400 over Total
Health Care Support Readiness Requirement (THCSRR) billets that Naval
Medicine has been studying. Our manpower and resource management
experts are working closely with representatives from the Medical,
Dental, Medical Service, Nurse and Hospital Corps Chiefs/Director's
Offices, and the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA). Factors to determine
the final 1,772 positions include readiness impact based on emerging
threats, community manning levels, the cost of conversion, and skill
availability in the market place.
This initiative is very much in line with Navy's fiscal year 2004
human resource philosophy, which includes maximizing civilian and
contract personnel for non-military essential (non-readiness)
positions. The conversion of these positions will help alleviate the
stress on the operating forces and ensure that military personnel are
used to perform tasks that are military essential.
NAVAL MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND
I am pleased to report to the Committee that the Naval Medicine
Education and Training Command, or NMETC, has successfully progressed
as the central source of learning for all Naval Medical personnel. The
five learning centers comprising NMETC are co-located with the Fleet on
the east, west and southern coasts along with basic recruit training in
Great Lakes, Illinois and Naval Headquarters here in Washington.
NMETC has established itself as the Learning Center for Force
Health Protection and is in precise alignment with Navy's Sea Warrior
program. It has demonstrated being on par with the line Navy in
implementing the Chief of Naval Operations' Revolution in Training by
way of the 5 Vector model which when fully operational, will show
sailors what they need to learn, how to access that learning and
provide a career road map, which tracks their learning and promotion
potential. The Naval Medical Department has increasing numbers of
subscribers to the new web-based Navy Knowledge Online or NKO, and is
utilizing the growing number of NMETC developed courses to enhance
their learning. They are also rapidly beginning to share and manage
their knowledge in an environment of community practice--all in one
place, in real-time, in NKO. By increasing our partnership with
civilian academe, we've exploited its skills and knowledge to enhance
the learning of our Sailors by exposing them to newer ways of thinking
and state of the art technologies.
NMETC has established a Naval Reserve medical liaison that provides
input concerning the rapidly evolving requirements of the Naval Reserve
and thus utilizes our Reserve partners in ONE Naval Medical education
and training service.
Our ``A'' School, the Naval Hospital Corps School, is in the lead
to see that our young Sailors, both in Active and Reserve components,
are economically and efficiently trained. This is demonstrated by an
improved technology-based program to train Hospital Corpsmen in a
blended learning environment available both in the classroom, and non-
traditional settings. Our instructors are highly trained and many come
directly from the operational arena.
The Naval Schools of Health Sciences in Portsmouth and San Diego
integrate the precepts of Force Health Protection into every aspect of
the training and educational curricula and programs. The Commanding
Officers personally lead this effort through military training,
leadership and physical fitness. Their mission, to support readiness
through leadership in advanced medical training, is designed to meet
the needs of military medicine in conflict and in peace. It is the
cornerstone for all facets of each training program. All courses
include learning modules directed towards the protection and self-
treatment of that sailor and other casualties resulting from weapons of
mass destruction. Many of our instructors are fresh from the Fleet and
the Fleet Marine Force, and bring enormous operational experience to
new students in the classroom. We have incorporated experiences from
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom into various
training programs such as the Joint Special Operations Medical Training
Center at Fort Bragg, which teaches trauma and emergency care skills to
corpsmen attached to SEAL Teams and reconnaissance units.
Projected training requirements for fiscal year 2005 through fiscal
year 2010 show an increase in the total numbers of personnel to be
trained as Independent Duty Corpsmen, Laboratory Technicians, Search
and Rescue and Preventive Medicine Technicians to support operational
readiness. We are committed to support and to participate with the
medical activities of our sister services by continuing our
relationships with other DOD training organizations that prepare
medical personnel for delivering care to the Fleet as well as in
integrated operational environments.
As a primary deliverer of skills sets for Sea Warrior, our schools
provide benchmark model training programs where students in
cardiovascular technician, nurse anesthesia, physician assistants,
preventive medicine technician, surgical technician, medical laboratory
and nuclear medicine technician exceed professional national
certification rates by as much as 30 percent thus, augmenting the Chief
of Naval Operations' ``Revolution in Training.''
The Naval Operational Medical Institute, or NOMI, with its
specialty detachments, is our dedicated operational training arm. It is
fully engaged in preparing line and medical personnel to learn and
implement survival and medical skills in hostile environments on land,
in the air and on the sea. Recently, NOMI developed a training program
and standards for Enroute Medical Care to personnel assigned to Marine
Corps units with field medical evacuation requirements.
Naval Medicine at NOMI now has a Center for Medical Lessons Learned
that provides feedback related to the operational environment. This
helps to refine and improve requirements for training both at NOMI, as
well as in our other training programs. The Medical Operational Lessons
Learned Center is a web-enabled system that has captured 31 lessons
learned to date from medical personnel who were forward deployed in
support of operations. The Center is a single point for data collection
and analysis of all Naval Medical observations and provides expeditious
feedback related to the operational environment in areas such as
readiness training, health services support delivery, logistics and
field medicine.
As our duty, and part of the continuum of care, the Mitchell Center
for Repatriated Prisoners of War performs approximately 450 extensive
evaluations per year on former POWs, their spouses and comparison
groups. The results of these studies have facilitated the minimization
of the development or worsening of post-traumatic stress disorder and
other physical and mental conditions among former prisoners of war.
NOMI is also is our service's lead on the Trauma Combat Casualty
Care Committee. Civilian trauma experts participate in this Triservice
Committee, which produces guidelines integrated into special operations
curriculum. These guidelines have also been published as a chapter on
military medicine in the most recent Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support
Manual. This manual is also being utilized by the civilian EMT-
paramedic community to enhance first responder training and
capabilities within police, fire, and rescue services.
In fiscal year 2003, our schoolhouses prepared 8,732 medical
department enlisted and officers to join the Fleet and Marine Corps
medical components and to staff our Military Treatment Facilities,
research commands and other support communities. Naval Medical
personnel are ready to deploy wherever and whenever the Naval Services
deploy, and much of the time are the only direct care providers in the
field and especially at sea.
In addition to preparing for the operational arena, our educational
programs include learning opportunities in healthcare management,
fiscal responsibility and efficient direct healthcare delivery. We are
ensuring Force Health Protection by producing highly qualified,
technically competent personnel to directly support the Navy and Marine
Corps in any mission the Commander in Chief calls upon them to carry
out.
UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES
As the Executive Agent for the Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences (USUHS) and a member of the Board of Regents, I am
pleased to announce that the University recently received a ten-year
accreditation with commendation from the Middle States Commission on
Higher Education. This is a noteworthy accomplishment and it reflects
well on the successful, on-going commitment of the University to
provide the highest levels of professional health care education for
our Nation's Military Health System (MHS).
The quality of the USUHS alumni ensures that the intent of the
establishing legislation, The Uniformed Services Health Professions
Revitalization Act of 1972, is being realized. The military unique
curricula and programs of USUHS, successfully grounded in a multi-
Service environment, draw upon lessons learned during past and present
day combat and casualty care. USUHS alumni, 3,421 physicians, 200-
advanced practice nurses and 798 scientists, have become an invaluable
and cost-effective source of career-oriented, dedicated uniformed
officers. Our University graduates volunteer in large numbers for
deployment or humanitarian missions; they serve proficiently in desert
tents, aboard The Hospital Ship COMFORT, and during air evacuations.
USUHS graduates embody the University's mission-driven goal of Learning
to Care for Those in Harm's Way; they are equal to their sacred mission
of providing care to our Nation's most precious resource--the men and
women who serve in the Armed Forces.
I would also like to take a moment to recognize the USUHS
President, James A. Zimble, M.D., VADM, USN (retired), and 30th Surgeon
General of the Navy, who has successfully guided our University for the
past thirteen years. Dr. Zimble served our Nation for over 40 years,
will retire in August of 2004. Under his leadership, the University has
become the Academic Center for the Military Health System; during his
tenure, the University has achieved peer recognition, on-going
accreditation with commendation from 14 accrediting entities, and the
Joint Meritorious Unit Award from the Secretary of Defense. He is a
public servant who has unselfishly dedicated the better part of his
life to Caring for Those Who Serve in Harm's Way. I wish him the very
best in his well-deserved retirement. He will be greatly missed.
HEALTH CARE DELIVERY
Naval Medicine continually examines our methods of delivering
services to ensure that they are the best value for Naval Medicine, the
MHS and our beneficiaries. We focus on increasing our efficiencies, but
will never compromise clinical quality, access to care, customer
satisfaction or staff quality of life to achieve that goal.
This year the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) developed a
business planning model that combined standard business planning
methodology with an automated business planning tool. This new process
requires all activities in Naval Medicine to develop, submit, and
monitor a comprehensive annual business plan that is integrated with
their existing financial plan. This methodology takes into account the
changes in our financing due to the TRICARE for Life program, the
prospective payment system and the TRICARE Next Generation contracts.
The automated tool takes information from seven different data sources
to help local commands and headquarters personnel identify variations
in cost and productivity for the same services between MTFs. It also
helps identify high cost, low productivity services provided at local
MTFs. We are providing specialized training to the senior leaders in
our MTFs, to ensure that their business plans optimally represent the
size and diversity of services provided at their facilities. Our goal
is to reduce the variation in cost and productivity between our MTFs,
driving out inefficiencies that will result in increased cost savings,
patient satisfaction and quality of medical care rendered.
``Family-Centered Care'' is one of the initiatives we have
undertaken to provide best value for our beneficiaries. Family-Centered
Care initiatives are intended not only to increase patient satisfaction
and improve the delivery of care; they are intended to create
partnerships between providers, patients, and their families by
empowering patient's families to become active in the care plan. In the
military, the definition of family must be expanded to include both
immediate and extended family members as well as friends and the social
support network of both single service members and spouses of deployed
service members. Single service members create virtual families'
through a social network within and outside their units. Family-
centered care must incorporate this non-traditional type of family
support in the delivery of care. By partnering with patients and their
families, we can retain them in the direct health care system. This
will enable Naval Medicine to provide families with the tools to
develop and maintain healthy habits throughout their lives.
Our first Family-Centered Care initiative includes significant
improvements to perinatal services in order to integrate our young
Sailors and Marines into our health care system during the time in
which they are starting their families. Our MTFs have implemented
numerous initiatives to provide increased quality of service for
expectant women and their families. These initiatives include:
increased continuity with providers through prenatal visits with small
care teams or individual providers; encouraging our providers to work
with patients to create a birth plan for their deliveries; providing
private post-partum rooms where possible; providing 24/7 breastfeeding
support; DEERS enrollment by the bedside; and establishing a system to
provide seamless transfer of care between MTFs during permanent change
of station moves for expectant women. These initiatives have been
successful in encouraging our patients to choose to deliver their
babies in our MTFs despite the fact that they now have the choice to
seek perinatal care in the civilian community.
In fiscal year 2003, Naval Medicine embarked on a global Case
Management Program (CMP) in Navy MTFs. This program provided contract
registered nurses and social workers to assist in the coordination of
care for patients with complex illnesses or serious injuries. These
professionals work with all disciplines within a medical treatment
facility and within the TRICARE network to ensure that patients have a
seamless transition in healthcare services, receive the proper referral
to needed services and reduce the incidence of duplicate or unnecessary
services. This program reduced health care costs, increased patient
satisfaction and ensured high quality care for our beneficiaries.
Naval Medicine initiated a third Radiology Residency Program at the
Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, VA. This proactively addressed
staffing issues in the most critically understaffed and expensive
medical specialty in the Navy, immediately improving access to imaging
services in the short-term while providing long-term specialty
availability.
We have also invested in Pharmacy Automation Equipment at selected
treatment facilities. This program leverages technology by using bar
code scanners and computers to continuously track and monitor
medication administered to our inpatients. This equipment greatly
improves the safety of our patients by reducing the probability of
unintended medication errors.
We continue to fund new pilot projects designed to increase our
effectiveness in providing healthcare services. With our new business
planning tool, we will be able to quickly identify those projects that
successfully increase productivity and share those improvements in all
of the MTFs throughout Naval Medicine. It is our intent to continuously
improve our patient care delivery systems to ensure the best health
care for our beneficiaries.
Patient safety is a top priority for Naval Medicine. Every MTF has
a minimum of one full time staff member dedicated to coordinating
command-wide patient safety initiatives. All of our MTFs participate in
the MEDMARX system for medication error reporting that groups
medication error events and near misses into five process nodes,
allowing MTF staff to evaluate process changes that will increase the
safety of medication administration. Naval Medicine also uses a
standardized root cause analysis methodology that is used by both local
MTF and headquarters staff to track and analyze trends in patient care
systems that affect patient safety. All of our MTFs are required to
submit monthly patient safety scores and receive a monthly Safety
Assessment Score. These scores are used to assess overall MTF
performance and are monitored closely.
We maintain our high standards through rigorous reviews. Our
medical treatment facilities are reviewed by leading accreditation
agencies including the Joint Commission of the Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), Accreditation Council for Graduate
Medical Education; the College of American Pathologists and the
American Association of Blood Banks.
Naval Medicine has implemented through the JCAHO a major paradigm
shift in the accreditation process of our MTFs: ``Shared Vision-New
Pathways''. Shared Visions-New Pathways shifts the focus from survey
preparation to continuous improvement of operational systems that
directly impact the quality and safety of patient care. It is intended
to force standards based process integration across all functional
lines by using actual patient experience as a lever.
DOD/VA Resource Sharing and Coordination: Status on Implementation of
Presidential Task Force Recommendation
Naval Medicine continues to support ongoing efforts implementing
the Presidential Task Force recommendations to pursue sharing
collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs specifically to
optimize the use of federal health care resources. I believe our
progress is one of our success stories. Site-specific sharing
initiatives, including in the key geographical areas as directed by the
fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Acts, are
occurring and continue to be developed.
Naval Medicine currently has 54 medical agreements, 34 Reserve
agreements, 24 Military Medical Support Office agreements, and 13 non-
medical agreements with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Naval
Medicine has also partnered with the Department of Veterans Affairs on
five medical facilities construction projects. These are:
--1. Naval Hospital Pensacola FL.--This joint venture outpatient
facility will be built on Navy property, and the VA will fund
the project, and provide Naval Medicine with 32,000 square
feet. This will be a replacement facility for Naval Medicine's
aging Corry Station Clinic. Navy and VA have agreed on a site
and negotiations continue on the amount of land to be allocated
for construction and how services will be integrated to best
serve both DOD beneficiaries and Veterans.
--2. Naval Hospital Great Lakes, IL.--A fiscal year 2007 construction
start has been proposed to build a separate Navy/VA Ambulatory
Care Clinic on the grounds of the North Chicago Veterans
Affairs Medical Center. Full integration planning has begun,
with facility and site analysis to follow. The North Chicago
VAMC is now providing emergency and inpatient services to Navy
beneficiaries. Additionally, the North Chicago Veterans Affairs
Medical Center will be available to the Navy for specified
services with the Department of Veterans Affairs funding
modifications of its surgical suites and urgent care
facilities.
--3. Naval Hospital Beaufort, SC.--A tentative fiscal year 2011
construction start has been planned for a replacement hospital.
The Department of Veterans Affairs currently operates a small
clinic within the existing hospital, and is expected to be a
partner in developing the replacement facility.
--4. Naval Ambulatory Care Clinic Charleston, SC.--A fiscal year 2005
construction start has been planned for a replacement clinic
aboard Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Charleston. Navy has offered
the Department of Veterans Affairs the options of an adjacent
site onboard NWS or the take-over of the existing NWS clinic.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is studying these options
with a final decision to be made in the future.
--5. U.S. Naval Hospital Guam.--A fiscal year 2008 construction start
is planned for replacement of the current hospital. The Navy
has offered the Department of Veterans Affairs a site for
nearby freestanding community-based outpatient clinic. It's
proposed that the Department of Veterans Affairs will fund the
clinic, roads and parking, and will continue to utilize Navy
ancillary/specialty care.
Other examples of partnerships that show the depth and variety of
our collaboration include the development of uniform clinical practice
guidelines for tobacco use and diabetes last year, and development of
hypertension and low back pain guidelines scheduled for 2004. Asthma
guidelines are projected for revision in 2005.
In the works is a VA/DOD agreement that would permit the use of
North Chicago VA Medical Center spaces to establish a center to
manufacture blood products in exchange for the use of these blood
products. This agreement would alleviate the necessity for Naval
Medicine construction costs for a new center at Naval Hospital Great
Lakes. An agreement between the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery and the
Department of Veterans Affairs headquarters to share each other's
``lessons learned'' databases is presently being developed.
Aggressive investigation of other mutually advantageous resource
sharing possibilities is on-going at all Naval Medicine facilities with
the focus of providing of our beneficiary populations--military and
veterans, the outstanding healthcare they deserve.
DEFENSE HEALTH BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
One of Naval Medicine's greatest accomplishments is meeting the
healthcare needs of all its beneficiaries--active duty, retiree, family
members and eligible survivors. Nation-wide, healthcare costs are now
increasing at the fastest rate in the last decade. Healthcare inflation
continues to exceed inflation in other sectors of the economy.
Utilization of healthcare services continues to increase as technology
advances results in effective new--albeit sometimes costly--treatments
and longer life spans.
In addition, as the news of TRICARE's quality and effectiveness
spreads, and as the costs of other insurance programs rises, more
retirees under 65 are dropping other health insurance and relying on
TRICARE. From the trends of the past few fiscal years, it's estimated
that in fiscal year 2004 there will be a 5.2 percent increase in this
population.
DOD has ongoing programs that help control health care cost
increases, such as building cost control incentives to managed care
support contracts and competitively awarding these contracts for best
value, and ensuring the pharmaceuticals delivered in our Military
Treatment Facilities and through the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy
Program are procured through using discounted federal government
pricing. DOD and Naval Medicine management programs have also been
utilized to ensure that healthcare provided to beneficiaries is
reviewed for clinical necessity and appropriateness.
Naval Medicine has worked hard to get the best value from every
dollar Congress has provided, but your assistance is needed to restore
the flexibility to manage funds across activity groups. Fencing sector
funds prevents transfer of funds from MTFs to the private sector, but
also prevents transfer of private sector funds to the MTFs. This
fencing prevents funding MTFs to increase their productivity without
the burden of prior approval reprogramming, which can take anywhere
from three to six months. The T-NEX contract, with its incentive to
move care into MTFs, makes having this flexibility all the more vital.
Two-way flexibility between the private sector care and direct care
accounts is necessary for revised financing to function successfully.
The Navy appreciates the congressional intent to protect direct care
funding, but we recommend that the fiscal year 2005 Defense
Appropriations Act language remove the separate appropriation for
Private Sector Care to allow the flexibility to move funds to wherever
care is delivered without a Prior Approval reprogramming.
TRANSITION TO THE NEXT GENERATION OF TRICARE CONTRACTS
TRICARE Next Generation has provided sweeping improvements in its
provision of TRICARE Benefits under contracting initiated this fiscal
year. While there will be no significant benefit changes, it simplifies
the old contracts, and provides performance incentives and guarantees.
It also distinguishes health plan management, which includes such
activities as financing, claims, payment rates, marketing, and benefit
design, from healthcare delivery. Some major elements of the old
TRICARE contracts have been sifted out into separate contracts to allow
companies with particular competencies in these contract areas provide
even better service and quality healthcare.
The most obvious change is the transition from 12 regions to three,
and enhancing leadership in each region by putting a Flag, General
Officer or SES as director. This is a significant step in transforming
TRICARE. These Regional directors have a key role in enhancing
participation of providers in TRICARE and in implementing the plan to
improve TRICARE Standard for those who choose to use it, and will also
be responsible for integration of military treatment facilities with
civilian networks, ensuring support to local commanders and overseeing
performance in the region. Rear Admiral James A. Johnson, Medical
Corps, is on board in the TRICARE West Region.
Medical commanders within these regions will also have an enlarged
role and additional responsibilities under the new contracts, with the
focus on accountability. Commanders will take on responsibilities
formerly managed by the TRICARE contractor, including patient
appointing, utilization management, use of civilian providers in
military hospitals, and other local services.
The transition to the new TRICARE contracts in TRICARE West is
going well, and all the services are working closely with TMA to make
the transition phase as seamless as possible for our patients.
CLOSURE OF U.S. NAVAL HOSPITAL ROOSEVELT ROADS, PUERTO RICO
On February 12, 2004, U.S. Naval Hospital Roosevelt Roads, Puerto
Rico officially closed its doors to patient care, ending more than 47
years of healthcare service to Department of Defense beneficiaries. The
last time a Naval Hospital closed was almost nine years ago when Naval
Hospital Long Beach closed as a result of the Base Realignment and
Closure.
E-HEALTH
Naval Medicine continues to be on the forefront of technology with
the development of Naval Medicine Online (NMO). This website allows one
tool for all of Naval Medicine to obtain and access information from
anywhere around the world. This technology will be the key to knowledge
sharing throughout Naval Medicine as an enterprise, allowing the right
information to be obtained by the right people at the right time--
whenever and wherever it is needed.
NMO contains knowledge tools including File Cabinet that allows
individuals to share documents and other electronic files; protected
chat rooms that will allow users to have secure communications with
patients or other Naval Medicine personnel and news services that
provide information of relevance to the Naval Medical community.
A key new function of NMO is the developer whiteboard. This tool
allows Naval Medicine to leverage the brainpower of our workforce by
placing software code in a secure area and allowing members of Naval
Medicine to modify the code, making improvements useful to Naval
Medicine. NMO also has online video teleconference capabilities and
allows Naval Medicine personnel access to the Department of Veterans
Affairs lessons learned database.
The Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) is a long-term initiative
between the Department of the Navy (DON) and the private sector to
deliver a single integrated and coherent department-wide network for
Navy and Marine Corps shore commands. Under NMCI, EDS and their
partners will provide comprehensive, end-to-end information services
for data, video and voice communications for DON military and civilian
personnel and deliver global connectivity to make our workforce more
efficient, more productive, and better able to support the critical war
fighting missions of the Navy and Marine Corps.
Naval Medicine is committed to transitioning to NMCI infrastructure
and services where feasible. The Naval Medicine--NMCI shared vision is
to create a single Navy and Marine Corps Enterprise-wide Network that
provides seamless access to and exchange of comprehensive healthcare
information throughout Naval Medicine and the Military Health System
Community of Interest.
The Naval Medicine--NMCI transition strategy incorporates four
parallel endeavors. They are:
--1. Transition of BUMED Headquarters into NMCI (800 Seats)
--2. Transition of non-clinical Naval Medical Department Commands
into NMCI (5,900 Seats)
--3. Completion of a Composite Health Care System Computer-based
Patient Record (CHCS II) NMCI Interoperability Beta Test at
Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA (72 Seats). The Military
Health System's (MHS) largest, and most critical, network-
centric information system, CHCS II forms the core of DOD's
computer-based patient record initiative, and as such, is and
will be broadly integrated across the enterprise at the center
of the MHS healthcare delivery mission. The Beta Test will
document infrastructure and network performance characteristics
to include: Interoperability, Accessibility, Continuity of
Business Operations, Quality of Service, Information Assurance,
and Clinical Provider Productivity.
--4. Transition of all clinical Navy Medical Department Commands into
NMCI (38,300 seats).
Naval Medicine is partnering with Electronic Data Systems (EDS),
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and Booz-Allen &
Hamilton (BAH) to complete the financial analysis of our transition
endeavors. We expect positive economies in transitioning to NMCI, which
include robust information security, email server consolidation,
network operations center consolidation, and uniform seat management
services across the Naval Medicine Enterprise.
MEDICAL RESEARCH
Naval Medicine also has a proud history of medical research
successes from our laboratories both here in the United States as well
as those located overseas. Our research achievements have been
published in professional journals, received patents and have been
sought by industry as partnering opportunities.
The quality and dedication of the Naval Medicine's biomedical
research and development 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 (tetanus 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
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.
Naval Medicine is developing new strategies for the treatment
radiation illness. Adult Stem Cell Research is making great strides in
addressing the medical needs of patients with radiation illness. The
Anthrax attack on the Congress and others reminded us of the threat of
weapons of mass destruction, to include 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, Naval Medicine 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.
In this same line of research, Naval 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. 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 2001 anthrax attacks, Navy scientists 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 and contributed significantly to
maintaining the functions of our government. The hand-held assays that
are used by the DOD were developed at Naval Medical Research Center
(NMRC). Currently NMRC produces hand-held assays for the detection of
20 different biological warfare agents. These assays are supplied to
the U.S. Secret Service, FBI, Navy Environmental Preventive Medicine
Units, U.S. Marine Corp, as well as various other clients.
Naval Medicine's overseas 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. 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
Army's 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.
Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is one of the most common
military disabilities with over 353,116 new cases reported in 2003
despite aggressive hearing conservation programs in the military.
Military related NIHL is very costly. When disability costs for
tinnitus and aircraft accidents related to communication problems are
included, costs for military related hearing loss may exceed $1 billion
annually. Additionally, NIHL may degrade warfighter performance,
mission accomplishment, and survivability. Today's hearing conservation
programs are based on fit and frequency dependent personal hearing
protection devices (HPDs), engineering solutions, and noise avoidance;
which are helpful but do not provide adequate protection around today's
noisier weapons systems. Accordingly the Navy has taken the lead in
research to elucidate the mechanisms underlying NIHL. The results have
lead to the development of a safe oral nutritional supplement that has
proven in laboratory settings to enhance resistance and healing to
inner ear damage from noise. The efficacy of these nutritional
supplements to prevent and treat NIHL is being studied in two joint
military-civilian clinical trials lead by the Naval Medical Center, San
Diego. If these trials succeed, we believe that a proven and effective
treatment and prevention strategy, when combined with hearing
conservation measures, could be dramatically reduced. A conservative
estimate based on the robustness of the biological response in
preclinical data suggests that a 50 percent reduction in hearing
related injury is possible.
NAVAL MEDICINE AND SEA POWER 21
Naval Medicine is totally committed to the Chief of Naval
Operations' transformational vision for projecting decisive joint
capabilities from the sea--Sea Power 21. Examples of transformation
abound throughout Naval Medicine where hard work identifying
efficiencies and cutting costs have resulted in opportunities to
support recapitalization. These include the ongoing efforts to reduce
variation in costs across our MTFs as well as among clinics within
MTFs. Optimization efforts focusing on maximizing the fixed
capabilities of our facilities to the greatest extent possible are
active, ongoing, and will continue into the future. Transformation is
not limited to shore facilities and includes remaking our fleet assets
such as the reconfiguration of forward medical assets from cold war era
fleet hospitals to the smaller, more agile and more flexible platforms
and units described earlier in my statement.
We are right sizing our active military force to the best mix of
active, and civilian or contract personnel to bring the right
capability to bear at the right time, and in alignment with the CNO's
vision. We have reconfigured and integrated our Naval Reserve
components to shape missions along with the active component, creating
one force, assuring the very best use of the skills and talent our
Reserve medical personnel bring to the mission. Further, Naval Medicine
is committed to the growth and development of our people through
investments in leadership that are directly in support of Sea Warrior
by ensuring the right skills are in the right place at the right time.
Naval Medicine will continue to seek aggressively opportunities to
pursue efficiencies that improve our primary mission of Force Health
Protection and do our part to return resources for recapitalization of
the Navy. We are affecting positive change throughout Naval Medicine,
embracing and implementing the CNO's vision for the Navy, and I am
confident that we are on the correct course for the challenges ahead.
CONCLUSION
Naval Medicine has been successful in accomplishing its mission
over the years, and with your support, the military benefit has become
one of the most respected healthcare programs in the world. We know
from Navy's quality of life surveys that among all enlisted personnel
and female officers, the number one reason these service members stay
Navy is the exceptional healthcare benefit.
You have allowed us to provide our service members, retirees and
family members a benefit that is worthy of their service, and clearly
articulates the thanks of a grateful nation for their selfless service.
With your support, 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.
In just a few short months, I will leave this office, and will
retire after serving more than 32 years in the United States Navy. I
wish to thank this committee for its support to Naval Medicine, and to
me during my time as the Navy's Surgeon General. It has been a
privilege to serve.
Senator Stevens. General Taylor, it is nice to welcome you
back.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL GEORGE PEACH TAYLOR,
JR., SURGEON GENERAL, UNITED STATES AIR
FORCE
General Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, it is a privilege and a pleasure to
be here today.
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
Much has happened since we met here 1 year ago when we had
just embarked on Operation Iraqi Freedom. A year later we have
found that most of our concepts were validated. Some require
more work, but most importantly the men and women of the Air
Force Medical Service have again served their country with
phenomenal talent, capability, and dedication. The lessons we
have learned in Afghanistan, Iraq, indeed, wherever we are
deployed, and even at home have helped us to hone our force
central capabilities, ensuring a fit and healthy force,
preventing illness and injuries, providing care to casualties,
and sustaining and enhancing human performance.
MEDICAL READINESS
We are doing many things to ensure our force is fit and
healthy before they deploy. Our preventive health assessments
and individual medical readiness program ensures that health
requirements and screenings have been met before deployment.
This program has been adopted DOD-wide and is clearly
responsible, in great part, for the 4 percent non-battle
disease injury rate in DOD that you have been hearing about,
the lowest in history.
POST-DEPLOYMENT HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
I would add that our post-deployment health assessments,
equally important, are going extremely well. Our Active and
Reserve component personnel have returned for deployments and
nearly 99 percent have completed these assessments with a
provider. Our people are coming back in better health because
of individual disease prevention efforts but also because of
the incredible deployment health surveillance program that all
three of us have fielded. From our preventive aerospace
medicine teams to our biological augmentation teams, we are
helping to protect the area of responsibility from biological
and environmental threats. We are using amazing technology such
as our rapid pathogen identification systems (RAPIDS) which can
determine the identity of pathogens in only a few hours. In the
future, we hope to reduce this time even further through new,
more advanced, indeed breakthrough genome-based technologies.
We have shared with you over the past few years our success
in our light, lean, and mobile expeditionary medical system,
known as EMEDS, but before we left for Iraq a year ago, we
realized EMEDS did not have the protection we needed for
chemical weapons. Within 30 days, Air Force medics developed a
mature nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) treatment module
that could care for 100 radiologic, biologic, or chemical
casualties. This is the level of ingenuity we have in our armed
forces in all the services.
Your staff had the opportunity to view other technical
marvels that are saving lives in the battlefield like the
laptop size ultrasound machine, the ventilator that is the size
of a football, a complete surgical package that fits in a
backpack.
AEROMEDICAL EVACUATION
Aeromedical evacuation continues to be the lynch pin in our
deployed medical operations. In addition to the critical care
air transport teams you have heard about, we continue to field
patient support pallets that allow us to use all available
airlift and have added an aeromedical evacuation center to our
air operations center to allow smooth integration with all DOD
and, indeed, allied air operations in the theater.
From our perspective, the story of Private Jessica Lynch's
rescue is an excellent example of the near seamless integration
of the Air Force and our sister services. Following her rescue
from an Iraqi hospital, Army medics, Air Force aeromedical
evacuation troops, and special operations members transported
her thousands of miles using three different aircraft and
provided care in the air during her entire journey until she
reached the safety of an Army hospital in Landstuhl, Germany,
all accomplished in less than 15 hours. And this same scenario
has repeatedly saved the lives of many other, less famous, but
equally courageous young heroes.
Together the three of us partner closely to see that health
care from the foxhole to home station is seamless. Indeed, I
would tell you that this is a case study in the application of
the joint capabilities, the best of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force, to meet our Nation's needs.
COMBAT MEDICINE
Combat medicine is an ever-evolving art, and we cannot
afford to coast for one minute on these successes. We recognize
the critical value of developing new and better technology and
enhancing human performance. Our human performance initiatives
cross the spectrum from battling combat fatigue, to enhancing
vision through corneal refractive surgery, to creating systems
that will protect our pilots and our aircraft sensors from
laser damage. While all these exciting high-tech programs are
taking place, we are also quietly caring for our members and
their families back home.
TRICARE
We anticipate the promising next generation TRICARE
contracts to be a smarter way of doing business as revised
financing methodology is fielded throughout all U.S. based
military health treatment facilities. We are working hard with
health affairs and the Congress to ensure that our incentives
and our accountability are properly aligned for this increased
and more flexible local responsibility for patient care funds.
While we prepare for next generation TRICARE and for the
enhancement of relationships with the civilian community and
our partners in the Department of Veterans Affairs, we are
always aware of the direct connection between this peacetime
health care and the readiness of our troops.
The Air Force Medical Service has answered the call and
will continue to do so. We will work to resolve tough issues
from the fiscal hurdles to challenges of recruiting and
retention. And wherever we go to perform our mission, you can
see the results of your support to the troops, and we thank you
for this dedication.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Finally, as the last witness and anecdotally, scarily I am
going to be moving to the right-hand side of the table here
this next year, I would like to take a moment to focus on my
two comrades in arms. Jim Peake and Mike Cowan are two of the
finest Americans I have had the pleasure to meet. There are
really no finer examples of the American medic than these two
gentlemen to my right. They dedicated the heart of their adult
lives to the men and women in harm's way. We will miss them,
and our Air Force wishes them godspeed and fair tail winds.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General (Dr.) George Peach Taylor, Jr.
Mister Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to
be here. When we last met, I described how our transformation efforts
were saving lives during combat operations in support of the war
against terrorism. The week before my testimony, we had just begun
combat operations in Iraq. Now, a year later, major combat in Iraq has
ended, but the mission and danger continue. Although many of my
comments here today address the Air Force Medical Service's
contribution to combat operations, I assure you that the care we
provide to families and retirees is still of great importance. It
continues to improve even as we are engaged in operations around the
globe.
And, of course, we truly are engaged around the globe. Like our
sister services, every step in our transformation is to advance our
ability to operate worldwide with lightning speed. This is reflected in
the Air Force's six Concepts of Operation, or CONOPS. CONOPS are a
statement of our desired end result, or effect, that the Air Force
brings to the battle. The first three are Global Mobility, Global
Strike, and Global Response. The others are Nuclear Response, Homeland
Security and finally Space and Command, Control, Communications,
Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. That's a
mouthful, so we refer to it as Space-C\4\ISR. The medics provide
fundamental support to all six.
Global Mobility, Strike, and Response CONOPS require the AFMS to
provide medical care anywhere at any time to support humanitarian and
warfighting operations. This demands that our medics travel fast and
far, so they pack light, very light. Some of our Expeditionary Medical
System medics travel with just a 70-pound pack. One small 5-person team
carries enough to perform 10 life-saving surgeries in the field under
battle conditions. And our aeromedical evacuation capabilities permit
us to quickly fly into hostile environments, pluck injured members from
the field, and fly out, often providing critical care in flight.
The Air Force's Nuclear Response CONOPS provides a deterrent
umbrella under which our conventional forces operate. Medics support
this CONOP by ensuring that commanders can rely on the medical and
psychological health of the human element of the nuclear force. We also
develop plans for the care of casualties and refugees in a radiological
event of a terrorist or national origin. We assess health hazards and
provide recommendations to protect responding personnel or our
combatants within any hazardous zone.
The Homeland Security CONOPS recognizes that if someone attacks our
homeland again, Air Force medical personal will be an invaluable asset
bringing a wealth of manpower and expertise to the crisis. In such a
contingency, our base clinics and hospitals become part of the local
health care disaster network. They offer their ability to help local
authorities detect and identify chemical, biological, and nuclear
weapons, and we aid in the treatment of those exposed to them.
The final CONOPS, Space-C\4\ISR, serves to integrate the other
five. Simply put, it is the network of intelligence, sensors,
satellites, and communications that allow us to orchestrate our forces
worldwide. Every unit and every function of the Air Force is tied into
this capability. Each contributes information to it and uses
information from it. Air Force medics use this capability to monitor
health threats worldwide, to coordinate care from combat to CONUS, and
to maintain visibility of our patients no matter where they are within
the joint medical system.
We have now been in Iraq over a year. The AFMS has used this time
to review its performance there through a Capabilities Review and Risk
Assessment--a process that drives a hard look at our performance--from
this process we learn what we did right; and what we can do better.
These lessons learned help to hone our four central AFMS capabilities
of: Ensuring a fit and healthy force; preventing illness and injuries;
providing care to casualties; and enhancing human performance.
Ensuring a Fit and Healthy Force
The first capability we provide the Air Force is that of ensuring a
fit and healthy force. Unhealthy troops cannot deploy. A commander who
is short of troops cannot fight; cannot win. We keep troops healthy so
commanders can do both.
While providing a fit and healthy force is ultimately every
commander's responsibility, the AFMS plays a critical role in defining
what is fit, what is healthy . . . how do we get them that way, how do
we keep them that way.
Once recent step is the implementation of the Air Force Chief of
Staff's revised fitness program--a significant change in fitness
standards and how we monitor them. The program is now based upon push-
ups, sit-ups, and a mile-and-a-half run. To this we add body
composition measurements and a strong focus on unit exercise programs.
This model includes the Guard and Reserve who must meet the same
standards as their active duty counterparts.
The program is only a couple months old, but we know airmen accept
and appreciate it. They must like it--I find it much harder lately to
find an open weight bench at the gym, so I know first-hand that our
troops are enthused about the program.
Fitness results will be available on the Air Force's secure web to
commanders and leadership, allowing them to know in near real-time what
percentage of our troops are fit to fight.
Of course, our dedication to health goes far beyond a yearly
fitness test. We employ a life-cycle approach to care. We surround
troops with continual health monitoring and evaluations from the day
recruits first put on an Air Force uniform, during every visit to the
in-garrison or expeditionary clinic or hospital throughout their
career, and especially during their transition to veteran status. We
honor our commitment to our retirees; we are there.
An important tool of ensuring a fit and healthy force has been our
Preventive Health Assessment program. It ensures that at least once a
year, every Airman has an assessment for changes in his or her health
and for needed health screening or immunizations, and has the
opportunity for a medical exam, if needed.
Additionally, preventive health assessments are provided before
members deploy and immediately upon their return. Such screenings were
an interest item for both the DOD and Congress last year. We are
pleased to report our success. For the 61,000 Air Force personnel
deployed from March 1 through December 31, 2003, 99 percent completed
their post-deployment health assessment--which included a face-to-face
appointment with a medic and 97 percent had serum samples collected for
submission to DOD repository.
The medical information from all screenings and appointments is
captured in an innovative information system called the Preventive
Health Assessment and Individual Medical Readiness program, or PIMR.
PIMR data, like that of our new fitness program, are available on the
web to Air Force leadership worldwide.
The next version of the Composite Health Care System--CHCS II--is
another computer information system that will provide significant
benefit to the AFMS as well as the entire DOD health care. Even in its
current decade-old form CHCS is an amazing system. It captures every
visit, prescription, lab result, and procedure provided to every
patient.
We first deployed CHCS in the late 1980s when computer screens were
black and white and a mouse on your desk was cause for alarm. The
upgraded CHCS II will have the look and feel of a web site. It will
also be faster and easier to learn. More importantly, CHCS II will
interface with the numerous other programs that have come on line since
it was first introduced. CHCS II marches us down the path toward an
electronic medical record that will solve many problems for us,
including that of lost or fragmented medical records. Additionally,
CHCS II will be deployable, so it will be the same program used in the
field and at home.
CHCS II, like its predecessor, will be deployed worldwide, accessed
by thousands of users simultaneously, and contain the patient records
of up to 8.8 million eligible beneficiaries. It is the largest health
information system in the world--and an invaluable tool in keeping our
troops--and their families--healthy.
Once we have assured that only fit healthy troops are sent to the
area of operations, we take great effort to ensure they stay that way.
This falls to our next capability, that of preventing casualties.
Preventing Casualties
We are experiencing unparalleled success in the prevention of
illness and injury during Operation Iraqi Freedom. A telling example of
this success is our low Disease Non-Battle Injury Rate--we call it the
``D-N-B-I rate'' for short. The DNBI rate describes the percentage of
troops who become sick or hurt from things other than enemy activity;
things like dental problems, car accidents, the flu, broken bones,
etcetera.
Historically, more troops are removed from battle because of
accidents or illnesses than from enemy fire. In Operation Desert Storm,
the DNBI rate was about 6 percent. During the current Iraqi conflict,
only 4 percent (DOD rate) of illnesses and injuries were non-combat
related. This is the lowest DNBI rate in history. We seek ways to make
it lower yet. One of our doctors in Iraq jokingly suggested that if we
were to cancel intramural basketball games in theater we could
eliminate many sprained ankles and drop that DNBI rate another percent.
The important point is that we continue to address all the challenges--
including sports injuries--that reduce our combatant capabilities.
Much credit for the low DNBI goes to the preventive health
assessments and pre-deployment screenings I mentioned. These allow us
to identify personnel with pre-existing or uncontrolled medical
problems; conditions that would worsen under the stress of deployment.
These folks--if allowed to deploy--are a huge source of DNBI. By
pulling them out of the deployment line and caring for them back home
in-garrison, we not only decrease the DNBI rate, we also ensure these
members get the health care they need to make them worldwide-qualified
in the future.
The Deployment Health Surveillance program is another critical
piece of preventing casualties. Before airmen arrive in large numbers
to establish a base in foreign territory, a special team of medics--
called the Preventive Aerospace Medicine, or PAM team--has already been
there. They have surveyed the environment for biological and
environmental threats, and have stood up surveillance equipment to
detect and identify such threats.
When it comes to total ``battlespace awareness,'' PAMs and another
EMEDS team called the Biological Augmentation Team, or BAT team, are
invaluable. These teams take on the same importance as the radar,
intelligence, and security specialists whose mission it is to detect,
identify, and deter enemy attacks. In the same manner that a radar
operator surveys the skies for threats, our medics survey the
environment with equipment to detect chemical, biological, radiological
or nuclear--CBRN--threats. In combat, speed counts. That radar operator
must detect the presence of an airborne object and then quickly
identify it--friend or foe. The sooner that operator can do both, the
faster we can react--the safer our people are. In the same way, our
teams and their equipment act quickly to detect, identify, and counter
CBRN threats.
For example, it used to take up to a week to detect and confirm the
presence of dangerous biological and chemical weapons--too long.
Imagine a biological agent loose in one of our bases in Iraq for a week
before we were able to identify and contain it. Even the most
conservative estimates predict that 30 percent of our troops would
become seriously ill or worse.
With RAPIDS technology, we eliminate the deadly delay between the
time a pathogen is released and when we become aware of its presence.
The aptly named RAPIDS stands for the Rapid Pathogen Identification
Systems; a fielded and proven system that can determine the identity of
pathogens within a few hours; much better than 4 to 7 days it used to
take. Using new genome-based technologies, we hope to reduce the time
even further.
Another tool in the Air Force Medical Service toolbox is the Global
Expeditionary Medical System, or GEMS. This rugged, laptop-based system
serves as a deployable, electronic medical record for every patient
encounter in the combat zone. To date, it has logged nearly 107,000
patient encounters in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it does more than that.
It also tracks chemical, physical, and radiological hazards and even
tracks the results of food inspections and living conditions in the
field. GEMS provides commanders a theater-wide overview of the health
of their forces. Its sophisticated epidemiology tracking features allow
it to identify potential disease outbreaks very early in the courts of
outbreaks or a chemical or biological attack.
I have described systems and processes we have in place that ensure
oversight of our airmen's health before they deploy, while they are in
the field and even after they return. But we must remember that combat
is inherently dangerous. In spite of our best efforts to prevent it,
some of our troops will fall ill, and some will be wounded. Thus the
critical need for our third capability; that of restoring the health of
the sick or injured--casualty care.
Casualty Care
We have completed the conversion of our large-footprint field
medical facilities into small, rapidly deployable Expeditionary Medical
System--or EMEDS--units. Our performance in Iraq validates that the
EMEDS concept works. It saves lives.
These units can be found throughout the area of operations. They
often provide care from the point of injury, at tented facilities
removed from the front, and during aeromedical evacuations as they
transport the patient from the theater entirely. When the U.N. Building
in Baghdad was car bombed last August, killing 20, EMEDS surgeons and
their staff were only minutes away, and cared for numerous injuries on
the spot.
Shortly before the start of combat operations in Iraq we added a
new capability to EMEDS; hoping against--but preparing for--Iraq's
potential use of chemical weapons, we created EMEDS Supplemental NBC
Treatment Modules--or NBC pallets, as our troops call them. Each module
contains 25 ventilators and medical supplies to care for 100
radiological, biological, or chemical casualties. I find it
extraordinary that it took only 30 days for these packages to mature
from the concept stage until the first pallet was loaded onto an
aircraft for delivery.
While NBC pallets provide the tools to treat NBC casualties, the
EMEDS' hardened tents and infrastructure offer a protective shelter in
which our medics can render that care. Each can be equipped with
special liners and air handling equipment that over-pressurizes the
tents' interiors. Clean, filtered air is pushed in; contaminated air is
kept out. Protected water distribution systems work the same way,
ensuring a safe, potable water supply even in contaminated
environments.
I continue to be impressed with the enabling technologies that
permit the development of things like Push Pallets or advanced air and
water-handling systems. During operations in Iraq we have relied on
these and other technical marvels, like a lap-top sized ultrasound
machine, a ventilator unit the size of a football, and a chemistry
analyzer that--during Desert Storm--required its own tent; now it fits
in the palm of your hand. Our people are saving lives with these
technologies around the globe as we speak. There are EMEDS operating in
Iraq and 11 other countries in support of Air Force operations.
Operation Iraqi Freedom also validated our new aeromedical
evacuation concept of operations. A significant advancement in this
mission is our ability to take advantage of back-haul aircraft, which
has tremendously accelerated the aeromedical evacuation process. This
has eliminated the need for patients to wait days for a designated C-9
or C-141 aeromedical evacuation mission to pass through their area.
Patient Support Pallets--or PSPs--make it far easier to turn any Air
Force mobility aircraft into an aeromedical evacuation platform. PSPs
are a collection of specially packed medical equipment that can be
installed into cargo and transport aircraft within minutes. The plane
that just landed to deliver weapons is quickly converted to carry
wounded patients.
Let me share with you an example of PSPs work. In Baghdad, a 5-
year-old, deathly ill Iraqi girl was brought to one of our allied
locations. She was scheduled to fly to Greece for medical treatment.
Her condition was so poor that upon arrival at the clinic she was
placed on a ventilator. Doctors determined she was too ill to survive
and she was removed from the flight. One of our nearby medics heard of
the situation. He determined that leaving that little girl behind to
die was simply not an option. He, and other members of his Aeromedical
Evacuation team, grabbed one of our PSPs--we have 41 of them
strategically placed around the globe--and within an hour had converted
a section of the Greek aircraft into a small critical care bay. Their
precious cargo was loaded--with her ventilator--and she was flown to
Greece to receive care. We are the only country in the world that can
do this on a regular and sustained basis for our military personnel.
This demonstrates that PSPs allow us the flexibility to convert not
only our own aircraft into AE platforms, we can also take advantage of
our allies' aircraft. This dramatically increases the availability of
aeromedical evacuation opportunities to our troops. It's like one of
our medics told me: ``If it flies, and we have elbow room, we can do
our thing. Our thing is saving lives.''
The medic I spoke of is a member of one of our Critical Care Air
Transport Teams. We call them CCATS. These CCAT teams are comprised of
a physician, a nurse, and a cardiopulmonary technician. They are
specially trained to work side-by-side in the air with our aeromedical
evacuation crews to provide critical care under the extremely difficult
environment of flight.
Recently, one of our aeromedical evacuation crews augmented by a
CCAT team flew into Baghdad on a C-130, under black-out conditions and
while taking fire to retrieve three severely wounded soldiers. These
troops, too, needed ventilators to help them breathe. They were quickly
loaded and even before the aircraft could take off again, our CCAT
teams were providing life-saving care to their patients. While in the
air, the aircraft was diverted to Talil where U.S. forces had come
under attack. Two more men were critically wounded there and needed
immediate aeromedical evacuation. Both of these troops also required
ventilators.
All five soldiers were flown that night to an Army medical facility
in Kuwait. The Air Force medics on that mission are proud of their
accomplishment--never before, or since, has there been a combat AE
mission in which a team cared for five patients on ventilators in one
aircraft. I'm proud of them, too. Without the AE concept and the skills
our medics brought to the theater, each of those five soldiers would
have succumbed to their injuries.
Another enhancement to our aeromedical evacuation capabilities is
the placement of an AE cell in the Air Operations Center. This permits
the smooth integration of our actions with all other DOD or allied air
operations in the theater. The story of Private Jessica Lynch's rescue
provides a famous example of how all these assets--the AE cell,
aeromedical evacuation crews and CCATS, patient support pallets, and
the use of backhaul aircraft--all come together in a successful
operation. Following her retrieval from the Iraqi hospital, Army
medics, Air Force Aeromedical Evacuation troops, and Special Operations
members transported her thousands of miles, used three different
aircraft, and provided care in the air during her entire journey until
she reached the safety of an Army hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. All
this was accomplished in less than 15 hours.
Like so many of our missions, Jessica Lynch's AE mission could not
have been accomplished without the near-seamless integration of our
sister services. Medical and AE operations serve as the perfect example
of the joint application military capabilities.
I also must give praise to the backbone of our AE capability, our
Guard and Reserve. Fully 87 percent of our AE structure is Air Reserve
Component members. They have assisted their active duty counterparts in
transporting over 13,700 patients from OEF and OIF, of which about
2,300 were urgent or priority missions.
As I hope I have made clear, EMEDS capabilities span the geography
of operations from the farthest forward immediate surgical capability,
throughout the area of operations, to include aeromedical evacuation to
facilities around the globe. EMEDS has vastly improved how we care for
casualties, but we still face challenges. Perhaps one of the most
significant of which is caring for victims of weapons of mass
destruction.
Although this country has recently seen two bio-chem attacks--the
anthrax attack two years ago, and the fortunately unsuccessful ricin
scare of January--we have yet to experience a large scale Weapons of
Mass Destruction attack. Therefore, we can never know just how
successful our response to such an attack will be. I guarantee our
response would be superior to any other nation's on earth--but we
always strive to expand the envelope of our nation's capability.
To enhance our response even more, AFMS personnel are implementing
Code Silver. Code Silver is a program that offers tabletop exercises
emphasizing biological and chemical warfare responses by our medical
facilities. We will focus on how our facilities interact and relate to
the rest of the base and with the local civilian community. Forty Air
Force medical facilities and the communities surrounding them will
participate in Code Silver exercises in 2004.
The fourth and critical capability we bring to the warfighter is
the enhancement of human performance.
Enhance Human Performance
As the size of our military decreases and the capability of each
individual platform increases, the relative importance of every
individual also increases. Today's airman receives superior training so
that they can maintain and operate the most sophisticated equipment and
weapons systems in the world. But the stress and exhaustion of combat
operations leads to fatigue. Fatigue dramatically erodes the Airman's
ability to react quickly and think clearly. It eliminates the
intellectual and technological advantages we bring to the battle.
Commonly used methods of combating fatigue involve careful studying
of our airmen's mission schedules, their diets, sleep patterns, even
their biorhythms, to mitigate the impact of drowsiness upon their
missions. These are all important to maintaining wakefulness, because
at the very least, fatigue degrades mission performance. At the very
worst, it kills. In battle, fatigue is a deadly enemy.
We also find we can enhance human performance by enhancing vision.
We do so through corneal refractive surgeries--commonly known as PRK
and LASIK. These procedures are provided to non-flying and non-special
duty airmen. We began offering them after an exhaustive literature
review and extensive expert conference conclusions revealed that the
operations are, indeed, safe, effective, and potentially cost-saving.
In the near future these procedures will be offered to some aviators
and special duty members. We continue to study corneal refractive
surgeries to see what the effects of time or the stresses of the
cockpit--like pressure changes and jarring--have on our flyer's eyes.
The results thus far are highly encouraging. One thing is for sure,
they are very highly desired by our troops.
Good eyesight is, of course, critical to our forces. An enemy who
can temporarily or permanently blind one of our troops will have
succeeded in removing that Airman from combat. One method for
inflicting such an injury is through directed energy, or lasers. In the
little-more-than 40 years since the laser's invention, it has grown
from something found only in a few science labs and an occasional James
Bond movie, to a technology so common that one can find lasers in every
supermarket scanner, in DVD players; and I have even seen them sold as
cat toys. Lasers are also weapons--and are capable of injuring or
destroying eyesight. The proliferation of lasers poses a growing threat
to our pilots and troops.
In response to this challenge, we have created protective eyewear
and faceplates that absorb and deflect laser light. The devices save
our pilots from damaging and potentially permanent eye damage from
these weapons. We continue to study ways to detect the presence of
lasers in battlespace and methods for protecting our men and women
against them.
Another challenge we encounter in enhancing human performance is
our need for ever-increasing amounts of information and communication;
especially that which flows between our EMEDS troops on the ground, our
aeromedical evacuation crews in the air, and our medics in permanent
facilities who receive patients from the area of operations. Our
success at converting any transiting mobility aircraft into an
aeromedical platform outpaced our ability to create the information
systems to track the patients using them. It is difficult to keep
oversight of the location and condition of thousands of patients on a
worldwide scale.
Fortunately, the U.S. Transportation Command Regulating and Command
& Control Evacuation System or TRAC\2\ES [Tray-suhs] is helping us
overcome that challenge. TRAC\2\ES is a DOD information system that
allows us to track the location and status of patients from the moment
they enter the aeromedical evacuation system in the theater of
operations, as they fly to a higher level of care, until they are
safely back in a garrison medical facility.
I have described some of what we learned during current operations
in Iraq, but before closing, I would like to mention a few our
successes here on the home front.
THE HOME FRONT
We are always developing avenues to provide great and cost-
effective care. One way to do so is to seek out partners who share our
dedication to the care of patients and can join us in a better way of
doing business. We continue to strengthen just such a relationship with
our partners at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of the seven
current Joint Ventures between the DOD and VA, four of them are at Air
Force medical facilities: Elmendorf in Alaska, Travis in California,
Kirtland in New Mexico, and Nellis in Nevada.
These are not the only locations in which the VA and DOD work
together to provide care. We are pursuing several additional Joint
Venture locations and already have nearly 140 sharing agreements
between the Air Force and VA throughout the United States. These are
great examples of partnering with the VA.
We are also developing the exciting possibility of expanding the
traditional concept of Joint Ventures to other major healthcare
institutions. For example, we believe that a unique three-way joint
venture between the DOD, VA and the University of Colorado Hospital
will be a cost-efficient way of caring for all our beneficiaries. This
concept is receiving not only strong support from DOD leadership and
local VA officials, but also all of the Colorado Veterans organizations
and the Colorado state congressional leadership.
NEXT GENERATION TRICARE CONTRACTS
We are passionate about our mission and confident of continued
success, yet there are some uncertainties in the future that warrant
mention. As you know, the DOD is in the process of fielding new
contracts to replace our original TRICARE contracts. This transition is
the focus of a great deal of management attention. Our ability to
smoothly change contractors and governance will be closely watched by
our stakeholders. Not only will there be just three TRICARE regions,
revised financing will be expanded nationwide.
This is a methodology to place the entire costs of a TRICARE
enrollee's care in the hands of the local Medical Group Commander. She
pays the private sector care bills as well being responsible for the
direct care system--that care we provide to our enrollees in our Air
Force clinics and hospitals. Revised financing has proven to be an
effective tool in those regions where it is currently being used. This
is an important advance, leveraging what we've learned in allowing the
Commander to select the most effective and most efficient location for
health care. So, the dollars allocated to the direct care system are
critical, but just as critical are the dollars allocated for revised
financing. With this in mind, two-way flexibility between the private
sector care and direct care accounts is necessary for revised financing
to function successfully. The Air Force appreciates the congressional
intent to protect direct care funding, but we recommend that the Fiscal
Year 2005 Defense Appropriations Act language remove the separate
appropriation for Private Sector Care to allow the flexibility to move
funds to wherever care is delivered without a Prior Approval
reprogramming.
BUDGET
For fiscal year 2004, the Congress's budget adequately funds our
direct care system. However, we do have challenges with the private
sector care budget--the health benefits purchased from civilian
providers for our TRICARE beneficiaries. The TRICARE Management
Activity (TMA), not the Services, manages all of these funds to include
those for Revised Financing.
Two issues will pose significant fiscal challenges as we try to
estimate what our private sector care costs will be.
The first issue is the increased use of TRICARE. TRICARE offers a
very comprehensive benefit. With civilian healthcare plans raising co-
pays and cutting back on benefits, more retirees are dropping their
civilian healthcare and are relying exclusively on TRICARE. As more
people opt for our heath care program, costs for the entire TRICARE
benefit rise. Correctly forecasting this cost is crucially important
and placed pressure on the Department to handle these increases.
In addition to the enhanced TRICARE benefits the Department of
Defense offered to activated Reserve Component members and their
families during fiscal year 2003, the National Defense Authorization
Act of Fiscal Year 2004 included even more new benefits. Because the
new reserve health program is temporary, it offers us the ability to
assess the impact of these benefits after the trial period. We will
review the effects of these programs on reservists and their families
as they transition to and from active duty and look at the overall
effect on retention and readiness. We have concerns that health care
benefits will be enhanced permanently before a full assessment of the
impact can be completed, as well as concerns over the potential cost of
new entitlements for reservists who have not been activated.
Consideration must also be given to the impact on the active duty
force if similar health care benefits are offered to reservists who are
not activated. OMB, DOD and CBO are working together to develop a model
and a resulting five-year cost estimate to price the proposal to expand
TRICARE health benefits for all reservists without regard to
employment, medical coverage, or mobilization status as proposed in the
Reserve and Guard Recruitment and Retention legislation. Preliminary
results indicate that this could range from $6 billion to $14 billion
over five years. Final scoring of this proposal should be completed by
the end of March.
The influx of retirees and their families and of increased Guard
and Reserve beneficiaries have greatly increased private sector care
costs, which DOD will meet with internal reprogramming actions.
These bills are a must-pay, and they affect far more than our
ability to provide the right care at the right place in the most
efficient manner. Care for our military families is not just a medical
issue--readiness is inseparable from family health. It is unmeasurable,
but undeniable, that an Airman's physical and mental fitness to deploy
is tied to the well-being of his or her family. We must provide our
troops piece-of-mind that in their absence their loved ones will have
their social, mental, and health care needs met.
A final challenge we encounter in providing care is that of the
recruitment and retention of our active duty and reserve component
medical professionals, especially physicians, dentists and, nurses. The
civilian health care environment offers significantly more attractive
financial incentives than the Air Force, and we appreciate your support
of recruitment and retention bonuses, special pay programs, and
critical tools such as the Health Professions Scholarship Program and
the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program. These are vital to our
ability to attract qualified professionals and keep them in the Air
Force.
SUMMARY
No other military in the world has the expertise, willingness to
devote the resources, or the capabilities of the United States when it
comes to caring for troops and their families, in times of war or in
peace.
One of our medics--a surgeon--just returned from four months in
Baghdad. He was asked, ``What one word sums up your experiences
there?'' He said, ``Satisfied . . . I was caring for people who put
their lives on the line for this country. I know that I made a
difference. That is satisfying.''
It truly is satisfying to make a difference. We do. And we are
proud to bring the special skill of Air Force medics to the service of
our warriors--both present and past--and to their families. I thank you
for your continued support of our medical service and our Air Force. We
are proud to make a difference, and we are anxious to answer the call
again.
Senator Stevens. That was very generous, General, and
deserved. Of course, Senator Inouye and I hate to see such
young men retire.
I do not expect it right now. There is no rush, but when
this pace slows down, I would like the committee to have sort
of a flow chart on how you decided to disperse the wounded from
Afghanistan and Iraq. We have medical facilities in Europe. We
have them in Tripler. We have them in Alaska. We have them
here. And I wonder if we developed a plan to utilize the full
scope of our facilities, given the air transport that is
available today and its worldwide capabilities. But no rush,
just sort of a long-range study to see what we did and see if
there is some way we might help you to do it better for the
interest of the people involved.
I have the impression that the worst cases have come to
Washington. General, is that right? Have the worst cases come
to Bethesda and Walter Reed?
General Peake. Sir, initially that was absolutely the case.
Now as our units are back and the soldiers are flown through,
we regulate them to wherever they need. If it is burn
treatment, they will go to Brook. If the care is available and
they live near or at Fort Hood, they will go to Fort Hood. It
just depends on the level of the severity of their injuries.
Any of our medical centers really can take care of fairly
sophisticated injuries.
What we did was concentrate our amputee care at Walter Reed
because we wanted to have the absolute best. It really started
with Afghanistan, which was the most heavily mined area in the
world, and we therefore anticipated the potential for having
amputees. So we married up with the Veterans Administration
(VA) and all the smart people that we could find and focused
that as an area of a center of excellence.
Senator Stevens. Well, it is my impression that because of
body armor and better helmets, we are having more real serious
injury to the limbs of our service men and women. Is that
observation correct?
General Peake. Sir, I think that is correct. Really as the
article talked about yesterday that Senator Leahy mentioned,
what we are seeing are folks with bad extremity injuries and
head and neck injuries who otherwise would not have made it to
us because their thorax would have been injured as well. Now
they are making it through to the definitive care for their
amputees.
Senator Stevens. Has the surge to Bethesda and Walter Reed
been such that it has required reallocation of funds?
General Peake. Sir, we have put a lot of money into the
amputee center specifically to get that ginned up. This c-leg
that was referred to can cost anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000
for a single limb, but that is what we are doing. It is the
right thing to do and we will continue to do that. Truly we
have been augmented with GWOT funds, global war on terrorism
funds, out of the supplemental last year because these are
operational issues not programmed issues. In fact, I am
anticipating getting another $244 million this year from
somewhere in DOD to be able to--because that is what we are
spending--prosecute the medical aspects of the global war on
terrorism.
Senator Stevens. Are the facilities that we were able to
put into Ballad modern enough and capable enough to take a
substantial part of this surge?
General Peake. Sir, we have modular combat support
hospitals in Ballad, in Baghdad. In Ballad, they are in
basically deployable medical system (DEPMEDS) facilities. In
Baghdad, we have moved them into one of Saddam Hussein's old
hospitals. We have them in DEPMEDS facilities at Mosul and
Tikrit, as well as what we have down in Kuwait. So we have
created a system----
Senator Stevens. I do not want to belabor this. Sometime I
would like to pursue it and see what the schedule is and how
that flow was from those facilities into more permanent
treatment facilities and how quickly these people got back near
their homes.
We had understood that the facilities in the Washington
area have started to limit new beneficiaries. Are new enrollees
now being turned away? I am not talking about people coming
back from the war zone, just new enrollees of people who are
eligible for treatment.
General Peake. Sir, we have limited enrollment in the
military treatment facilities with capacity. What you want to
be able to do is appropriately treat the people that you have
enrolled and give them that care. They can still enroll in
TRICARE within the civilian part, the contractor part of the
managed care system under TRICARE Prime.
Senator Stevens. These are primarily retirees.
General Peake. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Is that part of the problem of taking care
of the increased surge from the war zones?
General Peake. No, sir. It is not part of that.
Senator Stevens. It is a limitation of the facilities
themselves to take on the new retirees?
General Peake. It is the facilities and the staffing and so
forth.
Senator Stevens. And TRICARE for Life.
General Peake. Right, sir.
We have an increase in unique users across our system. If
you look at our retirees, just the retirees over and under 65,
from 2000 to now, it is about a 60 percent increase in retirees
of unique users.
Senator Stevens. I will move on to my co-chairman, but this
committee was critical of the number of hospitals that were
closed in the last base closure round and urged that some of
them be maintained as satellites for other military health
facilities. Are you considering reopening any?
General Peake. Sir, our manpower came down 34.5 percent in
the Army from 1989. So you have to be able to staff a hospital
to run it. It is really the people not just the facilities.
Senator Stevens. I will get into that later.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
NON-COMBAT INJURIES
General Taylor just reminded me of an article I read a few
weeks ago that more men in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars
died as a result of dysentery, more than bullets. What
percentage of the personnel who are now being hospitalized are
hospitalized for non-combatant injuries?
General Taylor. Do you know the percentage? The only number
I can give you is the idea of the people that we moved through
the aeromedical evacuation system. Of the 15,000 or so people
we moved from the air evacuation system this last year, between
3,000 and 4,000 were for battle injuries. The rest were for
disease non-battle injuries. That gives you some estimate. It
is probably somewhere on the order of one-quarter to one-third
are actually due to battle injuries. The rest are disease non-
battle injury (DNBI) rates.
The interesting part, as General Peake said, is the chance
of dying in theater is much less than historically we have ever
had, and Jim probably has the statistics on that to tell you,
if you are injured in battle, if you make it to a medic, what
your chances of surviving are. Jim, do you want to add to that?
General Peake. Sir, our killed in action (KIA) rate is
about 13 percent. If you look at the theater of operation in
Iraq, it is what the KIA rate is, compared to about 20 percent
as what we have run historically from a KIA rate.
But you are right, sir, about the importance of DNBI and
our preventive medicine measures. We actively review that and
pursue it. I will give you an example of having to do with eye
injuries. Our chief in his rapid fielding initiative for our
soldiers insisted that every soldier get the Wiley X protective
glasses. I have had two e-mails from the field now talking
about how our eye injury rates have dropped down. We had
studied our injuries coming back and had 99 serious eye
injuries just because of lack of ballistic protection for the
eyes. That has changed dramatically and part of it is because
we have got leaders like Pete Chiarelli as the 1st Cavalry
(Cav) commander who said we will wear the eye protection. That
is one of your checkpoints as you go out on patrol. So those
kinds of things are important.
But if you think about the population we have got over
there, it is 150,000 people, and so people get sick. People
have routine injuries. There are motor vehicle accidents. When
you burn the latrines, you have people that get burned in
fires. Those kinds of things are part of what we are seeing and
we wind up taking care of all of that as it comes back through
our system.
Admiral Cowan. Sir, if I could add to that. We used to
accept DNBI as sort of, well, that is just the way it is, and
we do not anymore. So our efforts are very aggressively aimed
at making it no more dangerous and no more likely to become
sick or injured when deployed than if you were at home.
It does not just start when we deploy. Our attention to the
health and the fitness to include the flexibility, endurance,
social stability, family stability of each of our individuals
to help them go be those sticky soldiers and sailors and airmen
that will stay in the field and have the capability to do so.
So that is very much the thrust of force health protection, to
drive those DNBI's down. Part of it is putting healthy people
out there that are likely to survive.
Senator Inouye. Do we have enough research money to look
into this matter?
Admiral Cowan. I would say that there are always more
projects that could be done. I think the money that we have now
has allowed us to focus on near to midterm research development
and ultimately acquisition that gets to the issues that we know
to be the most important. There are others out there that more
resources would allow us to get to and probably concentric
circles of greater research risk. So no absolute money would be
enough or too much.
PROTECTIVE BODY ARMOR RESEARCH
Senator Inouye. I would like to follow up on the chairman's
questioning. We have been advised that additional research is
now being done to develop protective body armor for extremities
and for the head. Can you give us any status report on that?
General Peake. Sir, I have had the program manager for the
helmet project over in the office and married him up with our
head and neck consultant so that we could evaluate the kinds of
injuries that we are actually seeing with what he is projecting
for the next generation of combat helmets. Already we have
improved the helmet from what we had even in Desert Shield/
Desert Storm with better protection inside and better ballistic
protection from rounds. So we are marrying them up.
One of the discussion points is what kind of face
protection that we could have because we have folks standing
outside the hatches when they are on patrol as an example. So
the medics are not the primary developers of the body armor,
but we are actively collaborating.
The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology is analyzing the
body armor that comes back to understand where the
vulnerabilities are. We know already that the axilla is an area
where it can be penetrated. It saves you from a front-on hit,
but it can come through the side as an example. So they are
looking at ways to modify and increase the protection for
soldiers in that regard.
Admiral Cowan. Sir, we have a combat registry that was
initiated by the Army--and all services use it now--that allows
us to track, in a statistical way, patterns of wounding. For
example, we are finding with improvised explosive devices that
the Iraqis are using at the roadside, that our soldiers get
blasts from above. A helmet does not help. They get eye
injuries. So General Peake alluded to the glasses.
We are also finding now that the trunk and the thorax is
protected. We are seeing lots of people with shoulder injuries.
So now the researchers are looking into putting a protective
pad on the shoulder. So the nature of the combat and the nature
of the vehicles people are in matter, but now we can track that
and be responsive like we could not in the past.
Senator Inouye. I realize that it is part of the policy of
our Defense Department to make certain that every person in
uniform carries his or her load. In the medical personnel,
there are some who are extremely specialized and trained. For
example, we have sent surgeons to Iraq who are some of the
finest in the land when it comes to knee, shoulder, or hip
replacement. I do not suppose they have any hip replacement or
knee replacement in Iraq. Why do we have to keep them there for
6 months?
General Peake. Sir, right now they are potentially there
for 1 year for the Army, and what we are trying to do is have
them there for 6 months. We have been rotating our reservists
at 90 days and we think that that is going to allow them to
stay in the Reserves. We are actively--as a matter of fact, I
have got the program on my desk now to carry forward, and I
have talked to some of the leadership in theater about being
able to rotate our folks out. I could run down the list. Jack
Chiles, who is the Deputy Commander at Baghdad, is one of our
premier anesthesiologists. We have subspecialists over there
because really that is why we have them in the Army is so that
we can have the kind of quality forward deployed. But what we
want to do is get them back so that they can maintain their
skills and be used effectively and efficiently in the long run.
But it is an issue of being very, very busy as an Army and
everybody counts for being able to go forward and take care of
those soldiers. So I absolutely appreciate what you are saying.
I know many of the folks that you are talking about personally
and we intend to carry this forward for the active guys to
rotate those specialties at 6 months. As I say, with the
reservists we are sticking to the 90 days because we think that
is what it is going to take to keep them in the Reserves.
Senator Inouye. My time has expired. I will wait until my
turn comes up again.
Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have watched
these 5-minute clocks here for the last 20 minutes, but I will
try to stay somewhat close to it.
General Peake, in one of your answers to the question about
the increase in injuries based on the different type of
fighting, are we seeing an increase in blindness, blinding
injuries?
General Peake. Sir, we saw some very serious eye injuries
and that is why we have put this focus on the eye protection.
So we are seeing a drop-off now. We will analyze it to see if
it has really made that huge a difference.
Senator Leahy. Please do because I get episodic stories on
that. We can replace an arm. We can replace a leg. And I do not
say that in a cavalier fashion by any means. It is still a
difficulty, but it is not as devastating by any means to a
person continuing with their life as blindness is.
I heard your discussion of the--I have kind of watched
that. We actually put together one of the newer, lighter
helmets in Newport, Vermont. They are working around the clock.
I have tried on the old helmet and the new one and there is a
remarkable difference in the weight. They are both pretty
heavy.
General Peake. Yes, sir.
Senator Leahy. But it is a big difference.
I read that New York Times article on the incidence of
post-traumatic stress disorder, this Coming Home article. It
was troubling in the sense not that there is post-traumatic
stress disorder. All three of you have had far more experience
in this than I. You know this happens in our soldiers, our
sailors, our airmen, marines. Hundreds, if not thousands, of
these people are seeing horrific things that they have never
really been prepared for prior to going there, including men
and women who see their own fellow Americans killed before
their eyes.
But the article goes into the question, do we really have
the things set in place to take care of them when they come
back here? It said that a number of them are not identifying
it, even though they feel they have these symptoms of post-
traumatic stress disorder, because they are afraid it will look
bad on their service records so they are not getting whatever
counseling they might get. If they stay in the service, they
have problems of having this untreated. If they go into
civilian life, again the same thing. They have the problem of
being untreated.
Do we have provisions to really treat this? Do we have
provisions to give the counseling, to do the identifying of it,
number one; treat it, number two, and with useful numbers of
our armed services at work trying to retain them and their
skills in our services?
General Peake. Well, sir, there are a lot of pieces to
this.
Senator Leahy. I understand.
General Peake. I think we have and are addressing it
aggressively. I will speak for the Army particularly because we
have had the biggest bulk of folks on the ground facing those
things recently.
This post-deployment screening is more than just checking
off a piece of paper or a computer chip and sending it in. It
entails a face-to-face discussion with a provider who has a
sensitivity to those kinds of things. You are right, sir, that
some people may or may not report at that point.
We have concern about the stigma that goes with an approach
to mental health providers, and so the Army has invested in
having what we call the Army One Source which offers up to six
visits without any link to the military at all, like a civilian
commercial establishment or industry might do. They can pick up
a telephone and get an immediate contact and get into those six
visits.
We have really tried to push to get our combat stress units
integrated out into the units so that they get to know people.
So they are less threatening and they are a part of the team
using sort of the chaplain's model, if you will, because we
want to make that kind of thing accessible.
Senator Leahy. You mentioned the pre- and post-deployment
questionnaires they fill out and I have seen those. I had
raised the same concern about 10 years ago. Do we have a
tracking system? Do we know how to follow this? Do we have
things that, as we go through the periodic health baselines--
they report to a physician when they are in Iraq or
Afghanistan, wherever for something. I do not know what we have
that can show this baseline from beginning to end to, among
other things, have it so readily available even without the
individual names, but quantitatively and qualitatively
throughout the military so that you get an indication of we are
having far more of these, far less of these. It would certainly
be helpful to other parts of the Government, the VA, for
example. It would be very helpful to them, far easier to assess
disability claims that often come up, reliable data for
epidemiological studies later on. But we do not have something
that can really do that, do we, General?
General Peake. Sir, we are heading in that direction. We do
not have.
Senator Leahy. What can we do to help you head a little
faster?
General Peake. Well, we are in the process of trying to
field what we call CHSCII which is basically a computerized
patient record across all three services over the next 30
months. This post-deployment screening is actually going into a
centralized database so that we can query those fields, and
that would be available to the VA as well.
Senator Leahy. But suppose you have, say, a Sergeant Peake
out there who has 2 or 3 years in there, been deployed
different places, to have some way that wherever they are, they
could immediately go back and see Sergeant Peake--I do not mean
to pick on you by any means, but it would be, okay, they were
at Fort Benning and this is what was done. They were in
Afghanistan. This was done. We moved him to Iraq and this was
done. Now we have him at Fort Hood and this was done, but be
able to pull up immediately and know now that you are at Fort
Hood, you are being treated, for them to be able to tell
immediately without having to go through all kinds of
paperwork, to be able to say, okay, this is what happened to
the sergeant in each of these other places. But we do not have
that, do we?
General Peake. Sir, that is what I am saying. In Mobile,
Alabama, we will have a central database that really has a
virtual record, electronic record, for each soldier, sailor,
airmen, and marine. And that is what we will have by the end of
30 months.
Senator Leahy. The reason I mention this, General, you
would get strong support as far as the money is concerned from
both Republicans and Democrats on this committee because we
have to continuously make decisions on where is the money going
to the VA, where is the money going to go whether it is what
Admiral Cowan or General Taylor or anybody else asks us for,
where is the money coming from if we have to make choices. The
only way you can make choices is with the best information, and
if the disease is not malaria or whatever else, but they are
post-traumatic stress syndrome, if it is eye injuries, if it is
stress fractures, or whatever it might be, we can put the money
in there. We could also put the designing of equipment. We can
do everything else.
So I would urge you to keep that as a real priority so that
we not only can track the individual person but that we could
have collectively, whether it is for the VA or for anything
else, we can do that. And also when somebody comes in with a
disability claim years later, we can actually track and know
exactly what happened.
I know I went over, Mr. Chairman, but I know this is
something you are interested in too. I just really want to
stress to them that it is a matter that we are all concerned
with.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator.
We do want to move on to the next panel, but I want to give
us each about 3 or 4 minutes for a second round.
MEDICAL RESEARCH
Let me just make a statement to all of you. In the past
bills, we have had a continual increase in medical research
funding. We have had money for neurofibrosis, diabetes,
juvenile diabetes, ovarian cancer, breast cancer, prostate
cancer, leukemia and other blood related cancers, tuberous
sclerosis, and manganese health research, head and brain
injuries, molecular medicine, muscle research. We had about
three-quarters of a billion dollars earmarked last year.
I want you to take a look at that and tell us what of that
is related to your current problems related to the war. I think
we must emphasize war research in this. These people deserve
the best and we have got to do everything we can to improve the
type of treatment we can give them. I am not saying I am going
to recommend we cut them out entirely, but I am going to
recommend we reduce the research for non-war-related injuries
and concentrate for this year that money in fiscal year 2005 on
the real problem of trying to deal with this massive increase
in these injuries.
I do not know if the committee is going to agree with me or
not because there are enormous groups behind all those other
concepts, but I do believe that we should emphasize the
research for the basic people that need the treatment now.
Those other research concepts are going on year after year
after year. These people need help now. So we are going to try
to concentrate on that if we can.
MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCREENING
Other than that, let me ask you this. We enacted
legislation to make medical and dental screening, as well as
access to TRICARE available to service members once they are
alerted for active duty. How is that working out? Is it
possible to do anything more? The former service reservists
have told us that post-deployment medical screening has been
improved, but it falls short of identifying the care that
returning soldiers need. Those two things, upon being called up
and released. What needs to be done? General?
General Peake. Well, sir, I think the opportunity to get
them screened and to provide the care to bring them up to
deployable standards before they are activated is important. It
keeps us from wasting time at mob stations and that kind of
thing. What we need to discipline ourselves better on--and I
think we are really pushing in that direction--is to be able to
have that data available to commanders so they know who needs
what and insist that they maintain the appropriate standard.
In regards to the soldiers coming back, this post-
deployment screening that I referred to makes sure that we
identify at least what they will declare to us, but then they
have the opportunity for VA care for 2 years for service-
connected issues, as well as the opportunity to be in TRICARE
for, right now, up to 180 days after their separation. So we
are very interested in trying to make sure that they do get the
kind of care that they need and the process is in place to do
that.
Senator Stevens. Admiral.
Admiral Cowan. I would echo, sir, what General Peake said.
There are lots of pushups that have to be done to get some of
the reservists ready when they come in, but we have not had
major difficulties doing that to get them up to a level of
deployment health that they need to be able to go.
We believe that the policies for the screening, the post-
and pre-deployment, the annual health assessment that we do are
about right, and any failures on individual cases would be
failures of execution that we work through on a daily basis to
be as seamless as we can.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
General Taylor.
General Taylor. The Air Force relies heavily on our Reserve
component, and over the last 5 years, from the air war over
Serbia to today, we have constantly had to activate Guard and
Reserves to help us. So our system is built on a fairly strong
program during peacetime to ensure folks are ready to deploy.
So we have had less of a problem on activation.
I think it is an extremely generous benefit from the
Congress to ensure that we can have access to health care upon
notification of orders, and then the 180 days afterwards
becomes very important to us.
Also in the Air Force, we have run a system that requires
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force to sign off on any
medical mobilization extensions, which puts a driving force on
us medics to make sure we are taking care of our people as
quickly as possible.
So the combination of those two have made our numbers of
folks that have had issues smaller. Very clearly, we have not
had the kind of catastrophic injuries that the marines and the
soldiers have had over the last year.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
I am going to put in the record Karl Vick's Washington Post
report of the lasting wounds of this war that was in the
Washington Post on April 27. I will put it in the record at
this point.
[The article follows:]
[From The Washington Post, April 27, 2004]
The Lasting Wounds of War; Roadside Bombs Have Devastated Troops and
Doctors Who Treat Them
(Karl Vick, Washington Post Foreign Service)
The soldiers were lifted into the helicopters under a moonless sky,
their bandaged heads grossly swollen by trauma, their forms silhouetted
by the glow from the row of medical monitors laid out across their
bodies, from ankle to neck.
An orange screen atop the feet registered blood pressure and heart
rate. The blue screen at the knees announced the level of postoperative
pressure on the brain. On the stomach, a small gray readout recorded
the level of medicine pumping into the body. And the slender plastic
box atop the chest signaled that a respirator still breathed for the
lungs under it.
At the door to the busiest hospital in Iraq, a wiry doctor bent
over the worst-looking case, an Army gunner with coarse stitches
holding his scalp together and a bolt protruding from the top of his
head. Lt. Col. Jeff Poffenbarger checked a number on the blue screen,
announced it dangerously high and quickly pushed a clear liquid through
a syringe into the gunner's bloodstream. The number fell like a rock.
``We're just preparing for something a brain-injured person should
not do two days out, which is travel to Germany,'' the neurologist
said. He smiled grimly and started toward the UH-60 Black Hawk thwump-
thwumping out on the helipad, waiting to spirit out of Iraq one more of
the hundreds of Americans wounded here this month.
While attention remains riveted on the rising count of Americans
killed in action--more than 100 so far in April--doctors at the main
combat support hospital in Iraq are reeling from a stream of young
soldiers with wounds so devastating that they probably would have been
fatal in any previous war.
More and more in Iraq, combat surgeons say, the wounds involve
severe damage to the head and eyes--injuries that leave soldiers brain
damaged or blind, or both, and the doctors who see them first
struggling against despair.
For months the gravest wounds have been caused by roadside bombs--
improvised explosives that negate the protection of Kevlar helmets by
blowing shrapnel and dirt upward into the face. In addition, firefights
with guerrillas have surged recently, causing a sharp rise in gunshot
wounds to the only vital area not protected by body armor.
The neurosurgeons at the 31st Combat Support Hospital measure the
damage in the number of skulls they remove to get to the injured brain
inside, a procedure known as a craniotomy. ``We've done more in eight
weeks than the previous neurosurgery team did in eight months,''
Poffenbarger said. ``So there's been a change in the intensity level of
the war.''
Numbers tell part of the story. So far in April, more than 900
soldiers and Marines have been wounded in Iraq, more than twice the
number wounded in October, the previous high. With the tally still
climbing, this month's injuries account for about a quarter of the
3,864 U.S. servicemen and women listed as wounded in action since the
March 2003 invasion.
About half the wounded troops have suffered injuries light enough
that they were able to return to duty after treatment, according to the
Pentagon.
The others arrive on stretchers at the hospitals operated by the
31st CSH. ``These injuries,'' said Lt. Col. Stephen M. Smith, executive
officer of the Baghdad facility, ``are horrific.''
By design, the Baghdad hospital sees the worst. Unlike its sister
hospital on a sprawling air base located in Balad, north of the
capital, the staff of 300 in Baghdad includes the only ophthalmology
and neurology surgical teams in Iraq, so if a victim has damage to the
head, the medevac sets out for the facility here, located in the
heavily fortified coalition headquarters known as the Green Zone.
Once there, doctors scramble. A patient might remain in the combat
hospital for only six hours. The goal is lightning-swift, expert
treatment, followed as quickly as possible by transfer to the military
hospital in Landstuhl, Germany.
While waiting for what one senior officer wearily calls ``the
flippin' helicopters,'' the Baghdad medical staff studies photos of
wounds they used to see once or twice in a military campaign but now
treat every day. And they struggle with the implications of a system
that can move a wounded soldier from a booby-trapped roadside to an
operating room in less than an hour.
``We're saving more people than should be saved, probably,'' Lt.
Col. Robert Carroll said. ``We're saving severely injured people. Legs.
Eyes. Part of the brain.''
Carroll, an eye surgeon from Waynesville, Mo., sat at his desk
during a rare slow night last Wednesday and called up a digital photo
on his laptop computer. The image was of a brain opened for surgery
earlier that day, the skull neatly lifted away, most of the organ
healthy and pink. But a thumb-sized section behind the ear was gray.
``See all that dark stuff? That's dead brain,'' he said. ``That
ain't gonna regenerate. And that's not uncommon. That's really not
uncommon. We do craniotomies on average, lately, of one a day.''
``We can save you,'' the surgeon said. ``You might not be what you
were.''
Accurate statistics are not yet available on recovery from this new
round of battlefield brain injuries, an obstacle that frustrates combat
surgeons. But judging by medical literature and surgeons' experience
with their own patients, ``three or four months from now 50 to 60
percent will be functional and doing things,'' said Maj. Richard
Gullick.
``Functional,'' he said, means ``up and around, but with pretty
significant disabilities,'' including paralysis.
The remaining 40 percent to 50 percent of patients include those
whom the surgeons send to Europe, and on to the United States, with no
prospect of regaining consciousness. The practice, subject to review
after gathering feedback from families, assumes that loved ones will
find value in holding the soldier's hand before confronting the
decision to remove life support.
``I'm actually glad I'm here and not at home, tending to all the
social issues with all these broken soldiers,'' Carroll said.
But the toll on the combat medical staff is itself acute, and
unrelenting.
In a comprehensive Army survey of troop morale across Iraq, taken
in September, the unit with the lowest spirits was the one that ran the
combat hospitals until the 31st arrived in late January. The three
months since then have been substantially more intense.
``We've all reached our saturation for drama trauma,'' said Maj.
Greg Kidwell, head nurse in the emergency room.
On April 4, the hospital received 36 wounded in four hours. A U.S.
patrol in Baghdad's Sadr City slum was ambushed at dusk, and the battle
for the Shiite Muslim neighborhood lasted most of the night. The event
qualified as a ``mass casualty,'' defined as more casualties than can
be accommodated by the 10 trauma beds in the emergency room.
``I'd never really seen a `mass cal' before April 4,'' said Lt.
Col. John Xenos, an orthopedic surgeon from Fairfax. ``And it just kept
coming and coming. I think that week we had three or four mass cals.''
The ambush heralded a wave of attacks by a Shiite militia across
southern Iraq. The next morning, another front erupted when Marines
cordoned off Fallujah, a restive, largely Sunni city west of Baghdad.
The engagements there led to record casualties.
``Intellectually, you tell yourself you're prepared,'' said
Gullick, from San Antonio. ``You do the reading. You study the slides.
But being here . . ..'' His voice trailed off.
``It's just the sheer volume.''
In part, the surge in casualties reflects more frequent firefights
after a year in which roadside bombings made up the bulk of attacks on
U.S. forces. At the same time, insurgents began planting improvised
explosive devices (IEDs) in what one officer called ``ridiculous
numbers.''
The improvised bombs are extraordinarily destructive. Typically
fashioned from artillery shells, they may be packed with such debris as
broken glass, nails, sometimes even gravel. They're detonated by remote
control as a Humvee or truck passes by, and they explode upward.
To protect against the blasts, the U.S. military has wrapped many
of its vehicles in armor. When Xenos, the orthopedist, treats limbs
shredded by an IED blast, it is usually ``an elbow stuck out of a
window, or an arm.''
Troops wear armor as well, providing protection that Gullick called
``orders of magnitude from what we've had before. But it just shifts
the injury pattern from a lot of abdominal injuries to extremity and
head and face wounds.''
The Army gunner whom Poffenbarger was preparing for the flight to
Germany had his skull pierced by four 155 mm shells, rigged to detonate
one after another in what soldiers call a ``daisy chain.'' The shrapnel
took a fortunate route through his brain, however, and ``when all is
said and done, he should be independent. . . . He'll have speech,
cognition, vision.''
On a nearby stretcher, Staff Sgt. Rene Fernandez struggled to see
from eyes bruised nearly shut.
``We were clearing the area and an IED went off,'' he said,
describing an incident outside the western city of Ramadi where his
unit was patrolling on foot.
The Houston native counted himself lucky, escaping with a
concussion and the temporary damage to his open, friendly face. Waiting
for his own hop to the hospital plane headed north, he said what most
soldiers tell surgeons: What he most wanted was to return to his unit.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
MEDICAL PERSONNEL SHORTAGES
According to information we have received, the Army Reserve
had 3,000 physicians in 1991 and today they are 1,550. The
Naval Reserve went from 2,191 in 1900 to 1,000 today. The Air
Force currently has 761 physicians.
We have been advised that the Air Force is short on
dentists, nurses, occupational therapists, and is relying on
incentive pay and ongoing initiatives for school loan repayment
options for recruiting and retention. The Army is short on
nurse anesthetists, general surgeons, anesthesiologists,
neurosurgeons. The Navy is short on nurses and dental corps
personnel.
I realize that we will not have the time today, but can you
advise this committee as to what you are doing about this or
what can be done and what can be done by this committee? If you
could, please provide us a brief response.
Admiral Cowan. Sir, we will respond to that in more detail
in the immediate future.
Part of the reduction of reservists for the Navy is an
intentional part of the transformation of the Navy because we
use our reservists in different ways. Part of the cuts in
Reserves were actually cuts of billets not people. They were
billets that we could not match the skill next to. We now use
our Reserves as more of an integrated force than in the past.
So the degree of risk that we may be running with our Reserve
assets is only perhaps marginally larger or the same as it was
before.
That being said, we do have ongoing difficulties with
shortages in specific areas, and I will provide you information
on the programs that we are working to improve those.
[The information follows:]
The Medical Corps currently has shortages in anesthesiology,
surgery, urology, neurosurgery and radiology. The Medical Corps
primarily uses the Health Professions Scholarship Program and the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, as it's primary
accession pipeline. Students are recruited for these programs and then
get into specialties based on the Navy's need and the availability of
training positions. Another method to increase the number of critical
shortage specialists is the use of fellowship training to entice
specialists in critical areas to remain on active duty. In addition, a
new training program in radiology at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth,
Virginia was opened in 2003, which will increase the number of
graduating radiologists per year from in service training programs.
The Nurse Corps continues to focus on a blend of initiatives to
enhance our recruitment and retention efforts, 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, and Board Certification
Pay).
--Graduate education and training programs, which 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.
--Successful recruiting incentives for reservists in critical wartime
specialties include: the accession bonus and stipend program
for graduate education.
The Medical Service Corps is comprised of 32 different health care
specialties in administrative, clinical and scientific fields. The
educational requirements are unique for each field; most require
graduate level degrees, many at the doctoral level. End of fiscal year
2003 manning was at 98.2 percent, however, difficulties remain in
retaining highly skilled officers in a variety of clinical and
scientific professions. Entomology and Physiology are currently
undermanned by more than 10 percent. Entomology has not met direct
accession goals since fiscal year 1999 and Physiology has not met
direct accession goals since fiscal year 1998. Use of the Health
Services Collegiate Program (HSCP), a Navy student pipeline program,
was instituted for the Entomology community in fiscal year 2002 and for
the Physiology community in fiscal year 2003. The use of HSCP for these
communities seems to be an effective means to achieve the accession
goals for these communities.
The Dental Corps currently have their greatest shortages in general
military dentists; endodontists (root canal specialists); Oral and
Maxillo-Facial Surgeons and prosthodontists. The Dental Corps uses the
Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) as it's primary accession
pipeline. Dental students are recruited for these programs and then get
into specialties based on the Navy's need and the availability of
training positions. At the present time, recent graduates are being
deferred for residency training in these shortage areas on a case-by-
case review.
General Peake. Sir, I mentioned the 90-day rotations to be
able to enable dentists, nurse anesthetists, and physicians to
be able to be away from their practice a reasonable period and
still be able to be incorporated back into that practice when
they get there. Even with that 90 days, it is stressful. I have
had one say, well, I can do 90 days, but I cannot do 90 days
every year, that kind of notion. So the OPTEMPO is part of it.
I think we are about to restructure our Reserves so that we
have a United States Army Reserve medical command that will
allow us to focus the management of all of those critical
assets in a more homogeneous way. So there is a restructuring
initiative that is going on.
The other aspects of it are on the active side, and so we
have to keep a close eye on that, given the OPTEMPO and
PERSTEMPO as well. So I think the issue of restructuring our
bonuses is important and we need to be able to look forward to
getting that updated because we have not really updated it in a
while.
General Taylor. We will respond in more detail to you,
Senator.
I also think for the reservists in particular it is
difficult in today's medical practice. Many of the providers
operate very close to the margin. So taking them out for long
periods of time oftentimes can destroy a practice.
So all of us--and you heard from General Peake--are trying
to work ways where we can bring them on active duty for short
periods of times, particularly through a volunteer system, so
they could support perhaps 30 days every couple of years. So we
are all actively trying to work ways of doing that. We have
been aggressively trying to do that so that it counts as 2
years' worth of points and 1 year, one 30-day activation. So we
are working real hard to do that.
Certainly pay and environment of care is an important
aspect, as well as trying to make continued service in the
Guard and Reserve for our folks who elect to leave active duty
an important piece of a smooth transition from being on active
duty status. We are hoping to be able to gather more folks up
to serve in these critical positions in the Guard and Reserve.
We have not seen a radical drop in physicians in particular
within the Guard and Reserves, but it is very troublesome
seeing how much we used them in the last couple of years.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Senator Inouye. There are certain statistics we watch very
carefully. One, obviously, is recruiting and retention of
active duty medical personnel. Are we in good shape?
General Peake. Sir, we are in the Army on the Health
Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP), of course, with the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS),
but really in the larger extent it is our health professional
scholarship programs. Those costs have increased significantly
to the point where I had to look into other sources of funds
other than what we had programmed just because the tuition
costs have gone up so much as we put people out into civilian
training, which is tremendously important for us. That is
really our best recruiting tool.
I know Debbie Gustke will talk more about nursing in the
next panel, the kinds of things that we are doing to try to
encourage nurses to join our Army as well.
I think what General Taylor talked about in terms of
environment of care is terribly important. We have to have a
quality system and the kind of quality places for them to come
in and practice. Otherwise, they really will not want to be a
part of a second-rate organization. So we have got to keep that
first-rate.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Well, we would like to pursue that
conversation with you and your successors. I know some medical
people up my way who would welcome a chance to have a quarter
of 1 year away from their practice and to have some different
surroundings. If they had a commitment that they would not be
yanked out for 1 year later, they might make that commitment.
We need to devise some innovative programs to give particularly
these young doctors who get stuck in some place and they do not
get a chance to travel. It will give them a chance to get
involved and be active duty for 2 months a year or something
like that and give them a commitment they will not be called up
for longer in a certain period, whatever it is, and have some
bonuses involved in that training. It might be easier to do
that than to get more scholarships and whatnot, to get more
people who really end up by not being available anyway after
they have left the service.
We want to thank you again. General Peake and Admiral
Cowan, we have enjoyed your participation in our process here
and we respect your commitment to your military service and
your medical profession. So we wish you well.
General Taylor, you will be over at the left-hand side of
the table next year. So we will look forward to that. I
remember when I was sitting down at the end of this table once
when an old friend of mine, who was the chairman--I had known
him years before--he called me over and he said, do you know
how much seat time you are going to have to log to get to sit
where I am sitting?
So cheer up. You moved very quickly.
We will proceed to the nursing now and hear from the Chiefs
of the service nursing corps. We thank you very much, Admiral
and Generals.
Your nursing corps is vital to the success of our military
medical system as any part of it. We thank you for your
leadership and we look forward to hearing from you. We welcome
you again. We are going to hear from Colonel Deborah Gustke,
the Assistant Chief of Army Nurse Corps. We welcome Admiral
Nancy Lescavage, Director of the Navy Nurse Corps, and from the
Air Force, we have General Barbara Brannon, Assistant Surgeon
General for Nursing. We welcome you all back warmly. None of
you are leaving us this year, are you?
Colonel Gustke. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. I yield to my good friend and co-chairman.
Senator Inouye. I would like to join you in congratulating
and thanking all of the nurses here.
Major General Brannon, I believe you are the first to be a
major general.
General Brannon. I am, sir, in the Air Force.
Senator Inouye. Congratulations.
General Brannon. Thank you for the great honor. It is very
humbling.
Senator Inouye. Let us hope that you are the first of many.
I am especially proud to see Admiral Lescavage here. I have
special pride in that she served on my staff for a while as a
fellow.
We will hear from Colonel Gustke. Some day, if you stick
around, you will have a star as well.
I understand that the Army has been operating without a
Nurse Corps chief since General Bester retired. I understand
that you will also be retiring.
Colonel Gustke. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. Don't you want to wait until you receive
your star?
Seriously, I would like to thank you for your many years of
service to our Nation. Thank you so much.
Colonel Gustke. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you all. Your statements will appear
in the record in full. We will look forward to your comments.
Colonel, we call on you first.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL DEBORAH A. GUSTKE, ASSISTANT
CHIEF, ARMY NURSE CORPS
Colonel Gustke. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to update you on
the Army Nurse Corps.
As of April 2004, we have deployed over 814 Army nurses to
places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, serving as members of
forward surgical teams in support of our deployed divisions,
and as staff within our 31st Combat Support Hospital, 67th
Combat Support Hospital, and 325th U.S. Army Reserve Field
Hospital.
We have numerous Reserve nurses who are serving in back-
fill roles in our medical treatment facilities. Furthermore,
158 Reserve and National Guard nurses are serving as case
managers at the regional medical commands, mobilization sites,
and at the community-based health care initiatives which were
established to provide medical holdover management for soldiers
impacted deployment.
We have a very strong focus on reintegration of our
personnel once they return home and are continuing to assess
whether the rapid deployment tempo is impacting retention. I am
pleased to tell you that last year in fiscal year 2003 we
experienced the lowest attrition rate in the past 5 years. We
continue to collect data from Army nurses and the reasons for
attrition have remained constant over the last few years
without any new emerging trends.
At home we continue to leverage all available incentives
and professional opportunities in recruiting and retaining both
our civilian and military nursing personnel. Simply put, the
direct hire authority for registered nurses authorized by
Congress has substantially benefitted our hiring efforts. In
fiscal year 2003 we achieved an unprecedented 94 percent fill
rate of documented civilian registered nurse positions, an
overall turnover rate of less than 14 percent. Our hiring
reflects improvement over the past 3 years for registered
nurses.
We continue, however, to have barriers in hiring our
licensed practical nurses and strongly affirm that direct hire
authority needs to be extended to include this extremely
valuable nursing population.
We believe that we have strong recruitment and retention
tools to address the long-term impact of the decreased nursing
pool on our military nursing recruiting efforts. Although the
Army Nurse Corps was below our fiscal year 2003 budgeted end
strength, the decrement is less than in the past 2 years. We
are confident that the recruiting and retention strategies in
place, such as the increased accession bonus and the health
loan repayment program, will continue to help reduce the
decrement in future years.
We also increased the number of soldiers who are sponsored
to obtain their baccalaureate nursing degree through the Army
enlisted commissioning program. We continue to take aggressive
measures to strengthen nurse accessions through the Army
Reserve Officer Training Corps and the United States Army
Recruiting Command. We offer Reserve Officer Training Corps
(ROTC) nurses scholarships at nearly 200 nursing schools and
have increased the collaborative relationship between our
health care recruiting resources in ROTC and the United States
Army Recruiting Command (USAREC).
Army nurses continue to be at the forefront of relevant
nursing research that is focused on our research priorities of
readiness and nursing practice. We have nearly 90 research
studies currently in progress and continue to foster
involvement in the research process at all levels of our
organization. Our research accomplishments include the
development of 23 evidence-based standardized treatment
guidelines for musculoskeletal injuries most common to
soldiers.
Our Military Nursing Outcomes Database study, known as
MilNOD is now in the fourth year of study and has resulted in
the development of staffing and patient safety reports for the
Army hospitals. This study also affirms our strong belief in
collaborative nursing research as we have influenced the
development of the Veterans Affairs Nursing Outcomes Database
with a similar design. This project truly demonstrates what is
best about nursing research and Federal nursing collaboration.
Along with our Federal nursing colleagues, our commitment
to the tri-service research program and the graduate school of
nursing at the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences remains very strong. Both these programs are distinct
cornerstones of our Federal nursing education and research
efforts and clearly demonstrate nursing excellence.
Thank you, sir, for your continued support of both these
exemplary programs as it enables us to continue to produce
advances in nursing education, research, and practice for the
benefit of our soldiers and their family members and our
deserving retiree population.
Finally, Senators, we are firmly determined to meeting and
overcoming any challenge that we face this year and are
committed to meet the uncertain challenges of the future. We
are further motivated by the impressive, steadfast courage and
sacrifice demonstrated by all the fine men and women in uniform
who are serving our great Nation. We will continue our mission
with a sustained focus on readiness, expert clinical practice,
sound educational preparation, professionalism, leadership, and
the unfailing commitment to our Nation that have been
distinguishing characteristics of our Army nurses and
organization for over 103 years.
As I conclude my 32 years of service in the Army Nurse
Corps, I am most proud of all the tremendous civilian and
military nursing personnel that represent this great Army Nurse
Corps.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you again for your support and for providing the
opportunity for us to present the extraordinary efforts,
sacrifices, and contributions made by all Army nurses who
always stand ready, caring, and proud. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colonel Deborah A. Gustke
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am
Colonel Deborah A. Gustke, Assistant Chief, Army Nurse Corps. Thank you
for providing the opportunity this year to update you on the state of
the Army Nurse Corps. I am pleased to represent Brigadier General
William T. Bester, Chief of the Army Nurse Corps, who is currently
transitioning to retirement after a very distinguished thirty-five year
military career. The past year has been challenging for our great
Nation as well as for the Army Nurse Corps. We have sustained a
deployment rate in recent months not seen since the Vietnam era and I
am extremely proud to report that the Army Nurse Corps has again
demonstrated our flexibility and determination to remain ready to serve
during these challenging and difficult times.
We remain very engaged in our Army's efforts in support of
operations around the world. As of March 2004, we have deployed over
814 Army nurses to places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Our nurses are
providing expert care in every health care setting. There are Army
nurses on Forward Surgical Teams performing immediate life-saving care
to our soldiers. We have Army nurses assigned to the combat divisions
who are responsible for educating and sustaining our enlisted combat
medics--our linchpin to soldier care. Army nurses perform both clinical
and leadership roles in the two deployed Combat Support Hospitals (CSH)
and one Field Hospital. At present, the 31st Combat Support Hospital
from Fort Bliss, TX and the 67th CSH from Wuerzberg, Germany are on the
ground in Iraq and the 325th Field Hospital, United States Army
Reserve, headquartered from Independence, MO, is currently on the
ground in Afghanistan. These units in Iraq recently conducted a
seamless transition with the 28th CSH from Fort Bragg, NC and the 21st
CSH from Fort Hood, TX, who have now safely returned home. We are
firmly supporting organized reintegration programs for the members of
these units at their home stations to ensure that the transition to
home is as supportive and successful as possible. We are truly proud of
the Army nurses and all the medical personnel who served and are
currently serving with these and all the medical units.
Our Reserve Nurse Corps officers are demonstrating the necessary
leadership and clinical expertise in support of current operations in
many settings around the world. In addition to the nurses in theater,
numerous other Reserve nurses are serving in backfill roles in our
Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs). Furthermore, 158 Reserve and
National Guard nurses are serving as case managers at the Regional
Medical Commands, mobilizations sites and at the community based health
care initiative sites, established to provide medical holdover
management for soldiers impacted by deployment. With the addition of
Army nurse case managers in June 2003, the flow and disposition rate of
medical holdovers has increased dramatically. Army nurses possess the
necessary mix of leadership and clinical skills to perform nursing care
in any setting and in any role. I strongly believe that we have fully
demonstrated this throughout our one hundred and three year history,
and especially since September 11, 2001.
The current world environment is not without challenges for the
Army Nurse Corps in several arenas. The National nursing shortage
continues to impact the ability of the Army Nurse Corps to attract and
retain nurses. Although we are encouraged by recent increases in
nursing school application numbers, concerns continue over the lack of
nursing school capacity due to the availability of adequate faculty. We
wholeheartedly support initiatives that attract and retain nursing
school faculty and believe that it will be critical to continue
developing programs necessary to meet current and future faculty
shortfalls.
We have worked diligently in the past year to minimize the impact
of a decreased nursing personnel pool on our civilian nurse strength.
Civilian nurses continue to comprise the majority of our total nurse
workforce and have performed exceptionally during the recent staffing
transitions at our MTFs as our active and reserve nurses mobilize in
support of operations around the world. Our civilian nurses have
demonstrated true resiliency and the willingness to absorb the
necessary roles to ensure that we don't miss a beat as we provide
expert nursing care to our beneficiaries.
We continue to have success with the Direct Hire Authority. In
fiscal year 2003, we achieved a 94 percent percent fill rate of
documented civilian Registered Nurse positions and an overall turnover
rate of 14 percent. These numbers reflect continued improvements over
the past three years and the high fill rate percentage demonstrates
that Direct Hire Authority is successful. We will continue to monitor
strategies to address retention efforts such as supporting
opportunities for continuing education and professional development
programs for our civilian Registered Nurses. Although in fiscal year
2003, for the first time in three years, we experienced a decline in
the fill rate for civilian Licensed Practical nurse positions, but we
experienced a decreased turnover rate. In fiscal year 2003, it took an
average of 84 days to fill a Licensed Practical Nurse position, nearly
30 more days than the Army standard of 55 days. We're reviewing the
options we have to ease the recruitment and hiring lag that we
currently experience in this valuable nursing personnel population.
The Army Nurse Corps remains actively engaged in a DOD effort to
simplify and streamline civilian personnel requirements and prepare our
processes to compliment the evolving National Security Personnel System
(NSPS). We support having the flexibility necessary to respond to the
rapidly changing civilian market and are encouraged by the projected
use of pay banding to facilitate regional hiring and retention
differences. We are now able to implement the needed flexible special
pay strategies within the pay system and are pursuing financing
strategies to execute this authority this fiscal year. In addition, we
are ready to implement the clinical education template currently
required in the legislation in order to ensure consistency of hiring
practices.
We believe that we have assertively leveraged strong recruitment
and retention tools to address the long-term impact of the decreased
nursing pool on our military nurse recruiting efforts. Although the
Army Nurse Corps was below our fiscal year 2003 end-strength of 3,381
by 154, this decrement has closed since fiscal year 2002 and we are
confident that the recruitment and retention strategies in place will
continue to help reduce future shortfalls. We continue to take
aggressive measures to strengthen our position in both the Army Reserve
Officers' Training Corps (AROTC) and United States Army Recruiting
Command (USAREC) recruiting markets. We now offer AROTC nursing
scholarships to students at approximately 200 nursing schools across
the country. One of the greatest recruiting tools for AROTC and nursing
is the Nurse Educators Tour to the AROTC Leader Development and
Assessment Course at Fort Lewis, WA. This course is the capstone
evaluation program for AROTC cadets in the summer between their junior
and senior years and impressively demonstrates the finest qualities of
our future officers. In the past, we were limited to hosting 30 nurse
educators, but now have secured resources to host up to 150 educators.
Last summer, 104 nurse educators came to Fort Lewis and left with a new
found appreciation for the benefit of AROTC training as well as for the
Army Nurse Corps as a tremendous environment for their students to
practice the art and science of nursing. Upon returning to school last
fall, one nurse educator personally escorted five nursing students to
the AROTC cadre to discuss scholarship options. It is clearly evident
that the influence of nurse educators on prospective Army Nurses is
integral to our efforts in AROTC and we will continue to foster those
strong relationships.
We have also taken strides to increase the collaborative
relationship between our health care recruiting resources in AROTC and
USAREC. This collaborative non-competitive partnering was initiated to
maximize the Army Nursing presence on campus and to present a unified
Army Nurse Corps team to the nursing students and faculty. As of
February 2004, this collaborative effort has resulted in 60 referrals
to USAREC by AROTC Nurse Counselors. We will continue to support this
professional partnering in nurse recruiting.
Regarding compensation incentives, we have been successful in
increasing the accession bonus and are working towards incremental
increases up to our authorized level in future years. We are
particularly proud to report that the Health Professions Loan Repayment
Program (HPLRP), implemented at the end of fiscal year 2003 and
continuing into fiscal year 2006, has been very successful. We have
been able to optimize the use of this program for both new accessions
as well as for retention of our fine company grade Army Nurse Corps
officers. We believe that these incentive programs, coupled with
established professional leadership and clinical education programs,
are instrumental in our efforts to retain Army nurses during the early
phase of their careers. Finally, we continue to be extremely successful
in providing a solid progression program for our enlisted personnel to
obtain their baccalaureate nursing degree through the Army Enlisted
Commissioning Program. Our intent is to consistently sponsor 85
enlisted soldiers each year to complete their nursing education to
become Registered Nurses and subsequently, Army Nurse Corps officers.
We have married the support framework of these soldiers to our AROTC
resources at the various colleges and universities in order to ensure
that our enlisted soldiers have the support and mentoring they so
richly deserve while they are pursuing their nursing studies. Graduates
from this program continue to provide the Army Nurse Corps with nurses
who are strong soldiers and leaders.
Our focus on retention of our junior nurses will always be
important and in fact, in fiscal year 2003, we experienced the lowest
attrition rate in the past five years. We believe that the robust
compensation strategies such as their base pay, allowances, the Health
Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP) and the Incentive Specialty
Pays for our Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA) have been
paramount in our effort to recognize individuals for their tremendous
efforts and sacrifices, especially during the continued high
operational tempo. We continue to collect data from Army nurses who
choose to leave the Army and are analyzing the recent data to assess
any impact that the swift deployment tempo may have on our retention
efforts. The results to date do not reflect that the losses are related
to deployment, but we will continue to track and assess this very
closely.
Each year, the Army Nurse Corps continues to sponsor the largest
number of nurses, compared to any Service, to pursue advanced nursing
education in a variety of specialty courses as well as in masters and
doctoral programs. We know that this education program, coupled with
the military leadership development, positively impacts improved
clinical practice environment, mentoring relationships, and role
satisfaction.
It is a pleasure to be able to highlight good news stories about
nurses affiliated with the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Center and
School and at the many MTFs around the world who are working tirelessly
to improve the clinical, education, research, and leadership
environments. At the AMEDD Center and School, we have increased our
training capacity for CRNAs in order to address a critical shortfall in
this specialty. This involved opening a clinical training site at
Brooke Army Medical Center, in San Antonio, TX, that allows us to
produce an additional four CRNA nurses each year. As a result, we will
increase our ability to fill the operational requirements for these
nurses as well as decrease the current costs of contracting civilian
CRNA personnel in our facilities.
Army Nurses are integral to the Army Medical Reengineering
Initiative at all levels of our organization. To support the conversion
of our enlisted/officer Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) to an expanded
level of patient care capability, Army Nurses designed and implemented
a new educational program of instruction for the LPN training program.
This improvement refocused training to include a greater emphasis on
critical care and trauma skills in support of the revised wartime
mission of these soldiers. Our first class, under the improved program
of instruction, began in late 2003 and we are confident that this
training will produce the highly trained Practical Nurse sought by the
Army. Army Nurses are also very proud to be an integral part of the
transformation of the new enlisted Healthcare Specialist Military
Occupational Specialty (91Ws). We are imbedded in the training units as
leaders and educators. In fact, there are 32 Army Nurse Corps officers
directly assigned to the combat divisions who are working to ensure
that our 91W soldiers sustain their training and preparation needed to
provide the most far forward care. Over the past year, as they have
throughout history, our medics have performed admirably and we are very
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 and sustainment training practices are well
established.
The Army Nurses at Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii have
implemented a professional practice model for all its nurses. The model
is a standards and role-based model that clearly delineates the role of
the nurse and provides more consistent tools for use in the performance
evaluation process. This process has significantly assisted our new
nurses in understanding role expectations as well as assisted our nurse
leaders in clearly articulating expectations to the nursing staff. This
process is ongoing and we are exploring the potential of expanding this
concept to other MTFs. The Army Nurses from Hawaii are also in demand
around the Pacific Rim and have established professional dialogue with
the Royal Thai Nurses, The Australian Nurse Corps, and the New Zealand
Defence Corps. In addition, Army Nurses have presented on clinical and
professional nursing issues in Bangkok, Thailand and Hanoi, Vietnam. We
will continue to sponsor this professional collaboration in the spirit
of international cooperation and mutual benefit.
Last year, we presented information on the Combat Trauma Registry
initiative that was employed at Landstuhl, Germany and contained
retrospective data entered on soldiers injured in Afghanistan in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom. I am pleased to report that this
database is now termed the Army Medical Department Theater Trauma
Registry (AMEDD TTR) and is a web-based system, with DOD interface, now
capable of concurrent data collection and casualty reporting. The AMEDD
TTR collects data on all casualties, all U.S. military personnel and
any NATO and allied military personnel and local nationals, treated at
U.S. facilities in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Army Nurses in partnership
with experts from the Institute of Surgical Research, Walter Reed Army
Medical Center, Landstuhl Army Medical Center, the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology and the Navy Health Research Center have worked
tirelessly on this project. It is expected that the results of this
data collection and analysis will provide information pertinent in the
development of improved medical training, equipment, and practice
modalities for future operations.
Army nurses continue to be at the forefront of nursing research
focused on the five Army Nurse Corps research priorities of
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.
The Military Nursing Outcomes Database (MilNOD) project is now in
the fourth year of study and incorporates research efforts across the
military nursing services. The participating sites include Walter Reed
Army Medical Center, Madigan Army Medical Center, Womack Army Medical
Center, Dewitt Army Community Hospital, Malcolm Grow Air Force Medical
Center, Naval Hospital Bremerton and Naval Hospital Whidbey Island.
This project is collecting data to support evidence-based clinical and
administrative decision-making and create a reliable and valid database
consisting of standardized nurse staffing and patient safety data. In
addition, the investigation team is working with the California Nursing
Outcome Coalition (CalNOC), a repository of staffing and patient safety
data from 120 California hospitals, to benchmark data from like
facilities. Although still in progress, this project has resulted in
very promising findings to include the development of staffing and
patient safety reports for the Army hospitals. The content of these
reports meets the JCAHO compliance measures for staffing effectiveness
measures and is being used by the nursing leadership in staffing
pattern decisions. In addition, the MilNOD data on patient safety
related to pressure ulcers revealed that nurses at Walter Reed were
noticing that some of the ill or injured patients returning from
deployment were experiencing pressure ulcers. This finding led to a
discussion of pressure ulcer prevention in the field setting and
resulted in the sharing of pressure ulcer prevention protocols from the
Medical Center with the Combat Support Hospital in theater. In
addition, nurses determined that the field litters currently used to
support and transport patients did not provide the necessary padding
protection against the development of pressure ulcers. This finding
opens up a whole new area for potential inquiry and intervention. The
MilNOD project is a tremendous long-term effort by nurses in all three
services and has now influenced the development of the Veteran's
Affairs Nursing Outcomes Database (VANOD). This project truly
demonstrates what is best about nursing research and Federal Nursing
collaboration.
Army nurse researchers at Madigan Army Medical Center have also
developed 23 evidence-based standardized treatment guidelines for
musculoskeletal injuries most common to soldiers. These guidelines
provide information on patient education, exercise regimes with
photographic aids, diagnostic information, and medical profile
information. There have been hundreds of requests for these guidelines
from deploying units as well as from providers at MTFs at home and each
of these guidelines may be found on-line at the Madigan Army Medical
Center website.
Our Nursing Anesthesia students continue to add to our growing body
of knowledge in nursing anesthesia care for our beneficiaries at home
or our soldiers in a deployment setting. This past year, several
studies were done on monitoring techniques, warming techniques, gender
differences in medication dosage levels and the impact of medication
use on pain perception. We are extremely proud of the research that all
our students accomplish while they are completing very vigorous
programs of study.
Our civilian nurses are also very involved in nursing research.
Nurse researchers at Fort Carson, CO received a National Institutes of
Health grant to study self-diagnosis of genitourinary infection of
deployed women. The study plan is to develop a safe and accurate field
expedient self-diagnosis and treatment kit for genitourinary infections
to be used by military women deployed to austere environments. In a
preliminary study involving over 800 military women, the investigators
learned that 87 percent of these women experienced symptoms of
infection at some point during the deployment. Nearly half of the women
reported that the symptoms resulted in decreased work performance and
24 percent reported lost hours of work time. It is evident that the
outcomes of this research could have a positive impact on readiness and
women's health in the deployed environment. This study has far reaching
implications for other humanitarian organizations that send women to
areas in which the needed health care may not be readily accessible or
available.
The Army Nurse Corps research priorities are extremely timely and
relevant to the research being conducted by our civilian nursing
colleagues. A study recently completed in December 2003 by Lieutenant
Colonel Patricia Patrician, an Army Nurse Corps researcher from Walter
Reed Army Medical Center, focused on assessing the Army hospital work
environment in order to describe the work environment attributes, nurse
burnout, job dissatisfaction and intent to leave the Army workforce
from the perspectives of military and civilian staff nurses. The second
purpose was to compare these results to published reports from civilian
hospitals. As we know, recruitment and retention has been tied to
positive work environments, such as those that exist in magnet
hospitals. The final sample from the Army study consisted of 957
Registered Nurses who worked in inpatient settings within the Army's 23
hospitals in the United States. The sample represented 64 percent
civilian and 36 percent military nurses. The study results concluded
that nurses working in Army hospitals rated Army hospitals more
favorably as compared to the ratings of a group of civilian hospitals
in terms of work environment. Nurses who work in Army hospitals
experience less burnout and less job dissatisfaction than those in
civilian hospitals. Finally, when taking into consideration normal
military rotations and rotations within a hospital, Army nursing
personnel are less likely than civilian nurses to leave their current
positions within one year. Research of this nature helps us maintain
our healthy work environment as well as remain competitive with our
civilian counterparts in recruitment and retention.
Our support and appreciation for the Uniformed Services University
of the Health Sciences (USUHS) is also very strong. USUHS continues to
provide us with professional nursing graduates who continue to excel in
their programs of study and subsequent professional military careers.
We are pleased that both the Clinical Nurse Specialist Program in
Perioperative Nursing as well as the Doctoral Program in Nursing are
successfully progressing in their inaugural year. These programs were
established as a result of an identified need in the military services
and the Graduate School of Nursing leadership and staff worked
tremendously hard to develop and execute both of these programs. USUHS
will continue to be our cornerstone educational institution and remains
flexible and responsive to our Federal Nursing needs. We look forward
to a continued strong partnership to maintain the necessary numbers of
professional practitioners to support our complex mission.
The Army Nurse Corps experienced the loss of two tremendous Army
Nurse Corps officers this past year, one whose legacy of leadership and
influence will forever have an impact on the Corps and one whose young
career ended much too soon. Brigadier General (Retired) Lillian Dunlap,
our 14th Chief, Army Nurse Corps, passed away in April 2003. She had a
long and illustrious life, both personally and professionally. BG
Dunlap served in the 59th Station Hospital in the southwest Pacific
area of New Guinea, Admiralty Islands and the Philippines during World
War II and during her 33 year career, held almost every position
available in the Army Nurse Corps from staff duty nurse to nurse
counselor, chief nurse, 1st U.S. Army during Vietnam, director of
nursing services, instructor and director of nursing science at our
Academy of Health Sciences. Without a doubt, one of BG Dunlap's most
powerful and lasting achievements was the elevation of the educational
level of nurses in the Army Nurse Corps. Her support and guidance
assured the success of the baccalaureate degree in Nursing as the
standard for entry into practice for Army Nurses--a standard that the
Army Nurse Corps once again reaffirms today 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. BG (R) Dunlap's
legacy will endure and she will be known as an Army nurse who opened
many doors for the future of Army nursing and ``gave that handful
more'' to everything that she did. We salute her self-less service.
Captain Gussie Mae Jones was born in Arkansas and was one of eight
children. She began her Army career by enlisting in 1988 as a personnel
clerk and climbed to the rank of sergeant. In 1986, Captain Jones
earned a bachelor's degree in business administration from Arkansas
University Central. She was selected above her peers to attend the Army
Enlisted Commissioning Program and earned her second bachelor's degree
from Syracuse University in 1998. It was in nursing that she found her
passion. Her career as a registered nurse and a commissioned officer
began in September 1998 at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio.
After completing our specialty course in critical-care nursing in 2002,
she was assigned to William Beaumont Army Medical Center, where she
excelled in nursing in the intensive care setting. Assigned as a
Professional Officer Filler (PROFIS) to the 31st Combat Support
Hospital, Captain Jones deployed with her unit to Iraq in February of
this year. An emerging leader and dedicated nurse, Captain Jones was
admired by her fellow soldiers. On March 7, 2004, Captain Jones died of
natural causes in Baghdad, Iraq surrounded by the soldiers with whom
she served. Captain Jones devoted 15 years of her life to the service
of her Country and the United States Army. She was a soldier and
consummate professional nurse whom we are extremely proud to have had
in the Army Nurse Corps. CPT Jones represents the best in Army nursing.
We will never forget her sacrifice and willingness to serve. She will
be sorely missed.
Finally Senators, we are firmly determined to meeting and
overcoming any challenge that we face this year and are committed to
meet the uncertain challenges of the future. We will continue with a
sustained focus on readiness, expert clinical practice, sound
educational preparation, professionalism, leadership and the unfailing
commitment to our Nation that have been distinguishing characteristics
of our Army nurses and our organization for over 103 years. As I
conclude my 32 years of service in the Army Nurse Corps, I am most
proud of all the tremendous civilian and military nursing personnel
that represent this great Army Nurse Corps. Thank you again for your
support and for providing the opportunity to present the extraordinary
efforts, sacrifices and contributions made by Army nurses who are all
ready, caring and proud.
Senator Stevens. Admiral Lescavage.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL NANCY J. LESCAVAGE, DIRECTOR,
NAVY NURSE CORPS
Admiral Lescavage. Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Senator
Inouye. I am Rear Admiral Nancy Lescavage, the 20th Director of
the Navy Nurse Corps and the Commander of the Naval Medical
Education Training Command. It indeed is an honor and a
privilege to speak before you during my third year in this
position and to highlight the achievements and issues of our
5,000 Navy nurses, both Active and Reserve.
The Navy Nurse Corps' exceptional performance during the
past year clearly demonstrates operational readiness as we
continue to meet our primary mission. In support of Operation
Iraqi Freedom, we had 500 nurses deployed and there were over
400 filled reserve mobilization requests to maintain the
continuum of care in our military treatment facilities. In
addition, there were over 400 active and Reserve Navy nurses
involved in additional training exercises.
Through a variety of activities, ranging from direct care
to the conduct of research in support of our operational
forces, Navy nurse fleet support has been well received by our
line community. For example, nurse practitioners assigned to
the Norfolk Naval Base see fleet sailors on board ship or while
underway. Through the newly established force nurse initiative
with the U.S. Atlantic fleet and Pacific fleet, Navy nurses are
now integral to fleet level oversight and lend guidance and
assistance to aircraft carrier medical departments and our
aviation squadrons.
At our naval health research centers, Navy nurse
researchers are leading the way in research projects focused on
things like women's health initiatives and casualty care.
Numerous training opportunities across the Federal and the
civilian sectors have been essential to maintaining critical
Navy nursing specialty skills that are required in the
operational environment. As one example, over 50 Navy nurses
have successfully rotated through the Navy trauma training
program with Los Angeles (L.A.) County and the University of
Southern California Medical Center to enhance their combat
trauma skills. Also, through established agreements between six
military treatment facilities and local trauma centers, an
additional 50 Navy nurses have also benefitted from this
specialized training.
Across naval medicine, military and civilian nurses are
leaders, clinical experts, and researchers in a variety of
programs from population health to specific disease management.
The Joint Population Health Office at Naval Medical Clinic
Pearl Harbor has been labeled as a benchmark for population
health in the Navy with their comprehensive screening and
assessment program to individualize patient care.
Through the vast worldwide case management program across
Navy medicine, the collaborative efforts of 93 civilian nurse
case managers have resulted in an estimated cost avoidance of
$6.4 million through recaptured workload, decreased lost
training days, and better managed care. In addition, innovative
nurse managed clinics include a 24-hour/7-day-a-week nurse call
center which supports increased accessibility, post-deployment
stress briefings and disease management, to name a few.
In the area of research, we value its contribution to
quality patient care and the practice of our nursing
professionals anywhere from utilizing evidence-based medicine
to establishing innovative health care programs. Through a
comprehensive research-based practice initiative, focused on
patient falls, for example, National Naval Medical Center
Bethesda has become a model in promoting patient safety for
civilian, as well as our military facilities.
As an outcome of one of our TriService nursing research
program funded grants, we now assign more seasoned Navy nurses
with specific critical care expertise to our aircraft carriers
to better meet our operational mission. Many of our research
grant findings are collaboratively shared across the services
and presented worldwide at numerous professional conferences
and in professional publications.
Your continued support of TriService nursing research is
greatly appreciated.
With the Nation's focus on the overall nursing shortage, it
is important to address our recruitment and retention efforts.
Our goal is to shape the force with the right number of Navy
nurses in the right specialties, more importantly at the right
time in the right positions. That is done to meet our mission
in all care environments and to become the premier employer of
choice for our Navy nurses and civilian nurses.
Naval medicine has historically been able to meet military
and civilian recruiting goals and specialty nursing
requirements to this point. We had a slow start this year,
specifically in active duty recruiting, with our most recent
report of attaining only 26 percent of our goal although we are
only midway through the recruiting year. We have recently been
successful in increasing the accession bonus, and that occurred
late January of this year. We are also in the process of
seeking funding for the health professional loan repayment
program.
Fortunately, the good news is we have other pipeline
scholarship programs, for instance, our ROTC programs and
seaman to admiral, to help meet our recruiting needs. Based on
our projected gains and losses for this year, we predict a
deficit of 98 for a desired end strength of 3,176 active duty
nurses.
As for our Reserve component, we are right on track with
recruiting and we predict 100 percent fill of our billets. Our
Reserve nurses are at 105 percent end strength.
To meet nursing specialty mission requirements and promote
retention, I do have to say our graduate education scholarship
programs and specialized training for those on active duty have
been extremely successful in retaining our active duty nurses.
Our retention numbers are very high. Our Navy nurses love
education. We continue to focus on our operationally related
nursing specialties, for example, operating room, critical
care, anesthesia, and emergency room nurses, as well as
academic programs that will propel our nurses into the
forefront of health care planning and policy in obtaining
Ph.D.'s and MBA's and public health graduate degrees.
In addition to civilian universities, we also send our
students to the Uniformed Services University of Health
Sciences. Your continued interest in the USUHS Graduate School
of Nursing and their doctoral, perioperative, family nurse
practitioner, and anesthesia nursing programs is greatly
appreciated.
In closing, I again do appreciate your tremendous support
with legislative initiatives and the opportunity to share the
accomplishments and issues that face our great Navy Nurse
Corps. I consistently see our nurses as dynamic leaders and
innovative change agents in all settings, both in our MTF's and
in combat. I remain truly proud of the corps and our civilian
nurses as they stand ready to promote, protect, and restore the
health of all entrusted to our care.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I look forward to continuing to work with you during my
tenure as the Director of the Navy Nurse Corps. Thank you,
sirs, for this great honor and privilege.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
[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, the 20th
Director of the Navy Nurse Corps and Commander of the Naval Medical
Education and Training Command. It is an honor and a privilege to speak
before you during my third year in this position and to highlight the
achievements and issues of our 5,000 Navy nurses.
Our performance during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom clearly demonstrated operational readiness as we continue to
meet our primary mission. I would now like to address Navy Nurse Corps
impact in the areas of readiness and homeland security; nursing
initiatives; education and training; jointness and research.
READINESS AND HOMELAND SECURITY
In support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, we had 500 nurses deployed
from over eighteen facilities to the Hospital Ship COMFORT, Fleet
Hospitals, Casualty Receiving Treatment Ships, Shock Trauma Platoons,
and with the Marines. To maintain the continuum of care back at our
Military Treatment Facilities, there were over 400 filled Reserve
mobilization requests, the second largest recall since Desert Storm. In
addition, there were over 400 Active and Reserve Navy Nurses involved
in training exercises, such as Fleet Hospital Field Training,
Operational Readiness Evaluations, Hospital Ship MERCY Exercises, Cobra
Gold, West African Outreach Program, Operation Arctic Circle and
Combined Armed Exercises. Throughout all operations and exercises, our
military and civilian nurses readily adapted; remarkably delivered
outstanding care; and achieved mission accomplishment at our facilities
and while deployed.
In addition to meeting the medical needs of our Navy and Marine
Corps team ``in theater,'' readiness also includes preparing health
care personnel at Navy hospitals and clinics around the world to
respond to a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Nurses are at the
forefront of emergency preparedness across Naval Medicine in a variety
of roles. Within Naval Medicine's Homeland Security Office at the
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, there are two Navy nurses executing a
comprehensive ``Disaster Preparedness, Vulnerability, Analysis,
Training and Exercise Program'' to identify vulnerabilities in training
and to test each military treatment facility's emergency response plan.
Their effectiveness was recently put to an immediate test during the
third training day at Naval Hospital Charleston, when a real disaster
occurred. Forty-four participants, two local hospitals and the
Charleston County Emergency Medical System provided topnotch care for
the casualties involved in a bus accident. In addition, we have several
Navy nurses collaborating with local community disaster planning
programs, promoting well-coordinated response plans, such as at Naval
Hospital Pensacola and Naval Hospital Charleston.
Training
Optimizing available training opportunities across the Federal and
civilian sectors is essential in maintaining critical nursing specialty
skills that are required in all operational environments. Great success
is attributed to the Navy Trauma Training Program in conjunction with
the Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical
Center, one of the nation's finest Level I Trauma Centers. Since its
inception in the fall of 2002, over fifty Navy nurses have successfully
rotated through this program to enhance their combat trauma skills and
to further increase medical readiness with their respective platform
teams. Due to intense follow-up with health care team graduates in the
field, many operational lessons have been incorporated into their
curriculum. The program has received positive national press coverage
through television, nursing magazines and newspapers, praising the Navy
faculty as experts in the most current trauma standards.
Trauma training is further enhanced through established agreements
between six military treatment facilities with local trauma centers and
critical care settings for over 50 nurses at San Diego, Bethesda,
Jacksonville, Camp Pendleton, Bremerton, and Charleston. Other training
opportunities include web-based critical care courses, such as the
``American Association of Critical Care Nurses Essentials of Critical
Care Orientation'' and other instructor presentations, which provide
continuing education credit. To support dual critical specialty skills
in the operational environment, the Association of Perioperative
Registered Nurses nursing curriculum for Perioperative Nurses Training
has been adapted for critical care nurses. As an adjunct to traditional
platform training, the nursing staff at Naval Medical Center San Diego
conducted ``Operational Skills Days'' to enhance their clinical skills
and didactic foundation. When operational needs required immediate
training, Navy nurses were sent to Naval Hospital Okinawa to assist
with Forward Resuscitative Surgical System training.
In short, our Senior Nurse Executives are very resourceful in
seeking educational resources and skills enhancement training to meet
platform and specialty requirements, particularly when located in
smaller, remote facilities or overseas. These clinical training
opportunities have also expanded to other required nursing specialties,
such as labor and delivery, nursery and mother infant nursing for our
Naval Hospitals at Guam and Keflavik through clinical programs in
facilities stateside and overseas. In addition, we continue to place
strong emphasis in developing a solid clinical foundation for our
graduate nurses through Nurse Intern Programs at several of our
facilities, providing a good mix of clinical rotations tailored to
varied patient acuity and specialties resulting in better prepared
nurses.
Related to operational training while supporting community needs, I
would like to highlight three unique military training exercises. The
Civil-Military Innovative Readiness Training Program with our reserve
nurses helps to rebuild America in underserved areas through Operation
Arctic Care in Alaska. Partnership efforts include regional, state and
local communities with Guard and Reserve units in providing exceptional
medical care. Through our nurses' sound leadership and detailed
coordination in the deployment and movement of these units, operational
and combat readiness skills of the military units are enhanced. While
on the exercise, the health care team on the Hospital Ship MERCY
provided medical care to eighty-three Seattle veteran-eligible patients
last summer, lauded by the Seattle Post for their community support.
While in the Pacific Northwest, our health care professionals met with
Canadian health care counterparts to discuss response plans for a major
earthquake scenario. In addition, during the recent Southern California
fire, our hospital ship provided housing and hot meals for over 100
military families.
At the Deckplate
The expanding direct Fleet support by our Navy nurses has been well
received by the Navy and Marine Corps communities. Our two nurse
practitioners assigned to the Norfolk Naval Base see 300 Fleet sailors
a month onboard ship or while underway for wellness and readiness
efforts alone. They also function as trainers and consultants and have
developed a CD-ROM for Fleet implementation of the Preventive Health
Assessment Program. Women's Health Nurse Practitioners have provided
clinical exams for females onboard the U.S.S. Kennedy and also serve as
instructors for the gynecological portion of the Independent Duty
Hospital Corpsman curriculum. Through the newly-established Force Nurse
Initiative with Commander, Naval Air Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet and
Commander, Naval Air Force U.S. Pacific Fleet, two Navy nurses are now
integral to Fleet level oversight, guidance and assistance to aircraft
carrier medical departments and aviation squadrons. Professional
nursing and technical recommendations are also provided on Force Health
Protection, Shipboard Medical Training, Medical Department Quality
Assurance, Infection Control, the acquisition of new medical equipment
and other programs.
Preventive Health Assessment Nurse-Run Clinics, such as in our
Naval Hospitals at Pensacola and Corpus Christi, have been praised by
the Navy Line Community for promoting healthy, physically fit Naval
Forces as program compliance dramatically increased. With the addition
of a mental health clinical nurse specialist, the Outreach Program at
Corpus Christi has further expanded suicide awareness briefs and other
services.
Within the operational nursing division at our Naval Health
Research Centers, our nurse researchers are leading funded research
projects focused on women's health issues and casualty care. In
addition, they collaboratively developed research-based methods for
providing surgical support during special operations at sea and in
caring for the Medical and Security forces at Camp Delta in Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba. These are just a few examples of how Navy nurses at the
deckplate are involved in diverse activities ranging from direct care
to the conduct of research in support of our operational forces.
NURSING INITIATIVES
Across Naval Medicine, Navy nurses are involved in the planning and
implementation of a variety of programs as leaders, clinical experts
and researchers from population health to specific disease management.
Military and civilian nurses are valued catalysts across our facilities
directing patient safety initiatives and leading collaborative teams to
evaluate patient outcomes that reduce error, variability, and cost.
Several nursing initiatives include implementation of the JCAHO
National Patient Safety goals, skin care studies, staffing
effectiveness project, the management of diabetic patients, inpatient
bed utilization, and medication/non-medication related near misses and
actual events.
Navy nurses at our three Healthcare Support Offices have been
primary movers in linking the clinical aspects of Naval Medicine with
strategic and annual business planning efforts to create more efficient
practices and improve outcomes. Their most significant impact is in
relating the clinical processes to business rules and interpreting the
data relative to true clinical practices. In addition, nurse leaders
and researchers are very involved with Navy Advisory Boards, Joint
Readiness Clinical Advisory Boards and nationwide studies to
collaborate on clinical advances and identify specific metrics to
demonstrate efficient business practices.
Joint Population Health Programs
Through the Joint Population Health Program across three
California-based Naval Hospitals at San Diego, Camp Pendleton, and
Twenty-Nine Palms, masters and doctorally-prepared nurses demonstrate
savvy in program implementation, policy, practice and research to shape
the health status of Naval forces and all eligible beneficiaries, while
focusing on quality, cost and access. The Joint Population Health
Office at Naval Medical Clinic Pearl Harbor, Hawaii has been labeled as
a benchmark for population health in the Navy. Based on a comprehensive
screening and assessment process, the program addresses Preventive
Health Assessments (Active Duty); adult and children immunization and
health maintenance status; and health education literature and classes
based on individual needs. Statistically proven results support the
benefits of both of these programs.
Case Management
In today's rapidly changing health care environment, nurse case
managers play a crucial role in helping patients and providers select
the most appropriate level of care in the most cost-effective setting.
Optimal outcome is best exemplified through the Case Management Program
across Navy Medicine based on the collaborative efforts of 93 civilian
nurse case managers. Their focus on Active Duty, Exceptional Family
Member Program families, patients with multi-system medical problems,
targeted disease management entities and frequent emergency room users
resulted in recaptured workload, decreased lost training days, enhanced
patient/provider satisfaction and better managed care. The Active Duty
Trauma Nursing Case Management Program at Naval Medical Center, San
Diego coordinated the health care needs of 87 Operation Iraqi Freedom
wounded and 233 non-operational trauma patients. Among other programs,
such as at Naval Hospital Guam, nurse case managers have been
responsible for reducing emergency room visits and inpatient admissions
for chronically ill patients by responding to hundreds of consults and
processing catastrophic, complex, high risk, high-cost health care
requests.
Nurse-managed Clinics
The rise in nurse-managed or nurse-run clinics has demonstrated the
art and science of nursing in facilitating wellness, prevention and
health maintenance towards self-management for patients. The nature of
registered nurse practice in collaboration with physician champions
meets the standards of the American Academy of Ambulatory Nurses
through the use of research-based clinical practice guidelines,
spanning across the spectrum from neonates to geriatric patients.
Using the latest technological advances in wound care, nurses at
Naval Hospitals Pensacola and Portsmouth enhance the care of complex
battlefield injuries. Within Family-Centered Care, nurses plan,
coordinate, and provide direct care and case management through a
variety of programs, such as Postpartum Care Clinics. Home Action Plans
for Pediatric Pulmonary patients at three of our facilities reduced
admission rates by 50 percent. Other innovative nursing initiatives
include: a nurse call center supporting 24/7 accessibility; post-
deployment stress briefings; and disease management (diabetes,
hyperlipidemia, and hypertension), to name a few.
Successful open access initiatives as a result of the innovative
leadership of nurses at Naval Hospitals Pensacola and San Diego have
increased patient satisfaction; decreased emergency room visits and
unscheduled walk-in appointments; and improved patient/provider
matching. With the assistance of the Institute for Healthcare
Improvement at Naval Hospital Great Lakes, demand and patient flow
processes were reviewed; inefficiencies were identified; new business
plans were developed; and appointments were adjusted to maximize
access. Success has migrated these processes to other clinics and
clinical support areas as well.
RESEARCH
We value research as an essential component to quality nursing
care, from utilizing evidence-based practice to conducting research.
For example, at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, adult patients with
bladder problems are now scanned for urinary retention resulting in an
87 percent reduction in catheterizations. Upper respiratory infection,
urinary tract infection, diabetes and asthma clinical practice
guidelines have improved clinical parameters and therefore decreased
the number of appointments. In support of patient safety, an evidenced-
based practice initiative for a more comprehensive risk assessment and
protocol for ``falls'' was implemented at National Naval Medical Center
Bethesda and has become a model for civilian and military facilities.
The Sports Medicine and Reconditioning Team at Naval Medical Center San
Diego includes a nurse researcher to evaluate ``return to duty'' time
and re-injury rates of our Sailors and Marines to identify areas for
improvement. Through a multidisciplinary research study, MedTeams
strive to eliminate errors in the obstetrical area, increase patient
satisfaction, and enhance collegiality and collaboration among health
care professionals.
We continue to focus on advancing the practice of military specific
nursing and its response to requirements of military readiness and
deployment. The TriService Nursing Research Program has conducted Grant
Management Workshops, which provided invaluable mentorship and
training, resulting in an increased number of higher quality grant
submissions. Research results are collaboratively shared across the
services and are further disseminated to other facilities. Many of our
research grant findings have been presented worldwide in numerous
nursing conferences and in at least ten professional publications.
JOINT INITIATIVES
There are several examples of joint programs across our Federal
agencies, which combine the talent of our health care teams to provide
quality care. Nurses at Naval Hospital Great Lakes are involved in
coordinating a partnership program for active duty treatment and
inpatient care with the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
Nurses at Naval Hospital Corpus Christi are involved in the business
planning and management of specialty care with their local Department
of Veterans Affairs Hospital.
Combined training initiatives and the mutual sharing of clinical
expertise are beneficial, particularly for our overseas duty stations.
Noteworthy coordinated efforts include a mental health nursing program
with Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC; an Obstetrics
Course at Langley Air Force Hospital; Labor and Delivery training at
Landstuhl Army Medical Center; assisting Madigan Army Medical Center
with their medic (Licensed Practice Nurse) clinical training; and
providing Advanced Cardiac Life Support and Pediatric Advanced Life
Support classes for the Air Force at our Naval Medical Clinic in
London.
PROFESSIONAL NURSING IN NAVAL MEDICINE
Our goals are to shape the force with the right number of people in
the right specialties, to meet the mission in all care environments,
and to become the premiere employer of choice. Accomplishing this
requires close attention to the national nursing issues; the pursuit of
available recruitment and retention initiatives; and the alignment of
our military and civilian nurses to meet Naval Medicine needs.
The Department of Health and Human Services and other independent
studies project that the current national nursing shortage of several
hundred thousand registered nurses may add up to 750,000 by 2020.
Despite recent increases in the number of nursing school entrants, the
nation could have a long way to go in making a dent in the overall
shortfall. We carefully monitor civilian compensation packages to
maintain the strength of our military and civilian nursing work force
by offering a variety of incentives.
Recruitment and Retention
Through our diversified accession sources, pipeline scholarship
programs, pay incentives, graduate education programs, specialized
training opportunities and varied retention initiatives, Naval Medicine
has historically been able to meet military and civilian recruiting
goals and specialty nursing requirements to this point. We presently
have 96.4 percent of our authorized active duty billets filled and 100
percent fill for our Reserve component. We continue to focus on our
operationally-related nursing specialties, such as medical-surgical,
critical care, perioperative and anesthesia, as well as women's health
nurse practitioner and certified midwives. Although we had a slow start
in recruiting this year when compared to the past 10 years, we expect
to meet our active and reserve recruiting goals this fiscal year.
Our civil service workforce challenges have been identified in
remote locations stateside and overseas, as well in certain
specialties, such as labor and delivery. Recruiting and retention
incentives are utilized and career ladders initiated where possible.
Graduate Education
Graduate education program and specialized training have been
extremely successful in meeting our nursing specialty mission
requirements and promoting retention. This year, we are sending two
nurses to the recently established Doctoral Program at the Uniformed
Services University of Health Sciences (USUHS). In addition, we
continue to send several of our students to the USUHS anesthesia,
family nurse practitioner and perioperative nursing programs.
Nurse Leadership
Navy nurses continue to function in pivotal executive roles to
impact legislation, health care policy and medical delivery systems.
Executive nurse leaders in the Active and Reserve component are in key
command positions as Commanding Officers and Executive Officers; at the
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Headquarters as Deputy Surgeon General
and Deputy Directors; and other staff positions at Tricare Management
Activity, Health Affairs.
As leaders, we value mentorship, which is accomplished via many
innovative formal programs and informal forums with our enlisted
personnel, Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps students, Medical
Enlisted Commissioning Program students, junior nurses, and novice
researchers.
Recognition
Our nurses are recognized for their exceptional talent, outstanding
leadership and professional nursing community involvement and have
received clinical practice awards through the American Association of
Critical Care Nurses, the Sigma Theta Tau Nursing Honor Society; the
Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses; and the
American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nurses. Our integral presence has
also been documented through an extensive list of journal publications.
For example, the June 2003 Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North
America was specifically dedicated to military and disaster nursing. In
addition, our professional achievements have been highlighted in many
forums at the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses Conference, the
Association of Perioperative Nurses Workshop, the California Nurse
Leader Workshop, and at the Institute for Health Care Improvement
Conference.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to share the
accomplishments and issues that face the Navy Nurse Corps. I see our
nurses as dynamic leaders and innovative change agents in all settings.
I remain truly proud of our Navy military and civilian nurses as
they stand ready to promote, protect, and restore the health of all
entrusted to our care anytime and anywhere.
I look forward to continuing to work with you during my tenure as
the Director of the Navy Nurse Corps. Thank you for this honor and
privilege.
Senator Stevens. General Brannon, my daughter is taking
Chinese and she has learned to read from right to left. I have
not, so although you do have the star, I start from the left.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL BARBARA C. BRANNON,
ASSISTANT AIR FORCE SURGEON GENERAL,
NURSING SERVICES
General Brannon. Thank you, Chairman Stevens, Senator
Inouye. It is a great honor and pleasure to again represent
your Air Force nursing team. What a dynamic time in the history
of our Nation. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines
continue to valiantly support the global war on terrorism in
dangerous and unpredictable environments. They can count on the
support of Air Force nursing, active duty, Guard, and Reserve,
officer and enlisted. We are one team ready anytime to go
anywhere at our Nation's call to provide robust medical support
to combat units, to victims of natural disasters, and to those
in need of humanitarian or civic assistance.
IRAQ
To support Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom,
2,328 nurses and medical technicians deployed as members of 24
EMEDS units, treating more than 200,000 patients, combat
casualties and those suffering non-combat injury and disease.
Six nurses provided outstanding leadership as EMEDS commanders
in diverse locations around the globe.
AEROMEDICAL EVACUATION
Aeromedical evacuation is a vital link in combat casualty
care and a key Air Force capability. Since last spring, we have
flown over 3,200 missions and supported more than 40,000
patient transports. Our ability to provide critical care in the
air, using specialized transport teams, has bridged the gap
between point of trauma and definitive medical treatment.
RECRUITING
Air Force independent duty medical technicians provide
vital care in remote and deployed locations. They are jacks of
all trades, from providing medical and dental services, to
protecting troops from bioenvironmental hazards.
On the home front, we continue to aggressively organize,
train, and equip the nursing forces we need. A robust
recruiting program is essential to keep our nurse corps strong.
Fiscal year 2003 was our most successful recruiting year since
1998, yet we were still 100 nurses below our requirement.
Thanks to your tremendous support, this year we are offering an
increased accession bonus or loan repayment to new accessions.
We are optimistic that this will result in a more successful
recruiting year.
RETENTION
Retention is the other dimension of force sustainment. Air
Force retention remains strong at 93 percent. So despite
missing our requirement for 5 years, we were only 118 nurses
below our authorized end strength last year.
Education and training and research ensure we deliver top
quality nursing care. Air Force nurse researchers stay on the
cutting edge of military nursing science, and I am proud to
report that 21 are actively engaged in Tri-Service nursing
research program studies with a very strong emphasis on
operational research.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
The Uniformed Services University Graduate School of
Nursing is aggressively developing programs to meet the needs
of Federal nurses. Their new perioperative clinical nurse
specialist program is the only one in the Nation and includes
preparation for practice in deployed environments. Three Air
Force nurses are in the inaugural class.
RESEARCH
Their new Ph.D. program will promote nursing research
relevant to Federal health care and to military operations.
Although the program is in its first year, the response has
been overwhelming with 12 nurses currently enrolled.
We continue to look for opportunities to capitalize on the
strength of our enlisted force and to provide avenues for
progression to a bachelor's degree in nursing. There is great
interest in the programs and growing our own nurses will
provide a strong nurse corps and ease our recruiting
requirements.
This has truly been an extraordinary year for our nurse
corps and we have reached two major milestones. Colonel Melissa
Rank's nomination to Brigadier General marks the first nurse
corps selection at an all-corps promotion board, and as you
mentioned, I was also promoted to Major General in August and I
am truly honored by the trust that has been placed in me.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, I am very proud to lead the
19,000 men and women of Air Force nursing, active duty, Guard,
and Reserve. Thank you for your tremendous support and for
again allowing me to share Air Force nursing accomplishments
and just a few of our plans for the future.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Major General Barbara C. Brannon
Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is
an honor and great pleasure to again represent your Air Force Nursing
team. What a dynamic time in the history of our nation! Last year, at
this time, our allied forces had toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein
and focus had shifted to peacekeeping and humanitarian relief for the
Iraqi people. Today, the fighting continues and our soldiers, sailors,
marines and airmen continue to make the ultimate sacrifice for their
nation. Terrorist organizations continue their campaign of carnage
throughout the world, and horror is commonplace on front-page news.
This war is far from over.
Our nation has expressed pride and grateful appreciation for the
selfless sacrifice of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. The
American Soldier is Time magazine's Person of the Year. And the
American public holds the nursing profession in very high esteem. In a
recent Gallup poll, Nursing was rated the most honest and ethical
profession.
As our military men and women fight far from home, they count on
great medical support in theater and for their loved ones at home.
Nursing plays a pivotal role in Air Force healthcare in both arenas.
Lieutenant General Taylor has highlighted the importance of Preventive
Health Assessments, Individual Medical Readiness, and post-deployment
health assessments. All these programs, in which nursing personnel have
key administrative roles, have been integral to the success of
deployment health. The disease non-battle injury rate of 4 percent for
this conflict is the lowest ever achieved. That translates to more
healthy people ready to execute the mission.
Active duty, guard and reserve Nurse Corps officers and aerospace
medical service technicians also serve around the world to provide
robust medical support to our combat units, victims of natural
disasters, and those who need humanitarian or civic assistance. It is
my honor to share some of our activities in support of deployment and
training and some of the stories of our everyday heroes.
Our first priority, and our greatest success, is our ability to
maintain constant mission readiness for any contingency. We deploy
anytime, anywhere at our nation's call. To support Operations ENDURING
FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM, 725 nurses and 1,603 medical technicians
deployed as members of 24 Expeditionary Medical Support units, or
EMEDS. Five of these deployed units have been equipped with chemical
and biological protection to counter potential threats. Our EMEDS teams
have treated more than 171,000 casualties, those injured in combat and
those with non-combat injuries and disease. I am very proud to report
that six nurses were deployed as EMEDS commanders during the past year.
These nurse leaders, in charge of deployed wing medical facilities,
were absolutely outstanding in meeting healthcare needs of combined and
coalition forces in such diverse locations as Saudi Arabia, Romania,
the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Diego Garcia.
Aeromedical Evacuation has had a starring role in Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM and continues to be a critical core competency for the Air
Force. It is battle tested and it works, providing state-of-the-art in-
flight medical care for transport of U.S. and coalition forces. The
system has exceeded all expectations in providing life-saving care
during transport of the sick and injured from battlefields to their
home units. Since last spring, we have flown over 3,200 missions and
supported more than 40,000 patient transports without a single in-
flight combat-related death. We have transformed the aeromedical
evacuation system from one relying on specific aircraft and dedicated
missions, to an integrated multiplatform capability, which uses
available aircraft and prepositioned aeromedical evacuation crews.
Through the vision and ingenuity of our leadership, we have overcome
numerous challenges and have continued to move forward, demonstrating
flexible, timely support to combat operations.
Our Flight Nurses and Aeromedical Evacuation Technicians are
seamlessly integrated with Medical Service Corps Officers, front-end
aircrews, maintenance crews, and ground medical units in areas of
operations. Combining the capability of the Critical Care Air Transport
Teams (CCATT) with Aeromedical Evacuation crews has brought definitive
care closer to the point of injury, faster than ever before. The
additional capabilities of the CCATT makes it possible to safely
transport stabilized patients by air, reduces the requirement for in-
theater beds, and gets injured troops to definitive care in hours
rather than days.
Major Dan Berg was a member of the Critical Care Air Transport Team
that cared for a 19-year old soldier whose convoy had been hit by
rocket-propelled grenades. Major Berg provided care to the critically
injured patient throughout the 10\1/2\ hour flight. Only able to
communicate by writing on a notepad, the young soldier wrote that he
never expected such care so far from home. Major Berg showed the young
man his flight suit patch, which bore the promise, ``Committed to the
Wounded Warrior.''
Nurses play a vital role in tailoring the aeromedical evacuation
system to meet needs of our forces. The Andrews AFB team converted the
base gymnasium into a 100-bed contingency aeromedical staging facility
(CASF). Eighty-five medical professionals activated from the 459th
Aeromedical Staging Squadron staffed the facility, working with a
smaller active duty team from the 89th Medical Group. During peak
operations, personnel at the CASF managed up to 6 inbound overseas
missions per week with 50-70 patients per mission. Many of the patients
were transported directly from the flight line to Walter Reed Army
Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center, but up to 92
patients remained overnight in the CASF for further air transport.
Within the past 12 months, the CASF team supported over 850 aeromedical
evacuation flights and coordinated over 15,700 patient movements. Great
teamwork between our Air Force components and sister services made this
mission a resounding success.
Seamless integration with the medical teams of our sister services
has been critical in many locations during Operation ENDURING FREEDOM
and IRAQI FREEDOM. Major Kathryn Weiss, a nurse anesthetist from
Hurlbert Field, deployed with the Army's 10th Special Forces Group to
Northern Iraq to provide frontline emergency medical capabilities in an
imminent danger area within the range of enemy artillery. The team
treated casualties suffering from bullet and shrapnel wounds as well as
those injured in motor vehicle crashes. The team was recognized by the
award of the Bronze Star for their meritorious achievements.
Major Weiss is just one example of the tremendous capability of our
Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists. They are frequently part of
our Mobile Field Surgical Teams, substituting for anesthesiologists.
Seventeen of the twenty-seven certified registered nurse anesthetists
who deployed in 2003 were filling anesthesiologist taskings and
provided top-notch surgical support.
Our Air Force Independent Duty Medical Technicians are linchpins in
health care delivery in remote and deployed locations. They are ``jacks
of all trades'' and masters of health care modalities from routine and
emergency medical and dental care, to biomedical environmental
management. IDMTs are invaluable in the full spectrum of military
missions to include Special Operations, EMEDS, Forward Air Controllers,
Combat Communications and coalition team activities.
Recently one of our IDMTs, MSgt James Koss from Tyndall Air Force
Base, accompanied a coalition force in Iraq and provided support in
medical intelligence, personnel and field sanitation, force protection,
medical pre-screening and coordination of medical care. His preventive
health initiatives were key to a low rate of heat related injuries and
disease outbreaks.
In Iraq, Nurse Corps Colonel David Adams, Director of Force Health
Operations for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs, served as Chief of Strategic Planning for the Coalition
Provisional Authority in Baghdad. Colonel Adams assisted the Minister
of Health in identifying healthcare system needs and then coordinating
support from other nations. Colonel Linda McHale, an Air Force Reserve
Individual Mobilization Augmentee is mobilized to work with the Iraqi
Minister of Health in establishing training programs for nurses and
medical technicians.
In French Village, Iraq, a three-member team from the 122nd Indiana
Air National Guard Fighter Wing set up a medical clinic to restore
health care for the villagers after their civilian clinic had been
looted and destroyed by insurgents earlier in the year. Captain (Dr.)
Jeff Skinner, Senior Master Sergeant Tommie Tracey and Senior Airman
Matt Read collected donations of essential items for the clinic,
including children's vitamins and a play set for the waiting room. When
all was ready, they assisted with the grand opening of the new
facility.
In addition to providing service in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and
IRAQI FREEDOM, Air Force Nursing actively supports Homeland Security
and humanitarian relief. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Linda Cashion,
Chief of Air Force Homeland Security Medical Operations, was the first
nurse to complete a fellowship with the National Disaster Medical
System, part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. She provided
valuable assistance in planning and implementing the Disaster Relief
Program and expertly developed the nursing role for Disaster Medical
Assistance Teams. Colonel Cashion was also instrumental in coordinating
care for 26 critically burned victims in the Rhode Island nightclub
fire.
Air Force nursing support of humanitarian missions reaches around
the globe. Chief Master Sergeant Virginia Thompson, an Air Force
aeromedical technician at Randolph Air Force Base, participated in a
two-week mission to El Salvador last year where the team of eleven
medical personnel treated 3,000 patients. This humanitarian mission not
only advanced host-nation health, but also afforded our military
medical personnel valuable experience applicable to future humanitarian
missions.
During another humanitarian effort, First Lieutenant Lynn
Zuckerman, Master Sergeant Baron Stewart and Staff Sergeant Patricia
Fernandez from the 375th Medical Group, Scott Air Force Base were part
of an eight person team that participated in a U.S. Southern Command
sponsored mission to Guatemala. The team provided medical care to the
under-served Guatemalan population in the isolated villages of San
Sebastian, San Jose Caben, Rincon and Chim. During this mission, 5,600
patients received treatment for a wide range of conditions including
gastrointestinal illnesses from parasitic infection and chronic
debilitating disease from arthritis and heart disease.
Air Force nursing vigorously supports international partnerships.
Personnel from the 435th Medical Group, Ramstein Air Base, participated
in EUCOM-directed multinational mass casualty exercise. Nurses and
medical technicians trained over 100 medical students in Georgia, the
independent state of the former USSR, on a variety of skills to include
moulage, self-aid buddy care, and advanced trauma management. The team
also improved medical support in the community by training 30 local
civil defense authorities in mass casualty and disaster management. The
U.S. Ambassador to Georgia praised the team's tremendous support in
providing much-needed training.
SKILLS SUSTAINMENT
Air Force medics could not succeed in our expeditionary deployments
without targeted training to ensure clinical currency. The Readiness
Skills Verification Program (RSVP) continues to ensure that our
personnel are trained in the wartime skills they need and that they
stay current in those skills. The training is accomplished at home
station and at multiple off site locations. As I mentioned last year,
at our Centers for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills (C-STARS)
programs, we partner with civilian academic centers to immerse our
nurses, medical technicians, and physicians in all phases of trauma
management to sharpen combat casualty care skills.
We now offer this terrific program at three locations: The Shock
Trauma Center in Baltimore, The University of Cincinnati Medical
Center, and Saint Louis University Hospital. By expanding the program,
we have been able to train more medics each year. Over the last 2\1/2\
years, 334 nurses and medical technicians have completed the training;
almost half of these were trained in 2003.
First Lieutenant John Cleckner, a critical care nurse preparing to
deploy on an EMEDS validated the program's importance by saying, ``This
experience allowed me to significantly update and hone my trauma
skills. Now I'm confident that I am ready.''
As part of the C-STARS program, nurses complete an Advanced Trauma
Life Support Course, and medical technicians complete the Pre-Hospital
Trauma Life Support course. Both courses teach aggressive trauma care
techniques and how to adjust standard treatment when projectiles and
velocity impact the victim. These competencies are essential to care of
wartime casualties.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
We have a robust recruiting program, which is essential to keeping
the Nurse Corps healthy and ready to meet the complex challenges in
healthcare and national security. Numerous incentive programs have been
instituted to prevent a nursing shortage in the Air Force, but
shortfalls continue to be an enormous challenge both nationally and
internationally. Last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
that registered nurses are at the top of ten occupations with the
largest projected job growth through the year 2012. One positive sign
is that the number of enrollments in entry-level baccalaureate programs
increased by 16.6 percent last year, although there were an additional
11,000 qualified students turned away due to limitations in faculty,
clinical sites, and classrooms. Employer competition for nurses will
continue to be fierce and nurses have many options to consider.
Quality of life and career opportunities, coupled with other
incentives, are critical recruiting tools for Air Force Nursing. Fiscal
year 2003 was our most successful recruiting year since 1998. Although
we have recruited approximately 70 percent of our goal each year since
fiscal year 1999, we have seen an increase in the number of new
accessions each year. Last year, we recruited 16 percent more nurses
than in fiscal year 2002, and I attribute the increase largely to our
educational loan repayment program. In order to compensate for our
current shortfall and projected separations, our fiscal year 2004
recruiting goal is 394 nurses. Funding is available to offer new
accessions either a $10,000 accession bonus or up to $28,000 for
educational loan repayment. We have $5.2 million available to fund
these initiatives in fiscal year 2004 and are hopeful that our
accession numbers will exceed last year. As of March 31, 2004, we have
brought 108 new nurses onto Active Duty--on par with last year and
about 27 percent of goal. We attract some of the best nurses in the job
market today, although most are very junior with respect to experience
level.
This year we continue to recruit nurses up to the age of 47 to
boost our ranks. We commissioned 25 nurses over age 40 last year, and
although they are not retirement eligible, they provide tremendous
support during their time on active duty. They have the critical skills
and clinical leadership we need to meet our peacetime and wartime
readiness mission, as well as years of clinical experience to share
with our novice nurses.
Our slogan, ``we are all recruiters,'' continues to rally support
as we tackle the challenge of recruiting. I have fostered more
effective partnering with recruiting teams to maximize recruiting
strategies and success. Among other activities, we have increased
nursing Air Force ROTC quotas from 29 in fiscal year 2003 to 35 in
fiscal year 2004, and 100 percent of our quotas have been filled.
I take advantage of every occasion to highlight the tremendous
personal and professional opportunities in Air Force Nursing. I
encourage nurses to visit their alma mater and nursing schools near
their base to market quality of life and professional opportunities as
an Air Force Nurse. This has proven to be a powerful recruiting tool.
We have also expanded media exposure of the outstanding
accomplishments of our people and their support of troops in Operation
IRAQI FREEDOM. This past fall, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's visit
with our aeromedical evacuation teams in Baghdad was highlighted in
print media, and Major Keith Fletcher, an Air National Guard Nurse from
the 379th AES Mobile Aeromedical Staging Facility, was featured in a
photo with the Secretary. Air Force Reserve nurse Major Tami Rougeau
was selected as one of the ``Heroes Among Us'' by the National Military
Family Association, and she rode in the Rose Bowl Parade with other
honorees. Another Air Force Nurse Corps star, Captain Cynthia Jones
Weidman of Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, was awarded the American Red
Cross Florence Nightingale Medal, one of the highest honors in the
nursing profession. She was the first Air Force Nurse to receive the
medal, and the first military nurse since 1955. Air Force nurses
present very positive images in the news.
Retention is the other key dimension of force sustainment. Our
retention remains strong at 93 percent and, despite not meeting our
recruiting goal for five successive years, we were only 143 nurses
under our authorized end strength of 3,862 at the end of fiscal year
2003.
Lieutenant Colonel John Murray, one of our doctorally-prepared
Nurse Corps officers, developed a standardized, web-based officer
assessment tool to identify what influences officers to remain on
active duty or separate from the Air Force. The pilot study began in
January 2004 with a sample of Nurse Corps officers. The assessment tool
will help identify targets of opportunity to enhance quality of life
and professional practice. We continue to recommend Reserve, National
Guard, and Public Health Service transfers for those who desire more
stability in their home base but wish to continue military service and
can meet deployment requirements.
RESEARCH
Air Force nurse researchers stay on the cutting-edge of advancing
the science and practice of nursing. I am proud to say that twenty-one
Air Force nurses are actively engaged in TriService Nursing Research
Program (TSNRP) funded initiatives.
Air Force researchers are leaders in the Department of Defense and
the Nation in operational nursing research. In fiscal year 2003,
nursing research at Wilford Hall Medical Center continued to focus on
care of the war fighter in military unique and austere environments. A
study on the thermal stresses onboard military aircraft led to
evaluation of products designed to maintain body temperature in
critically injured patients during aeromedical evacuation. This will
identify devices that are effective in maintaining temperature control
to improve support and survivability of casualties.
The TSNRP-funded Air Force Combat Casualty Aeromedical Nursing
research study describe the experiences of AE crewmembers in providing
combat casualty care to gather information that can be used to improve
AE nursing practice. The study also aims to pilot a research instrument
to measure characteristics of casualties in different locations and the
nursing care required. This study will influence AE combat casualty
care and future training.
Another study, ``Recruitment Decision Making for Military Nursing
Careers'' is being conducted collaboratively by military nurse
researchers at Keesler AFB and nursing researchers at the University of
South Alabama. The goal of this study is to describe factors that
influence nursing students in considering military nursing careers.
This study will help identify the characteristics of individuals
interested in military service and guide recruiting services in
deploying recruiting initiatives.
EDUCATION
The Graduate School of Nursing at the Uniformed Services University
has demonstrated tremendous flexibility and capability in meeting the
needs of uniformed nurses. They began a clinical nurse specialist
master's program at the request of the Federal Nursing Chiefs and also
inaugurated a Ph.D. nursing program. The Perioperative Clinical Nurse
Specialist program is the only one in the nation and includes special
preparation for operating in a field environment so graduates are ready
for deployment challenges. Three Air Force nurses are in the inaugural
class.
The Ph.D. program was established to meet the evolving need for
nursing research relevant to federal health care and military
operations. It affords federal nurses the opportunity to study in a
unique environment and gain exceptional qualifications to lead in
research, education, and clinical practice. Although the program is in
its first year, the response has been overwhelming, and twelve nurses
are enrolled either full or part time.
NURSING FORCE DEVELOPMENT
Nursing has vigorously embraced the Force Development initiative
launched last summer by Air Force Secretary James G. Roche and our
Chief of Staff, General John P. Jumper. General Jumper describes the
construct as making sure ``we place the right technical and leadership
skills in the right places with the right people who are educated and
trained for success''.
Each officer career field has a dedicated Development Team (DT) to
guide the assignments and educational opportunities for each officer.
Our Nurse Corps DT has already played a substantial role in selecting
chief nurses for our facilities, best assignments for our Colonels on
the move and educational programs and candidates we will sponsor.
We continue to work on opportunities to capitalize on the knowledge
and experience of our enlisted force, and provide them more avenues to
acquire advanced training and credentials. Eight medical technicians
will graduate from the Army's Licensed Practical Nurse training course
in April 2004 and we are looking at ways to increase LPN numbers. The
Air Force Reserve is piloting an initiative to send new enlisted
nursing personnel to a civilian LPN program. We have reviewed Navy
enlisted baccalaureate scholarship programs and are reviewing similar
opportunities for our enlisted personnel to earn a bachelor's degree
and a commission in the Nurse Corps. This has great potential to reduce
our recruiting deficit by ``growing our own'' nurse corps officers from
our enlisted ranks.
The global war on terrorism and a resource constrained environment
has driven us to look even harder at efficiencies in nursing force
utilization. Recent research has shown that a more educated nurse
force, implementation of higher nurse-to-patient ratios, and better
nursing work environments contribute to improved patient safety and
lower patient morbidity and mortality. The Air Force Medical Service
chartered Product Line Analysis and Transformation Teams to study
civilian healthcare industry staffing models and best practice
benchmarks. The new models they identified for nursing are being used
to adjust staffing requirements.
The Nurse Corps Top Down Grade Review mentioned in my testimony
last year is progressing, and we have identified the need to rebalance
Nurse Corps grade authorizations to better meet readiness and in-
garrison healthcare requirements, and provide healthy career
progression and promotion opportunities more in keeping with those of
line officers and other medical service corps. Another aspect of our
grade review was to determine the number of active duty nurses required
for deployment and other military unique requirements. With this
process, we have identified opportunities to civilianize many nurse
positions. The methodology employed in the Nurse Corps study is being
applied to all other career fields in the Air Force Medical Service to
determine force structures and appropriate civilian/military mix.
This has been an extraordinary year by all measures, and our Nurse
Corps also reached two big milestones in our history. The nomination of
Colonel Melissa Rank to Brigadier General marks the first selection of
a nurse corps officer by an ``all corps'' promotion board. It is a
testament not only to her outstanding performance but also reflects the
magnitude of leadership and talent we have in our Air Force Nurse
Corps. I was also promoted on the first of August to Major General,
another Air Force first. It is a great honor and very humbling. I am
grateful to have the opportunity to continue to serve. For the first
time in history, we will have two active duty nurses concurrently
serving the Air Force as general officers.
Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, it has
been a joy and great honor to lead the 19,000 men and women of our
active, guard and reserve total Air Force Nursing team. Thank you for
your tremendous advocacy and stalwart support to our great profession
of nursing and for inviting me to share the accomplishments of Air
Force Nursing once again.
Senator Stevens. Thank you all very much.
I am going to yield to the patron saint of military nurses,
my co-chairman.
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Nurses are all angels to me. They are very important.
As all of you have indicated, our major concern is
recruiting and retaining. I just want to make certain that
these programs continue.
For example, the Tri-Service nursing research program is
not funded. I was told it is number nine on the USUHS priority
list. Do you believe this committee should override that and
fund it?
General Brannon. Well, sir, if I may speak, I think the
Tri-Service nursing research program initiatives have
tremendous impact on the progress in military science for
operationally nursing. I think it is a unique funding stream
and allows us to do many great studies. I would hate to lose
that avenue.
Senator Inouye. If it is not funded, would it have any
impact or implication on patient care?
General Brannon. Yes, potentially. At aeromedical
evacuation, we have a Tri-Service nursing research funded
program that is looking at the environment of the various
aircrafts and how we can mitigate some of the heat and cold
concerns to provide a more stable transport environment for
patients. That very clearly would adversely impact patients if
we cannot complete that research. That is just one of many
examples.
Admiral Lescavage. Sir, I echo what General Brannon just
said. I believe research is key to our future. As you queried
the previous panel of our Surgeons General, you did also
mention the subject of research. Research is quite competitive.
There are never enough dollars for any type of research, as you
well know.
Should the funding go away, I see our nursing projects
certainly as very important, but I know all of the good work,
some 75 ongoing projects right now--some of them would not get
the attention they need, and we would suffer from not being
able to do it all. But I am certain we also would keep the
highly relevant ones going, for instance, in the combat arena.
We very much appreciate the funding that we get every year
and frankly do not want to live without it.
Senator Inouye. We have a graduate school of nursing,
Colonel, and also a doctoral program. Should they be continued?
Colonel Gustke. Yes, sir, most definitely. We have had the
opportunity from the Army's perspective for the last 3 or 4
years to use the Uniformed Services University (USU) program
strictly for education of our family nurse practitioners, and
without that program, we would not have the necessary funding
to do that.
Additionally, this past year we had our first inaugural
year of the perioperative nursing program which, of course, is
an extremely, go-to-war skill. This year we have educated four
to six perioperative nurses from the Army and we will continue
to do so every year. We have been extremely fortunate in
educating additional certified registered nurse anesthetists
(CRNAs), which again is another go-to-war mission that is
important for us. Without this program, it would have a severe
impact upon our ability to do so.
Senator Inouye. Do these programs have any impact on
recruiting and retention?
Colonel Gustke. Well, sir, I would say the ability for our
nurses to attend long-term health education is a very big
retention carrot. Many of our nurses say that once they hit
that 6th, 7th, 8th year--it is between the 4th and 6th years
when we lose a number of our nurses. So we probably have our
biggest retention problems, if we have any, at any particular
given year. And many of our nurses say the ability to go back
to graduate school and for the military to pay that bill for
them to get their advanced education is extremely important to
them. It is one of the reasons they come in. It certainly is
not pay. It certainly is not incentive pay of any kind, but it
is the ability to advance their education. I think to lose that
capability would have a severe impact upon our retention.
LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS AND BONUSES
Senator Inouye. We have been impressed upon, that in about
10 or 15 years, we will have a nursing shortage of about
400,000 nurses in this country. Obviously, that will have an
impact upon the military nurse corps. Do these loan repayment
programs and bonuses make a difference?
Colonel Gustke. Yes, sir. I will tell you from our
perspective, this is our inaugural year in using the health
loan repayment plan. We have got three programs in effect
currently for recruitment. First, if individuals used health
professions loan repayment program (HPLRP), they come in for 3
years. Second tier, they can use HPLRP with an accession bonus
of $5,000 and come in for 6 years, and the third tier is for
them to just accept a $10,000 bonus and come in for 4 years.
Under those plans, this past year we have seen anywhere from 12
to 15 applicants come in the Army Nurse Corps each month. With
these continued programs, we firmly believe that we will be
able to meet our mission this year for the first time in 3
years, our USAREC recruitment mission. So having spoken to the
folks out in the field and the recruiters, they want to keep
these initiatives going, and we would also certainly like to
see an increase in our accession bonus as the years progress to
see where we are competitively with the civilian market. But it
has been extremely good to us this past year.
Senator Inouye. I suppose you all agree.
General Brannon. Yes. Of the almost 100 nurses that have
been recruited so far this year, 60 percent have taken a loan
repayment and 40 percent the increased accession bonus. I just
came from a recruiting conference yesterday and they applauded
the efforts, that they are making a tremendous difference
because we are more competitive with the civilian facilities.
So thank you.
Admiral Lescavage. It is my belief nurses anywhere want
three things: to be appreciated, which we do very well I
believe in the military; to be compensated, our pay is very
good; and to be educated. The pipeline programs I mentioned in
my testimony, the ROTC programs, really help us out with
bringing nurses into the Navy and then the issue is to retain
them. We offer about 80 scholarships a year. As I visit our
facilities, I always ask the question, who has been to duty
under instruction. A fair amount of hands will go up. And who
wants to duty under instruction, the scholarships we give while
on active duty. Many, many hands go up. It is sort of a fever
that has been created, and it is our best retention tool. I
myself have had two scholarships from the Navy. It is highly
valued.
Senator Inouye. Well, I am certain I speak for the
committee, and I speak for all of my colleagues in thanking all
of you for your service to this Nation.
On a personal note, I spent just about 20 months in
military hospitals, and if it were not for nurses, I do not
suppose I would be sitting here. So to you, thank you very
much.
Senator Stevens. Well, I did not spend that long, but I
spent my time in military hospitals too. I think that the
Senator is right. You have the calling of the angels.
SURGE CAPABILITY FROM GUARD AND RESERVE
My only question would be, is there enough emphasis on a
surge capability in time of war, as I have talked to my
previous panel, for doctors and surgeons in particular? Do we
have a surge capability from the Guard, Reserve? You mentioned
total force. You mentioned it somewhat too, Colonel. But I
don't want to be offensive, but I do not sense the commitment
to the ongoing capability of former members of the service to
have plans to bring them back in if needed. Can you comment? Do
we have sufficient plans really to call up additional people
from Guard and Reserve if they are needed?
Colonel Gustke. Well, sir, I will tell you from the Army's
perspective, we have three things in place currently. We have
not skipped a beat in providing patient care to date, no matter
what facility you will go to. We have the GWOT dollars to
supplement with our contract civilian nurses, which has been
very successful. We have integrated Reserve units as back-fills
in our medical treatment facilities, both in CONUS and
overseas, and then we have also used our 91 percent fill rate
for our civilians which has been very successful, the direct
hire authority.
We also have had a number of military nurses call up and
want to come back on active duty. So there is a program in
place at our branch right now to look at that plan, should we
ever need that to come to fruition. But for right now, sir, I
think what we have in place is working very well, and should
the need arise, we will look at that and get back in more
detail on it, sir.
Senator Stevens. Admiral.
Admiral Lescavage. Sir, I feel fully confident that we are
ready. During my tenure, what we have done, actually before we
ever went into Iraq, was to look at our critical specialties,
make sure not only do we have the numbers, but that we have
provided the training that they need. And that is in areas of
nurse anesthesia, operating room, emergency room, and critical
care. What happened, once we did go into Iraq, I, as Colonel
Gustke just described, received many calls from previous active
duty to come back, our reservists. We are manned at 105
percent. The key to the Reserves is to get more in the middle
grades. We have many in the senior grades. So we are now
tweaking that to try to recruit more middle grade officers into
the Reserves. But, sir, I feel we are ready.
Senator Stevens. General.
General Brannon. Well, we are a total nursing team, and we
have relied heavily on our Reserve and Guard brethren to
support the nursing missions, particularly aeromedical
evacuation. I will say some has been mobilization. Most of the
positions are really being filled with willing volunteers at
this point. So I remain always impressed and astonished at the
commitment from our Reserves and our Guard.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
My mind goes back to the time that I introduced an
amendment to change the draft laws to draft women. It was
defeated, as we expected, but we also then defeated the draft.
We have relied on volunteer entrants to all of our services,
and retention of some of those people who retire or leave
before retirement for the purpose of surge capability in the
cases of war and emergencies. So I think we sometimes forget
the numbers that we were part of, 6 million and 7 million men.
All-out war requires an enormous capability.
I am not sure we have that capability today under the
volunteer service, but I think we have to find some way, as I
mentioned to the doctors, to try and see if we can provide the
incentive for some people to be trained and just be literally
reserved for crisis or all-out war, not for just the temporary
surges in numbers. We are still in a fairly small war in
comparison to the time when the two of us were in the service.
God forbid we will ever have to do it. But I am not sure we
have plans to do it. That is what bothers me. I would like to
talk to you about it sometime in the future.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
But meanwhile, I do appreciate what you have done, and I
echo what my friend says about the admiration we have for all
of the people that are in your service. They are not all women,
as a matter of fact. You are all women, but I have met many
male nurses in the service, and I commend them and we commend
all of you. Thank you for your service.
[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 B. Peake
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. General Peake, I am pleased to hear of the progress that
the Army is making in its efforts to develop modern alternatives to the
deployable medical field systems, or ``DEPMEDs,'' that we've had in
service for so many years. Is it true that the Army would like to begin
fielding an alternative to DEPMEDs as early as calendar year 2005 once
a final design is decided?
Answer. The Army's Transformation Objective requires a Force that
is strategically responsive and dominant at every point on the spectrum
of operations. Heavy forces must be more strategically deployable and
more agile with a smaller logistical footprint, and light forces must
be lethal, survivable, and tactical.
For more than 20 years the Department of Defense has employed
Deployable Medical System (DEPMEDS) hospitals for any significant
deployment of combat forces. Whether configured as the Navy's Fleet
Hospital, the Air Force's Air Transportable Hospital, or the Army's
Combat Support Hospital, each service uses essentially the same concept
of moving special purpose medical shelters, both tents and ISO
shelters, with a very low level of pre-integrated equipment, which
required a significant number of transport containers. As a result of
transformation throughout DOD, the need to rapidly deploy a range of
scaleable, modular medical capabilities, which have the flexibility to
be tailored and packaged to support a full range of combat operations,
has become paramount. Accordingly, the concept for the Future Medical
Shelter System (FMSS) shall respond to the joint requirements of the
U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy.
The FMSS shelter concept integrates the majority of medical
supplies and equipment directly into the ISO containers thus
eliminating separate packaging for these items and reducing the need
for additional transport shelters and reducing weight and cube of the
DEPMEDS hospital by approximately 30 percent. Consequently, the
strategic deployability (air, ship, and truck transport volume)
requirements are correspondingly reduced. Additional benefits of
integration are enhanced tactical mobility as a result of the decreased
time required to set up and prepare a DEPMEDS hospital for operation,
conservation of the fighting strength by providing CONUS standards of
medical care for soldiers deployed in world wide operations, and the
ability to operate in all climates due to the environmentally
controlled and chemical-biological overpressure protected environment.
The fully modular system with integrated plug-and-play capability will
have the required flexibility to be tailored and packaged to support
the full range of combat operations.
The Army is currently managing three separate Congressionally
funded FMSS initiatives, Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL), Mobile
Medical International Corporation (MMIC), and EADS-Dornier. Each is
developing a design for an Operating Room ISO container. ORNL and MMIC
will deliver prototypes to the Army in May 2004 and July 2004
respectively. EADS-Dornier is funded to provide engineering drawings of
the OR ISO by December 2004.
The FMSS program is in the Concept & Technical Development/Systems
Development & Demonstration phases of development. Much work remains to
ensure that these units are suitable for military use. It is unlikely
that this could be accomplished by 2005 due to the fact that there is
no funding available for further development or testing. There was no
fiscal year 2004 Congressional Appropriation for the FMSS and the Army
has no funding to support development or procurement of these
initiatives, however, it is desired to begin replacing our aging
DEPMEDs containers with these new enhanced capabilities as soon as
possible. With your assistance and additional RDT&E funds, we should be
able to achieve a procurement decision by the end of fiscal year 2006.
As a reminder, the original DEPMEDs procurement was funded through
direct Congressional Appropriation. Due to the projected cost of
replacing DEPMEDS and current DOD funding priorities, this approach is
the most likely scenario for a successful procurement of a DEPMEDs
replacement.
Question. General Peake, in that the hard-shell mobile hospital
alternatives you are developing deploy very quickly and feature
nuclear-biological-chemical protective capability, do you see these
units having a possible role in disaster or terrorist incident response
either at overseas U.S. bases or in this country?
Answer. I believe the hard-shell mobile hospital alternative you
refer to is the Chemical Biological Protective Shelter (CBPS). The CBPS
is not exactly a mobile hospital alternative, however, it provides a
highly mobile, self-contained, contamination free, environmentally
controlled medical treatment area for forward deployed medical
treatment units. (Battalion Aid Stations, Division & Corps Med
Companies and Forward Surgical Teams). The CBPSs are complexed to
provide these capabilities.
The CBPS is a 300 square foot, air beam, soft wall shelter rolled
up and transported on the rear of a Highly Mobile Multipurpose Wheeled
Vehicle with Light weight Multipurpose Shelter and a trailer mounted
Tactical Quiet Generator. The system can process 10 Litter/ambulatory
patients per hour. It is Type Classified Standard with full materiel
release and is currently in procurement through the Joint NBC Defense
Program.
The CBPS could have a role in disaster or terrorist incident
response as it provides a contamination free environmentally controlled
environment for treatment and surgery. Its capacity, however, is
limited.
Question. Do you and Dr. Winkenwerder anticipate use of this type
of mobile diagnosis/treatment center in medical diplomacy missions
where the Pentagon is trying to win the ``hearts and minds'' of
ambivalent local populations in places like the Philippines, Middle
East, and the Western Horn of Africa?
Answer. The Chemical Biological Protective Shelter (CBPS) provides
a contamination free environmentally controlled environment for the
provision of sick call, advanced trauma life support and surgery on the
contaminated battlefield. The CBPS currently is in the initial stages
of procurement and is in short supply.
I believe the CBPS can provide a small mobile medical treatment
facility (clinic like capability) for diagnosis/treatment in medical
diplomacy missions. This use must be coordinated between the Department
of Defense and Department of State.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
BLOOD SUBSTITUTES
Question. I have heard of advances the Army and the Navy are making
in developing blood substitutes for treating combat wounded. I know the
Army has successfully completed Phases I and II with Northfield
Laboratories in Illinois and are working with the FDA for approval, as
well as the lab, to complete Phase III which would provide for clinical
trials. I believe it is critical that we continue to support these
efforts as they have significant battlefield applications, as well as
first responders in a natural disaster or terrorist attack.
Would you explain what these blood substitutes are, and why they
are important to the future of combat casualty care and your assessment
of their prospects for success for all services?
Answer.
What are blood substitutes
The most common approach that has been taken to develop blood
substitutes is to harvest hemoglobin, the natural molecule that carries
oxygen to vital tissues, from either human or bovine (cattle) sources.
The hemoglobin is then subjected to proprietary processes to remove
unwanted materials and to remove or inactivate potential infectious
agents. Other proprietary processes are used to build the individual
hemoglobin molecules into chains of hemoglobin. This process is
believed to reduce or eliminate toxic effects caused by individual
molecules of hemoglobin. Once processing is completed the hemoglobin is
ready for use as a means to provide oxygen-carrying capability to
subjects who have lost significant amounts of blood. These preparations
are referred to as hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (HBOC). Other
approaches are being pursued but they are much earlier in their
development and will not be ready, if ever, for many years.
Potential utility for the military services
Combat injury on the battlefield typically occurs in the absence of
ready availability of packed red blood cells (PRBC), the derivative of
whole blood that is normally required to manage patients who have
severe bleeding. Most deaths that result from severe bleeding on the
battlefield occur within the first hour of injury. It has been
difficult to solve this problem because medics on the battlefield
cannot carry PRBC. PRBC must essentially remain refrigerated until
used. HBOC have the advantage that they are much more stable when
removed from refrigeration and can therefore be carried on the
battlefield for at least limited periods (days to weeks) and remain
safe for human use. Thus, more ready availability of HBOC on the
battlefield may provide a bridge for the casualty with life-threatening
hemorrhage that will permit survival until evacuation from the
battlefield can be accomplished.
Prospects for success of HBOC
An early HBOC developed by the Baxter Corporation was developed and
tested in the 90's and subsequently abandoned during advanced clinical
testing when an excessive (unexpected) number of deaths occurred among
patients treated with the product in their Phase 3 study.
Currently, two smaller companies, Northfield Laboratories, Inc.,
Evanston, IL and Biopure Corporation, Cambridge, MA have developed new
products incorporating new processes that it is hoped will mitigate the
toxicity problems seen with the Baxter product. Both Northfield and
Biopure have conducted animal and human studies of their products that
have both so far shown promise. However, large, phase 3 clinical
studies that demonstrate both safety and effectiveness remain to be
completed. Northfield Laboratories began a Phase 3 study in trauma
patients outside of the hospital in December 2003 and plans to complete
this study in 2005. If this study is successful (shows both safety and
effectiveness), the company anticipates licensure sometime in 2006.
Biopure Corporation, in collaboration with the Naval Medical Research
Center, plans to begin a Phase 3 study of their HBOC in trauma patients
outside the hospital later in 2004. If successful, licensure might be
anticipated in 2006 or 2007.
The Army and the Navy have continued to collaborate and remain
connected with both companies to help shape and ensure that their
products will have maximal relevance for military as well as civilian
application. In that regard, the Navy has recently assumed sponsorship
of the Phase 3 study that will be conducted with the Biopure
Corporation HBOC. The Army is collaborating with Northfield
Laboratories to make their HBOC available to Special Operations Forces
casualties on the battlefield in a controlled, pre-licensure treatment
protocol.
DENTAL RESEARCH
Question. As I am sure you are all aware, a DOD review panel in
2000 confirmed the need for the military dental research but found that
it is hampered by discontinuous funding streams. Last year, the
Committee included language in its report that ``directed'' the
Department to sufficiently fund the military dental research program at
the Great Lakes naval base. Last year Congress added $2 million for
dental research, which was actually only about half of what was
requested.
Could you tell this Committee how much the Army and Navy are each
putting into this program for fiscal year 2005?
Answer. The U.S. Army, through U.S. Army Medical Research and
Materiel Command, Combat Casualty Care and Walter Reed Army Institute
of Research fund the U.S. Army Dental and Trauma Research Detachment at
$1.687 million of which some support is provided for infrastructure and
$1.08 million is available for U.S. Army Dental Research.
Question. It is my understanding that one of the biggest problems
for deployed Soldiers is avoiding gum disease--like trench mouth. What
are the Army dental researchers at Great Lakes doing to address this
problem to prevent dental emergencies for deployed Soldiers?
Answer. The U.S. Army Dental Trauma and Research Detachment
(USADTRD) is approaching reduction of the historically constant 15.6
percent emergency rate in deployed Soldiers from several different
avenues. Firstly, (USADTRD) is developing a rapid PCR that will, if
successful, identify those Soldiers who are most susceptible to
accelerated deterioration of oral health during deployments. Once
identified, special measures, including diet and special oral hygiene
aides, can be prescribed specifically for that Soldier to prevent
becoming an emergency/evacuation. The single largest focus of USADTRD's
science program is the development of a safe, efficacious anti-
microbial peptide that can be added to military rations and control
dental plaque caused disease. It is anticipated this peptide will be
delivered via chewing gum, and will be effective in reducing/preventing
oral diseases even in the face of heightened stress levels and
decreased oral hygiene due to the optempo experienced during
deployments. Currently of the 15.6 percent emergency rate, 75 percent
of those emergencies are related to dental plaque. USADTRD is
projecting at least a 50 percent decrease in plaque related
emergencies. This will be a significant force multiplier for the
warfighter.
Question. The Navy dental researchers at Great Lakes have developed
several new products and pieces of equipment that allow corpsmen to
treat warfighters in the field saving time and money. Can you tell us
about some of that equipment?
Answer. In keeping in line with current U.S. Army doctrine, the
U.S. Army Dental and Trauma Research Detachment (USADTRD) has developed
and fielded a miniaturized dental field unit and operating system
(DeFTOS). This dental field unit significantly reduces the weight and
cube of dental equipment used in deployed environments. This reduction
allows dental equipment to be closer to the warfighter, permitting much
more rapid return to duty following evacuation for dental emergencies
as well as saving very valuable transportation assets for other
requirements. Currently USADTRD is also working to greatly reduce the
weight, size and electrical requirements for field sterilizers. By
accomplishing this, the U.S. Army will not only benefit with a smaller,
lighter sterilizer, but due to a lessened electrical requirement, a
great deal more weight and cubes will be saved by a far smaller
electric generator.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. The antimalarial drug mefloquine has been identified as
causing severe side effects such as psychosis, aggression, paranoia,
depression and thoughts of suicide, even after use of the drug has
stopped. Could you please tell me why another quinolone, ciprofloxacin,
is being given to soldiers to self administer when consuming suspicious
foods in Iraq when the side effects from one quinolone have the
potential to be compounded by the second?
Answer. Mefloquine is a 4-quinolinemethanol derivative.
Ciprofloxacin is a fluoroquinolone that is an antimicrobial agent, used
to kill bacteria. The two drugs are not related. There are no known
drug interactions between mefloquine and ciprofloxacin. Furthermore, it
is not Army policy to give ciprofloxacin for self-administration when
consuming suspicious foods. In fact, Soldiers are cautioned against
consuming foods on the local economy. Soldiers have a variety of foods
provided for them, including Meals-Ready-To-Eat, T-rations, which
consist of containers of pre-packaged foods and fresh rations, which
are thoroughly inspected for quality.
Question. DOD has begun an investigation into psychiatric adverse
events in soldiers and plans a study of mefloquine. DOD has stated that
it has not included in its assessments several incidents in soldiers
who have taken mefloquine or soldiers who do not demonstrate blood
levels of the drug. FDA's News Release of July 9, 2003 states that
``Sometimes these psychiatric adverse events may persist even after
stopping the medication.'' What is being done by DOD to investigate the
incidents of suicides in soldiers while on or returning from
deployment? Any investigations should include soldiers who consumed
mefloquine and committed suicide or committed other acts of violence
whether there were residues identified in their blood or not. What is
DOD's timeframe for conducting a review of these cases and conducting
other studies of the effects of mefloquine?
Answer. The DOD uses all of the currently recommended antimalarial
medications, basing their choice on medical and operational
considerations for each mission. All of these medications have
potential side effects, and, the risks and benefits of each are
considered by our operational surgeons, when recommending a medication
for malaria prophylaxis. Recently, the antimalarial drug mefloquine has
been highlighted in news reports, alleging severe adverse side effects
potentially related to this medication. DOD is committed to finding
answers to the questions raised by these reports.
Dr. Winkenwerder, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs, has asked an expert panel of independent physicians,
scientists, epidemiologists, and ethicists from highly respected
civilian institutions and academia to recommend study designs that are
best suited to answering questions surrounding antimalarial
medications. Based on these recommendations, Health Affairs has
commissioned two studies. The first, to be led by the Deployment Health
Research Center at the Naval Health Research Center (NHRC) in San
Diego, will look at the (comparative rates of adverse events (including
neuropsychiatric)) associated with antimalarial use. A preliminary
descriptive study is underway and preliminary results should be
completed within one to two months. Based on the recommendations of the
expert panel, the NHRC will then partner with a civilian academic
institution to perform a retrospective cohort analysis of the data to
determine the comparative rates of adverse outcomes associated with
each of the antimalarial medicines. The details of this thorough
analysis are being developed now. We anticipate that this study will
take 12-18 months to complete.
A second study will address the questions raised about suicides in
our deployed and recently deployed service members. The Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology is leading this study. The first step will be a
comprehensive review to characterize all suicides in DOD. They will
then partner with a civilian academic institution to perform a case
control analysis in order to better understand the myriad of potential
attributable risk factors with these deaths. Use of the antimalarial
medication mefloquine will be one factor assessed in this study.
Planning for this study is underway, and we anticipate this extremely
thorough analysis to take 18 to 24 months to complete.
The creditability of this work will hinge on the fact that it will
be comprehensive and validated by the medical community. A non-federal
oversight board will oversee both of these study efforts--DOD will be
working with the American Institute of biological Sciences.
Question. What are you doing to specifically recognize and report
adverse events that are potentially associated with mefloquine
consumption in deployment situations? What kind of reporting systems
are available to deployed physicians, medics and or soldiers for
reporting adverse events?
Answer. Once a health care provider has determined that an adverse
event is likely due to mefloquine or any drug, they first document it
in the patient's health record. Then, they would ensure that the
information is reported. If they were in a deployed medical treatment
facility that has Internet connectivity, they would access the web site
for the Joint Medical Workstation (JMeWS) system, and code the patient
encounter as an adverse drug event. In more remote combat areas, mobile
Army medical personnel use laptops to input patient encounter
information through Composite Health Care System II--Theater (CHCS-II-
T).
Question. What support is provided for soldiers reporting adverse
events who are taking mefloquine? What is the Standard Operating
Procedure for a managing a soldier with side effects from mefloquine
consumption, knowing that stopping the drug is insufficient as the
effects can persist after stopping the product, while on deployment or
here is the United States?
Answer. If a Soldier experiences severe side effects with
mefloquine, then the medication will be stopped and the medical needs
of the Soldier will be taken care of. It is important to understand
that treatment is individualized according to the type of reaction and
what treatment is indicated for that particular adverse event. When
Soldiers have any health concerns that may be related to deployment, no
matter which deployment nor how long ago the deployment occurred, we
use an evidenced-based clinical practice guideline called the post-
deployment evaluation and management guideline. Service subject matter
experts from the Department of Defense and Veterans Health Affairs
developed this guideline. It is used in the primary care setting in
screening, evaluating and managing the post-deployment health concerns
of service members. It provides an algorithm to systematically and
comprehensively address health concerns by reinforcing a partnership
with the Soldier patient. A detailed medical history is taken; followed
by a medical exam, appropriate laboratory tests and consultative
services, if indicated. It also serves to enhance the continuity of
care and foster the establishment of therapeutic relationships.
______
Questions Submitted to Vice Admiral Michael L. Cowan
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
DENTAL RESEARCH
Question. As I am sure you are all aware, a DOD review panel in
2000 confirmed the need for the military dental research but found that
it is hampered by discontinuous funding streams. Last year, the
Committee included language in its report that ``directed'' the
Department to sufficiently fund the military dental research program at
the Great Lakes naval base. Last year Congress added $2 million for
dental research, which was actually only about half of what was
requested. Could you tell this Committee how much the Army and Navy are
each putting into this program for fiscal year 2005?
Answer. The Navy's Military Dental Research Program is primarily
conducted by the Naval Institute for Dental and Biomedical Research
(NIDBR) located at the Great Lakes Naval Station. NIDBR's total funding
for fiscal year 2004 and the requested budget for fiscal year 2005 is
summarized in the following table.
NIDBR
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Funding Source Research Area 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHP, Navy.................................... Mercury Abatement................................ $910
RDT&E, Navy.................................. Science and Technology Projects.................. $1,130
RDT&E, Navy.................................. Transition/Advanced Development.................. $761
RDT&E, Navy.................................. Congressional Add................................ $1,154
RDT&E, Navy.................................. General Purpose Test Equipment and Maintenance... $236
DHP, Navy.................................... Longitudinal Risk Assessment..................... $162
US-EPA....................................... Mercury Hygiene Training......................... $30
Commercial Research and Development Agreement Creighton University............................. $85
---------------
Total Program.......................... ................................................. $4,468
===============
Various...................................... NIDBRI Fiscal Year 2005 Request.................. $4,863
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NIDBR request in fiscal year 2005 assumes that research funding
is available in fiscal year 2005 in the same amounts as in fiscal year
2004. In fiscal year 2005 NIDBR has additional requirements for
supplies and equipment and maintenance. Science and Technology projects
have not been awarded for fiscal year 2005.
Question. It is my understanding that one of the biggest problems
for deployed Soldiers is avoiding gum disease--like trench mouth. What
are the Army dental researchers at Great Lakes doing to address this
problem to prevent dental emergencies for deployed Soldiers?
Answer. We would respectfully defer comment on Army dental research
to the Army Surgeon General.
Question. The Navy dental researchers at Great Lakes have developed
several new products and pieces of equipment that allow corpsmen to
treat warfighters in the field saving time and money. Can you tell us
about some of that equipment?
Answer. Recent achievements/products/equipment developed by the
Naval Institute for Dental and Biomedical Research (NIDBR) in support
of the Warfighter in all deployed venues include:
Treatment of Dental Emergencies CD-ROM.--NIDBR has developed and
deployed a dental treatment CD-ROM that aids Independent Duty Corpsmen
in the diagnosis and treatment of common dental emergencies. This tool
assists corpsmen in providing necessary emergency treatment to deployed
personnel in venues where there is no immediate access to dental
officer.
Rapid Salivary Diagnostics.--NIDBR continues the development of
rapid, simple, non-invasive salivary diagnostic tests to assess
militarily relevant diseases such as tuberculosis and Dengue Fever, and
anthrax immunization status of military personnel at risk or preparing
for deployment. Currently, assays for clinic and battlefield-use using
two methods: lateral flow and fluorescence polarization are being
developed to provide corpsman and non-medical personnel a means for
early diagnosis of personnel in the field who have contracted these
diseases. This rapid diagnostic capability will allow for appropriate
treatment and quicker return to duty or necessary evacuation to a
higher echelon of medical care.
Far-forward Interim Dental Restorative Material/Dressing.--NIDBR
continues to develop and test a new novel dental material and delivery
system that can be used to treat dental emergencies in the deployed
environment, thereby reducing MEDEVACs and keeping Warfighters on
station. The far-forward dental dressing has been designed for use by
first responders as a method to treat a wide variety of urgent dental
problems encountered by the deployed Warfighter.
Authorized Dental Allowance List (ADAL) Field Dental Operatory Test
and Evaluation.--NIDBR continues to test, evaluate, and validate new
and existing components of the Marine Corps ADAL to ensure the deployed
dental delivery systems will withstand the rigors of field use during
an operational deployment.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. The antimalarial drug mefloquine has been identified as
causing severe side effects such as psychosis, aggression, paranoia,
depression and thoughts of suicide, even after use of the drug has
stopped. Could you please tell me why another quinolone, ciprofloxacin,
is being given to soldiers to self administer when consuming suspicious
foods in Iraq when the side effects from one quinolone have the
potential to be compounded by the second?
Answer. A three-day supply of ciprofloxacin is commonly supplied to
travelers (both civilian and military) for the emergency treatment of
diarrhea, in the event that they are incapacitated and not able to
receive immediate medical attention. Ciprofloxacin is usually
prescribed for this type of treatment because it should either
significantly improve or cure about 70 percent of bacterial
gastroenteritis episodes. While it is theoretically possible for one
quinolone to potentiate the side effects of another, this has not been
shown to be a problem with mefloquine and ciprofloxacin. The possible
association between mefloquine and ciprofloxacin with adverse events
has been speculated upon, however, there have been no well-documented
cases of problems due to this drug combination. Whenever mefloquine and
ciprofloxacin are prescribed together, the theoretical risk of
interaction must be weighed against their proven life saving benefits.
Question. DOD has begun an investigation into psychiatric adverse
events in soldiers and plans a study of mefloquine. DOD has stated that
it has not included in its assessments several incidents in soldiers
who have taken mefloquine or soldiers who do not demonstrate blood
levels of the drug. FDA's News Release of July 9, 2003 states that
``Sometimes these psychiatric adverse events may persist even after
stopping the medication.'' What is being done by DOD to investigate the
incidents of suicides in soldiers while on or returning from
deployment? Any investigations should include soldiers who consumed
mefloquine and committed suicide or committed other acts of violence
whether there were residues identified in their blood or not. What is
DOD's timeframe for conducting a review of these cases and conducting
other studies of the effects of mefloquine?
Answer. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs (ASD (HA)) is coordinating a DOD study of adverse events
associated with mefloquine, including any possible connection with
suicide. Recommendations for the proposed study have been developed by
a select sub-committee of the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB)
and will be presented to ASD (HA) and the AFEB. Questions regarding
whether the anticipated study will include soldiers involved in
specific incidents or how blood levels of mefloquine will be approached
should be referred to ASD (HA).
Question. What are you doing to specifically recognize and report
adverse events that are potentially associated with mefloquine
consumption in deployment situations? What kind of reporting systems
are available to deployed physicians, medics and/or soldiers for
reporting adverse events?
Answer. Reporting of adverse events associated with mefloquine, or
any other medication, is addressed by Naval Medicine's Risk Management,
Patient Safety and Operational Health Care Quality Assurance programs.
Operational units are required by the Chief of Naval Operations to
track adverse drug reactions as a part of the Operational Health Care
Quality Assurance program. These units use U.S. Food and Drug
Administration guidelines for the reporting of adverse drug reactions.
Any provider, civilian or military, may submit adverse drug
reactions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA
accepts adverse drug reaction reports via website, telephone or mail.
In addition, these drug reactions must be monitored at the local level
through the Operational Health Care Quality Assurance Program.
Question. What support is provided for soldiers reporting adverse
events who are taking mefloquine? What is the Standard Operating
Procedure for a managing a soldier with side effects from mefloquine
consumption, knowing that stopping the drug is insufficient as the
effects can persist after stopping the product, while on deployment or
here is the United States?
Answer. Individuals experiencing possible side effects from
mefloquine are provided support through their local primary care
provider. Management of adverse side effects from medication involves
prevention through proper screening, choice of medication, appropriate
monitoring, and above all, stopping the suspected medication. U.S. Food
and Drug Administration guidelines advise discontinuing mefloquine if
side effects occur. Due to the long half-life of mefloquine, adverse
reactions to mefloquine may occur or persist up to several weeks after
the last dose.
Standard of care for managing a patient with an adverse reaction to
Mefloquine is to change the patient's medication, monitor the patient
for resolution of side effects and refer the patient to appropriate
clinical specialists for persistence of any psychiatric or neurological
side effects.
______
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General George Peach Taylor, Jr.
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
MEFLOQUINE
Question. The antimalarial drug mefloquine has been identified as
causing severe side effects such as psychosis, aggression, paranoia,
depression and thoughts of suicide, even after use of the drug has
stopped. Could you please tell me why another quinolone, ciprofloxacin,
is being given to soldiers to self administer when consuming suspicious
foods in Iraq when the side effects from one quinolone have the
potential to be compounded by the second?
Answer. Ciprofloxacin (an antibiotic) is used for the prevention or
treatment of certain type of traveler's diarrhea, often caused by
consuming poorly prepared or inappropriately stored food. During
deployments, our public health officials work very hard to ensure that
the food that our airmen consume is safe.
Our healthcare providers prescribe prophylactic medications in
accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
recommendations, Food and Drug Administration license, and the
manufacturers' prescribing information. While the concomitant
administration of mefloquine and quinine or chloroquine (another
antimalarial) may produce electrocardiographic (heart conduction)
abnormalities, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the use
of ciprofloxacin would compound the adverse reactions that may be
associated with mefloquine use. It is within the standard of care to
prescribe both mefloquine and ciprofloxacin. Both are excellent
pharmaceutical agents for force health protection.
Question. DOD has begun an investigation into psychiatric adverse
events in soldiers and plans a study of mefloquine. DOD has stated that
it has not included in its assessments several incidents in soldiers
who have taken mefloquine or soldiers who do not demonstrate blood
levels of the drug. FDA's News Release of July 9, 2003 states that
``Sometimes these psychiatric adverse events may persist even after
stopping the medication.'' What is being done by DOD to investigate the
incidents of suicides in soldiers while on or returning from
deployment? Any investigations should include soldiers who consumed
mefloquine and committed suicide or committed other acts of violence
whether there were residues identified in their blood or not. What is
DOD's timeframe for conducting a review of these cases and conducting
other studies of the effects of mefloquine?
Answer. A loss of any airmen to suicide is tragic. For many years,
Air Force leaders have been very committed to preventing suicides. Our
nationally recognized suicide prevention program educates leaders as
well as individual airmen on how to identify at-risk individuals and
intervene when necessary to prevent suicides. Since the program's
inception, our suicide rates have continued to decline.
We, along with our Sister Services and the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs, are very concerned about the number of
suicides among deployed troops and potential adverse outcomes of
mefloquine. At the May 12, 2004 meeting of the Armed Forces
Epidemiological Board (AFEB), the ASD/HA accepted the Board's
recommendations to formally study the factors associated with suicide
and to study outcomes potentially related to mefloquine. His staff is
currently determining the exact details, such as time frame.
Question. What are you doing to specifically recognize and report
adverse events that are potentially associated with mefloquine
consumption in deployment situations? What kind of reporting systems
are available to deployed physicians, medics and/or soldiers for
reporting adverse events?
Answer. All our deployed military treatment facilities have
capabilities to report reportable medical events. Reportable medical
events include adverse events associated with vaccinations and certain
medical conditions. If an airman sees a healthcare provider for an
adverse event associated with medication use, it is documented in the
airman's medical record and the DD Form 2766 (Adult Prevention and
Chronic Care Flowsheet). The DD Form 2766 accompanies deployed
personnel to the field and is returned to the individual's medical
record upon re-deployment. While providers are not required to report
adverse events that are not out of the ordinary (i.e., adverse events
that have been reported in the package inserts for the individual
pharmaceutical agent), they are required to report unusual adverse
events associated with a medication directly to the Food and Drug
Administration. In the 10 years that the Air Force has used mefloquine,
it has not had a significant reportable event associated with
mefloquine administration.
Question. What support is provided for soldiers reporting adverse
events who are taking mefloquine? What is the Standard Operating
Procedure for a managing a soldier with side effects from mefloquine
consumption, knowing that stopping the drug is insufficient as the
effects can persist after stopping the product, while on deployment or
here is the United States?
Answer. If an Airman experiences symptoms while on mefloquine, a
healthcare provider evaluates him or her. If necessary, the medication
is discontinued and an alternative medication is substituted. Airmen
are instructed to seek care for any medical concerns, including those
associated with any medication use. All Airmen receive a post-
deployment briefing and a face-to-face medical visit with a healthcare
provider prior to returning home. Airmen are also provided with
information on how to seek medical care, either through our medical
treatment facilities or the VA system.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Stevens. We are going to conclude the testimony
here today. We will reconvene on May 5 at 9:30 a.m., when we
hear from nondepartmental witnesses on the total budget for
defense. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Wednesday, April 28, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, May 5.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens and Inouye.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF SUE SCHWARTZ, R.N., CHAIRPERSON, HEALTH
CARE COMMITTEE, THE MILITARY COALITION
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning. We do welcome all of you to
our public witness hearing. There are 24 witnesses today who
have indicated each of them wishes to testify or submit a
statement for the record. To keep us on schedule,
unfortunately, I must ask that you limit your testimony to not
more than 4 minutes. We are in session. We are going into
session now, and we will have votes today.
We appreciate your interest and want you to know that we do
carefully review each item that you do present to us. Your
prepared statements are included in the record already. We ask
that you summarize those statements.
As soon as my good friend, Senator Inouye, arrives, we will
see if he has an opening statement. I do not think he does. But
why do we not proceed with our first witness and allow my
friend to make such statements he wants to make.
The first witness is Sue Schwartz, a registered nurse, and
Chairperson of the Coalition's Health Care Committee of the
Military Coalition. Welcome, Ms. Schwartz.
Ms. Schwartz. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to address you today concerning
the Military Coalition's views on funding for the defense
personnel programs. I want to reiterate our deep appreciation
to the entire subcommittee for the role you played in the
development of a wide range of landmark health care initiatives
over the past few years, particularly for Medicare eligibles
and active duty families. On behalf of our grateful members, we
say thank you for the leadership your subcommittee gave last
year directing the Department of Defense (DOD) to take specific
action to address chronic access problems for TRICARE Standard
and to begin to address health care needs for the selected
Reserve.
We ask the subcommittee's continued emphasis to ensure that
these enhancements are not only successfully implemented, but
adequately funded as well.
DOD officials speak of funding shortfalls in the out-years,
but there are current problems as well. Bases are turning
retirees away from their pharmacies, saying this is due to
budget cuts. In many instances, a retiree or any beneficiary
may only get a 30-day supply of medication from the military
pharmacy instead of the usual 90-day supply.
To control costs, some military pharmacies cut back on
expensive drugs not on the basic core formulary. Beneficiaries
then turn to the retail pharmacy to get those medications where
funds come out of a different pot of money. When funds get
tighter, it becomes harder to get an appointment. Pharmacy and
clinic hours get cut. Prime access standards are not met.
Sometimes beneficiaries are told the schedule is not ready,
call back in a week, and the queue starts to build.
Last year the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
considered increasing retiree pharmacy cost share
significantly, even going so far as to propose charging
retirees for medications obtained in military pharmacies. In a
memo dated March 26, the United States (U.S.) Army Command
states there is a significant funding shortfall in their annual
funding of $250 million to support the war. Many command
activities have budget execution rates that cannot be sustained
within current funded levels.
We ask the subcommittee's continued support in
appropriating sufficient amounts for the direct and purchased
care systems so that the defense health program (DHP) budget
does not have to be balanced on the back of beneficiaries.
In the last session of Congress, you took the first steps
to extend to the Guard and Reserve additional TRICARE coverage
before and after mobilization and to provide TRICARE on a cost-
share basis for members without access to employer-sponsored
health care.
Mr. Chairman, some disturbing news is 6 months have passed
and DOD has not implemented all these provisions. The Defense
Department cannot tell us if or when it will be able to
implement access to TRICARE on a cost-share basis for those
reservists without health insurance. These programs are
temporary and the clock is ticking. The authority and funding
for this legislation expires at the end of the year, but the
call-ups will not. How can we expect to have a valid test when
time is running out?
The coalition urges you to send a strong message that
health care for the Guard and Reserve and their family members
is a priority. We ask you to take steps to fully fund the
permanent expansion of these TRICARE benefits for the Guard and
Reserve components pre-and post-mobilization. The coalition
believes we need to enhance health care for the Guard and
Reserve families because it is a readiness issue. It is a
quality of life issue to provide affordable health care to
Reserve families. It will stimulate recruiting and retention
efforts, and it gives employers of mobilized members financial
incentives. Dependence on Guard and Reserve personnel will not
decrease and most likely will grow. Making these health care
enhancements permanent and fully funded demonstrates that we
appreciate the service and sacrifice of our citizen soldiers
and their families.
We deeply appreciate the subcommittee's ongoing leadership
and commitment to those who are in uniform today and those who
have served our Nation in the past.
I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
Senator Stevens: Is it your position they have not yet covered
those who have actually been mobilized or those who are being
demobilized?
Ms. Schwartz. Sir, the section 702, 703, and 704 of last
year's National Defense Authorization Act--only section 704 has
been fully implemented which is the extension of the
transitional assistance medical program (TAMP), which is the
temporary extension of benefits post-mobilization. The other
two sections have not been implemented.
Senator Stevens. As I understand, it is a very difficult
thing to do. We will look into it, though, but I did look into
it a little bit, and it is extremely difficult to do without
providing a disincentive to employers to maintain health
insurance for their people who are also members of the Guard
and Reserve. I thank you for your statement. We are continuing
to look at that.
Ms. Schwartz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are no simple
answers. I appreciate your support.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sue Schwartz
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Active Force Issues
Personnel Strengths and Operations Tempo.--The Military Coalition
strongly recommends restoration of Service end strengths to sustain the
long-term global war on terrorism and fulfill national military
strategy. The Coalition supports increases in 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.
Commissaries.--The Military Coalition opposes all privatization and
variable-pricing initiatives and strongly supports full or even
enhanced funding of the commissary subsidy to sustain the current level
of service for all patrons, including Guard and Reserve personnel and
their families.
Family Readiness and Support.--The Military Coalition urges funding
for improved family readiness through education and outreach programs
and increased childcare availability for servicemembers and their
families and associated support structure to assist families left
behind during deployments of active duty, Guard and Reserve members.
Retirement Issues
Combat Related Special Compensation Claims Processing.--The
Military Coalition urges Subcommittee leaders and members to ensure
that DOD has sufficient funding to provide adequate resources for the
timely processing of combat related special compensation claims.
Guard And Reserve Issues
Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill Improvements.--The Military
Coalition recommends funding to raise SR-MGIB benefit levels to 47
percent of the active duty MGIB rate and support to allow reservists
who serve non-consecutive tours of 24 months or more active duty within
a five-year period to enroll in the active duty MGIB.
Health Care Issues
Full Funding For The Defense Health Budget.--The Military Coalition
strongly recommends the Subcommittee continue its watchfulness to
ensure full funding of the Defense Health Program, including military
medical readiness, needed TRICARE Standard improvements, and the DOD
peacetime health care mission. It is critical that the Defense Health
Budget be sufficient to secure increased numbers of providers needed to
ensure access for TRICARE beneficiaries in all parts of the country.
Pharmacy Cost Shares for Retirees.--The Military Coalition urges
the Subcommittee to continue to reject imposition of cost shares in
military pharmacies, oppose increasing other pharmacy cost shares that
were only recently established, and to provide full funding for the
Defense Health Pharmacy Program. We urge the Subcommittee to ensure
that Beneficiary Advisory Groups' inputs are included in any studies of
pharmacy services or copay adjustments.
Healthcare for Members of the National Guard and Reserve.--The
Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to take action to appropriate
sufficient funds and support permanent authorization of the Temporary
Reserve Health Care Program (Sec. 702, 703, and 704 Public Law 108-136)
to support readiness, family morale, and deployment health preparedness
for Guard and Reserve servicemembers.
The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to appropriate
sufficient funds to provide for federal payment of civilian health care
premiums (up to the TRICARE limit) as an option for mobilized service
members.
The Military Coalition recommends the Subcommittee provide
sufficient funding to permit expansion of the TRICARE Dental Plan
benefits for Guard and Reserve servicemembers. This would allow all
National Guard and Reserve members to maintain dental readiness and
alleviate the need for dental care during training or mobilization.
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
Personnel Strengths and Operations Tempo.--The Coalition is
dismayed at the Department of Defense's reluctance to accept Congress'
repeated offers to increase Service end strength to relieve the stress
on today's armed forces, who are clearly now sustaining an increased
operations tempo to meet today's global war on terror. While we are
encouraged by the Army's announcement to temporarily increase their end
strength by 30,000, we are deeply concerned that Administration-
proposed plans for selected temporary manpower increases rely too
heavily on continuation of stop-loss policies, unrealistic retention
assumptions, overuse of the Guard and Reserves, optimistic scenarios in
Southwest Asia, and the absence of any new contingency needs.
Administration and military leaders warn of a long-term mission
against terrorism that requires sustained, large deployments to Central
Asia and other foreign countries. The Services simply do not have
sufficient numbers to sustain the global war on terrorism, deployments,
training exercises and other commitments, so we have had to recall
significant numbers of Guard and Reserve personnel. For too many years,
there has always been another major contingency coming, on top of all
the existing ones. If the Administration does not recognize when extra
missions exceed the capacity to perform them, the Congress must assume
that obligation.
The Coalition strongly believes that earlier force reductions went
too far and that the size of the force should have been increased
several years ago to sustain today's pace of operations. Deferral of
meaningful action to address this problem cannot continue without
risking serious consequences. Real relief is needed now. There is no
certainty that missions will decline, which means that the only prudent
way to assure we relieve the pressure on servicemembers and families is
to increase the size of the force.
Some argue that it will do little good to increase end strengths,
questioning whether the Services will be able to meet higher recruiting
goals. The Coalition believes strongly that this severe problem can and
must be addressed as an urgent national priority, with increases in
recruiting budgets if that proves necessary.
Others point to high reenlistment rates in deployed units as
evidence that high operations tempo actually improves morale. But much
of the reenlistment rate anomaly is attributable to tax incentives that
encourage members to accelerate or defer reenlistment to ensure this
occurs in a combat zone, so that any reenlistment bonus will be tax-
free. Retention statistics are also skewed by stop-loss policies. Over
the long run, past experience has shown that time and again smaller but
more heavily deployed forces will experience family-driven retention
declines.
Action is needed now. Failing to do so will only deepen the burden
of already over-stressed troops and make future challenges to retention
and recruiting worse.
The Military Coalition strongly recommends restoration of Service
end strengths to sustain the long-term global war on terrorism and
fulfill national military strategy. The Coalition supports increases in
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.
Commissaries.--The Coalition continues to be very concerned about
preserving the value of the commissary benefit--which is widely
recognized as the cornerstone of quality of life benefits and a valued
part of the servicemembers' total compensation package.
During the past year, the Department of Defense announced plans to
close a number of commissaries, replace the traditional three-star
officer serving as chairman of the Commissary Operating Board (COB)
with a political appointee, and require a study on instituting variable
pricing for commissary products. These proposals are apparently
intended to save money by reducing the annual appropriation supporting
the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA), which operates 275 commissaries
worldwide. The COB recommendation is also viewed as another indicator
of DOD's ongoing interest in eventually privatizing the benefit.
The Coalition supports cost savings and effective oversight and
management. However, we are concerned about the unrelenting pressure on
DeCA to cut spending and squeeze additional efficiencies from its
operations--despite years of effective reform initiatives and
recognition of the agency for instituting improved business practices.
The Coalition is particularly opposed to the concept of variable
pricing, which the Administration acknowledges is aimed at reducing
appropriated funding. This can only come at the expense of reducing
benefits for patrons.
The commissary is a highly valued quality of life benefit not
quantifiable solely on a dollars appropriated basis. As it has in the
past, The Military Coalition opposes any efforts to privatize
commissaries or reduce benefits to members, and strongly supports full
funding of the benefit in fiscal year 2005 and beyond.
The Military Coalition opposes all privatization and variable-
pricing initiatives and strongly supports full or even enhanced funding
of the commissary benefit to sustain the current level of service for
all patrons, including Guard and Reserve personnel and their families.
Family Readiness and Support.--Family readiness is a key concern
for the approximately 60 percent of servicemembers with families.
Allocating adequate resources for the establishment and maintenance of
family readiness and support programs is part of the cost of
effectively fulfilling the military mission.
Servicemembers and their families must understand and be aware of
benefits and programs available to them and who to contact with
questions and concerns--both at the command level and through the
respective Service or Department of Defense--in order to effectively
cope with the challenges of deployment. It is also important to meet
childcare needs of the military community including Guard and Reserve
members who are being called to active duty in ever-increasing numbers.
The Military Coalition urges funding for improved family readiness
through education and outreach programs and increased childcare
availability for servicemembers and their families and associated
support structure to assist families left behind during deployments of
active duty, Guard and Reserve members.
RETIREMENT ISSUES
Combat Related Special Compensation Claims Processing.--The
Military Coalition applauds Congress for the landmark provisions in the
fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act that expand combat
related special compensation to all retirees with combat-related
disabilities and authorizes--for the first time ever--the unconditional
concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans' disability compensation
for retirees with disabilities of at least 50 percent. Disabled
retirees everywhere are extremely grateful for this Subcommittee's
action to reverse an unfair practice that has disadvantaged disabled
retirees for over a century.
However, we are becoming increasingly aware of growing problems
with combat related special compensation claims processing. Large
numbers of applicants are waiting six months or more for decisions. The
Services have acknowledged that the expanded authority will increase
backlogs even more. The Coalition believes DOD must have sufficient
funding to meet staffing and other support requirements to ensure
claims are processed in a reasonable period of time.
The Military Coalition urges Subcommittee leaders and members to
ensure DOD has sufficient funding to provide adequate resources for the
timely processing of combat related special compensation claims.
GUARD AND RESERVE ISSUES
Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill Improvements.--Individuals who
first become members of the National Guard or Reserve are eligible for
the Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill (SR-MGIB) under Chapter 1606 of
Title 10 U.S. Code. But SR-MGIB benefits have declined sharply compared
to active duty benefits and need to be restored.
During the first fifteen years of the SR-MGIB program (1985-1999),
benefits maintained 47 percent comparability with the active duty MGIB
authorized under Title 38. But in the last few years, the SR-MGIB has
slipped to a 29 percent ratio with the basic program due to benefit
increases that were enacted only for the active duty program. The drop
in reserve benefits happened at a time when the Guard and Reserve have
been mobilized and deployed unlike any other time since World War II.
In addition, many reservists have been mobilized for more than one
extended tour of active duty. If the tours add up to 24 months of
active duty but are served non-consecutively, the reservists are not
eligible for the active duty MGIB.
The Military Coalition recommends funding to raise SR-MGIB benefit
levels to 47 percent of the active duty MGIB rate and support to allow
reservists who serve non-consecutive tours of 24 months or more active
duty within a five-year period to enroll in the active duty MGIB.
Guard/Reserve Family Readiness and Support.--All military families
experience high stress levels when their military spouses are deployed
in harms way. National Guard and Reserve families are no exception. In
their case, however, military base support networks are rarely
available to them due to their geographic dispersion across the nation.
The Services and the Defense Department have initiated new programs to
support the growing needs of reserve component families but more needs
to be done.
The Guard and Reserve have increased the number of paid family
readiness coordinators and established more Family Assistance Centers
to help volunteers and provide basic information. The challenge is
providing consistent and reliable information on benefits and services
across all of the reserve components. For example, the Air National
Guard employs professional family coordinators but the Army National
Guard does not. Another concern is the lack of childcare services for
mobilized Guard and Reserve families.
The Military Coalition urges adequate funding for family readiness
services through education and outreach programs, increased childcare
availability for servicemembers and their families, and associated
support services to assist families left behind during deployments of
active duty, Guard and Reserve members.
HEALTH CARE ISSUES
The Military Coalition is most appreciative of the Subcommittee's
exceptional efforts over several years to honor the government's health
care commitments to all uniformed services beneficiaries. These
Subcommittee-sponsored enhancements represent great advancements that
should significantly improve health care access while saving all
uniformed services beneficiaries thousands of dollars a year. The
Coalition particularly thanks the Subcommittee for last year's
outstanding measures to address the needs of TRICARE Standard
beneficiaries as well as to provide increased access for members of the
Guard and Reserves.
While much has been accomplished, we are equally concerned about
making sure that subcommittee-directed changes are implemented and the
desired positive effects actually achieved. We also believe some
additional initiatives will be essential to providing an equitable and
consistent health benefit for all categories of TRICARE beneficiaries,
regardless of age or geography. The Coalition looks forward to
continuing our cooperative efforts with the Subcommittee's members and
staff in pursuit of this common objective.
Full 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--including
graduate medical education and continuing education, full funding of
both direct care and purchased care sectors, providing access to the
military health care system for all uniformed services beneficiaries,
regardless of age, status or location. A fully funded health care
benefit is critical 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.
We are grateful that last year, Congress provided supplemental
appropriations to meet growing requirements in support of the
deployment of forces to Southwest Asia and Afghanistan in the global
war against terrorism.
But we are concerned by reports from the Services that the current
funding level falls short of that required to meet current obligations
and that additional supplemental funding will once again be required.
For example, we have encountered several instances in which local
hospital commanders have terminated service for retired beneficiaries
at military pharmacies, citing budget shortfalls as the reason. Health
care requirements for members returning from Iraq are also expected to
strain the military delivery system in ways that we do not believe were
anticipated in the budgeting process.
Similarly, implementation of the TRICARE Standard requirements in
last year's Authorization Act--particularly those requiring actions to
attract more TRICARE providers--will almost certainly require
additional resources that we do not believe are included in the budget.
Addrerssing these increased readiness requirements, TRICARE provider
shortfalls and other needs will most likely require additional funding.
The Military Coalition strongly recommends the Subcommittee
continue its watchfulness to ensure full funding of the Defense Health
Program, including military medical readiness, needed TRICARE Standard
improvements, and the DOD peacetime health care mission. It is critical
that the Defense Health Budget be sufficient to secure the increased
numbers of providers needed to ensure access for TRICARE beneficiaries
in all parts of the country.
Pharmacy Cost Shares for Retirees.--Late last year, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the Defense Department considered a
budget proposal that envisioned significantly increasing retiree cost
shares for the TRICARE pharmacy benefit, and initiating retiree copays
for drugs obtained in the direct care system. While the proposal was
put on hold for this year, the Coalition is very concerned that DOD is
undertaking a review that almost certainly will recommend retiree copay
increases in fiscal year 2006.
It was less than three years ago that Congress authorized and
appropriated adequate funding for the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program
(TSRx) and DOD established $3 and $9 copays for all beneficiaries.
Defense leaders highlighted this at the time as ``delivering the health
benefits military beneficiaries earned and deserve.'' But the Pentagon
already has changed the rules, with plans to remove many drugs from the
uniform formulary and raise the copay on such drugs to $22.
Now, there are new proposals to double and triple the copays for
drugs remaining in the formulary--to $10 and $20, respectively. One can
only surmise that this would generate another substantial increase in
the non-formulary copay--perhaps even before the $22 increase can be
implemented.
Budget documents supporting the change rationalized that raising
copays to $10/$20 would align DOD cost shares with those of the VA
system. This indicates a serious misunderstanding of the VA cost
structure, unless the Administration also plans to triple VA cost
shares. At the present time, the VA system requires no copayments at
all for medications covering service-connected conditions, and the cost
share for others is $7.
The Coalition believes this Subcommittee will appropriate the funds
needed to meet uniformed services retiree health care commitments if
only the Administration will budget for it. The Coalition is concerned
that DOD does not seem to recognize that it has a unique responsibility
as an employer to those who served careers covering decades of arduous
service and sacrifice in uniform. Multiple administrations have tried
to impose copays in military medical facilities, and Congress has
rejected that every time. We hope and trust that will continue.
The Coalition vigorously opposes increasing retiree cost shares
that were only recently established. Congress' recent restoration of
retiree pharmacy benefits helped restore active duty and retired
members' faith that their government's health care promises would be
kept. If implemented, this proposal would undermine that trust, which
in the long term can only hurt retention and readiness.
The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to continue to reject
imposition of cost shares in military pharmacies, oppose increasing
other pharmacy cost shares that were only recently established and to
provide full funding for the Defense Health Pharmacy Program. We urge
the Subcommittee to ensure that Beneficiary Advisory Groups' inputs are
included in any studies of pharmacy services or copay adjustments.
Healthcare for Members of the National Guard and Reserve.--The
Military Coalition is most appreciative to Congress for ensuring that
the Temporary Reserve Health Care Program was included in the fiscal
year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act. This program will provide
temporary coverage, until December 2004, for National Guard and Reserve
members who are uninsured or do not have employer-sponsored health care
coverage. TRICARE officials plan to build on existing TRICARE
mechanisms to expedite implementation; however, no one is certain how
long this will take. Immediate implementation and full funding is
required.
The Coalition is grateful to the Congress for their efforts to
enact Sec. 703 and 704 of the fiscal year 2004 NDAA. Sec. 703--Earlier
Eligibility Date for TRICARE Benefits for Members of Reserve Components
provides TRICARE health care coverage for reservists and their family
members starting on the date a ``delayed-effective-date order for
activation'' is issued. Sec. 704--Temporary Extension of Transitional
Health Care Benefits changes the period for receipt of transitional
health care benefits from 60 or 120 days to 180 days for eligible
beneficiaries.
Congress recognized the extraordinary sacrifices of our citizen-
soldiers, by enacting extending this pre- and post-mobilization
coverage. Now it's time to recognize the changed nature of 21st century
service in our nation's reserve forces by making these pilot programs
permanent and provide full funding.
The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to take action to
appropriate sufficient funding and support permanent authorization of
the Temporary Reserve Health Care Program (Sec. 702, 703, and 704
Public Law 108-136) to support readiness, family morale, and deployment
health preparedness for Guard and Reserve servicemembers.
Health insurance coverage varies widely for members of the Guard
and Reserve: 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.
Guard and Reserve family members are eligible for TRICARE if the
member's orders to active duty are for more than thirty days; but, many
of these families would prefer to preserve the continuity of their
health insurance. Being dropped from private sector coverage as a
consequence of extended activation adversely affects family morale and
military readiness and discourages some from reenlisting. Many Guard
and Reserve families live in locations where it is difficult or
impossible to find providers who will accept new TRICARE patients.
Recognizing these challenges for its own reservist-employees, the
Department of Defense routinely pays the premiums for the Federal
Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) when activation occurs. This
benefit, however, only affects about ten percent of the Selected
Reserve.
The Military Coalition urges the Subcommittee to appropriate
sufficient funds to provide for federal payment of civilian health care
premiums (up to the TRICARE limit) as an option for mobilized service
members.
Dental readiness is another key aspect of readiness for Guard and
Reserve personnel. Currently, DOD offers a dental program to Selected
Reserve members and their families. The program provides diagnostic and
preventive care for a monthly premium, and other services including
restorative, endodontic, periodontic and oral surgery services on a
cost-share basis, with an annual maximum payment of $1,200 per enrollee
per year. However, only five percent of eligible members are enrolled.
During this mobilization, soldiers with repairable dental problems
were having teeth pulled at mobilization stations in the interests of
time and money instead of having the proper dental care administered.
Congress responded by passing legislation that allows DOD to provide
medical and dental screening for Selected Reserve members who are
assigned to a unit that has been alerted for mobilization in support of
an operational mission, contingency operation, national emergency, or
war. Unfortunately, waiting for an alert to begin screening is too
late. During the initial mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom, the
average time from alert to mobilization was less than 14 days,
insufficient to address deployment dental standards. In some cases,
units were mobilized before receiving their alert orders. This lack of
notice for mobilization continues, with many reservists receiving only
days of notice before mobilizing.
The Military Coalition recommends the Subcommittee provide
sufficient funding to permit expansion of the TRICARE Dental Plan
benefits for Guard and Reserve servicemembers. This would allow all
National Guard and Reserve members to maintain dental readiness and
alleviate the need for dental care during training or mobilization.
CONCLUSION
The Military Coalition reiterates its profound gratitude for the
extraordinary progress this Subcommittee has made in advancing 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.
STATEMENT OF JANET RUBIN, M.D., ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL COALITION FOR OSTEOPOROSIS AND
RELATED BONE DISEASES
Senator Stevens. Dr. Janet Rubin. Good morning, Doctor.
Dr. Rubin. Mr. Chairman, I am Janet Rubin. I am a professor
in the Department of Medicine at Emory University and a staff
physician at the Atlanta Veterans Medical Center. I am
representing the National Coalition for Osteoporosis and
Related Bone Diseases and I seek your continued support for
Department of Defense funding of the bone health and military
medical readiness research program.
Bone health is an essential element of military readiness.
Our troops must be ready and able to endure vigorous activity
during combat training and force operations. Musculoskeletal
injury is, however, an unfortunate result of training. In
particular stress fracture accounts for more loss duty days in
the active duty population than any other injury. Stress
fractures compromise our military's operational readiness,
drive up health care costs, and increase personnel attrition.
The stress fracture takes a soldier out of combat as quickly as
an entry wound and requires weeks for healing.
Consider those young people entering basic training. As
many as 5 percent of male recruits sustain stress fractures. In
the case of females, the number may rise to as much as 20
percent, and even trained soldiers who switch from light to
heavy physical duty are at risk for stress fracture.
The current bone health and military medical research
program was developed and funded with the goal of eliminating
stress fractures in all recruits. The program's successes to
date are many. I am going to give you a sampling of what we
have learned and what DOD-funded scientists are pursuing and
have published in more than 100 publications.
Recruits are frequently deficient in vitamin D and calcium.
The optimal level of supplementation of these and other
vitamins and minerals for active young people is under
investigation.
Recruits with family histories of osteoporosis are at
higher risk for stress fracture. DOD-supported scientists have
modeled osteoporosis genes in mice, revealing genes that can
predict bone quality and bone structure. Indeed, bone structure
plays a critical role in stress fracture. We are only just
starting to understand how skeletal structure of women differs
from men. DOD-funded research suggests that the smaller bones
of women may be underpowered for the weight they bear during
training, increasing the risk of stress fracture. The training
of female recruits may, thus, require added bone protective
strategies.
Scientists in this program are also trying to understand
how biomechanical signals cause bone formation and improved
bone strength during exercise. One DOD-funded study suggests
that bone fluid flow stimulates bone cells to make stronger
bones.
Of course, improving diagnosis of stress fracture is a
topic of this program, including improvement and
standardization of noninvasive measurements of bone. We would
like to be able to better predict incipient fractures. An
increase in the porosity of bone appears to precede the
fracture. We hope that detection of this porosity with new
instrumentation will improve prevention.
Last, we need to design better treatment algorithms to get
our soldiers back on their feet and prevent chronic disability
such as pain and degenerative joint disease. DOD-funded
scientists are studying both pulsed ultrasound and dynamic
electrical fields as novel adjuncts to standard rest therapy.
Mr. Chairman, we are all aware that stress fractures and
other bone-related injuries erode the physical capability and
effectiveness of our combat training units. Military readiness
suffers. A small investment in bone health research can make a
large contribution to our combat readiness. Therefore, it is
imperative that the Department of Defense build on these recent
findings and maintain an aggressive and sustained bone health
research program at a level of $6 million in fiscal year 2005.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. I understand there are some new techniques
for inquiring about the osteoporosis and other such bone
defects. Do you advocate that women recruits be given those
tests before they enter the service?
Dr. Rubin. I think it would help to know if their bone
density was very low. One of the problems that we have in the
osteoporosis field that, although, for instance, dual x-ray
absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard for measuring bone
density, it really does not predict bone structure. So it is a
poor measure of young women in terms of what they can bear. So
I think it would probably be worthwhile to measure bone density
in young women, yes.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Doctor. We appreciate
your coming.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Rubin, M.D.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Janet Rubin, M.D.,
Professor, Department of Medicine, Emory University and Staff Physician
at the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center. I am here today on
behalf of the National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone
Diseases to urge your support in maintaining the Bone Health and
Military Medical Readiness research program within the Department of
Defense and providing necessary funding to preserve the program. The
members of the Bone Coalition are the American Society for Bone and
Mineral Research, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the Paget
Foundation for Paget's Disease of Bone and Related Disorders, and the
Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation.
Bone health is an essential element of military readiness. The goal
of the Department of Defense (DOD) is to guarantee military readiness
by keeping our forces trained, equipped and ready to adapt to emerging
threats. Our troops must be ready and able to endure vigorous activity
during combat training as well as during force operations. Soldiers are
always at risk of injury, incapacitation, and degraded performance
resulting from injuries such as stress fractures--all of which
compromise the mission, readiness, and budget of the Armed Forces.
Although the benefits of strenuous physical activity are well
documented, these activities are also known to incur certain risks.
Musculoskeletal injury, for example, is the most common morbidity in
civilian and military populations who participate in physical activity.
In fact, fractures account for the highest number of lost duty days in
the active duty population of any injury. These injuries incur a high
cost to the DOD not only in lost duty days, but in health care, lost
training time, and attrition of personnel. Ultimately, the operational
readiness of U.S. military forces is severely compromised.
Stress fractures are one of the most common and potentially
debilitating overuse injuries experienced in the military recruit
population. Stress fractures occur in 0.8 to 5.2 percent of male
recruits, and from 3 to 21 percent of female recruits. Recent research
suggests that several factors may contribute to the increased risk for
stress fracture suffered by women, including the density, shape, and
size of their bones (which affect bone quality), and their nutritional,
hormonal and physical conditioning status.
Lack of physical conditioning affects the United States as a whole,
along with the military population in particular. An Institute of
Medicine report published in 1998 by the Subcommittee on Body
Composition, Nutrition and Health of Military Women concluded that the
low initial fitness of recruits, both cardiorespiratory and
musculoskeletal, appeared to be the principal factor in the development
of stress fractures during basic training. The Committee also concluded
that muscle mass, strength, and endurance played a critical role in the
development of stress fracture. Now we know from DOD-funded research
that bone structure adds to the risk of fracture, along with a history
of poor diet, lack of exercise, hormonal imbalances and genetic
factors. Ethnicity also plays a part.
Isn't basic training good for recruits' health, you may wonder. The
answer is yes and no. Exercise is important to building bone health,
but the type of exercise and the transition to new exercise regiments
play a role in bone strength. Many new recruits, upon arrival for basic
training, are unaccustomed to intense exercise, particularly strenuous
running and marching activities. Under normal circumstances, the
increased demand placed on bone tissue causes the bone to remodel to
adapt to the new loads, and become stronger in the areas of higher
stress. However, if the remodeling response of the bone cannot keep
pace with the repetitive demands placed on a service member during the
8 to 12 week training period, a stress fracture may result. Without
proper rest and time to heal, the stress fracture may lead to chronic
pain and disability.
Different types of stress fractures require different treatment.
For example, femoral neck or hip stress fractures can sometimes
progress to full fractures and interrupt the blood supply to the thigh
bone portion of the hip joint. This in turn can cause early
degenerative changes in the hip joint. Physicians consider the femoral
neck stress fracture to be a medical emergency requiring immediate
treatment. Researchers have raised concerns regarding the possible
relationship between increased risk for stress fracture and long-term
risk of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and other bone diseases.
Like hip stress fractures, stress fractures of the navicular (foot
bone), anterior cortex of the tibia (front portion of the mid-
shinbone), and proximal fifth metatarsal (a bone in the foot) are also
slow to heal. Many of these diagnoses require an affected service
member cease training for a lengthy period of medical care and
rehabilitation until the fracture has healed. At one basic training
location, over 70 percent of the injured soldiers pulled from training
were diagnosed with overuse bone injuries.
While stress fracture injury is seen primarily in new recruits,
anyone who suddenly increases his or her frequency, intensity, or
duration of physical activity, such as a recently called-up reservist
is potentially at risk for developing lower body stress fractures.
The study of bone health is not a simple task, as bone health
requires a complex interaction between exercise and other factors that
affect bone remodeling, such as nutrition, hormonal status, genetics,
and biomechanics. Currently, there is a distinct gap in understanding
the effects of exercise and other factors on normal bone remodeling in
a young adult population; more research is needed to determine the best
types of exercise regimens to build and maintain healthy bone.
Moreover, an understanding of all factors affecting bone health,
particularly in young, healthy men and women, is necessary to fully
describe the physiological response of bone and muscle to the physical
demands placed on our service members, and to maintain the health and
military readiness of our service members.
At this point, Mr. Chairman I would like to identify some of the
promising studies currently being funded by the DOD:
Current Studies
Identifying key mineral and other nutritional levels needed in
military rations to ensure optimal bone health of recruits:
--Vitamin D, for example, is known to be deficient in the population
at large, particularly in sunlight-deprived individuals, and
yet it, like calcium, is key to bone health. Researchers are
working to determine the proper level of vitamin D required in
the military population. A related question is: What levels of
vitamin D supplementation are necessary to maintain bone
health?
--The effect of calcium and calorie intake on the incidence of stress
fractures in the short term, and osteoporosis in the long term,
is another subject of investigation.
--How do caloric restriction and disordered eating patterns--and/or
related amenorrhea or menstrual period cessation--affect
hormonal balance and the accrual and maintenance of peak bone
mineral content is a question also under investigation.
Researching the association between stress fractures and physical
training methods, including an examination of past injuries and the
effects of poor nutrition, lack of exercise, smoking, use of anti-
inflammatory medications, alcohol and oral contraceptives, all of which
may negatively affect bone.
Examining the mechanisms of bone cell stimulation from the flow of
surrounding fluids during compression (loading) of the bone. As the
bone is repeatedly compressed due to physical activity, fluid flows in
a network of spaces; this oscillating fluid flow is a potent stimulator
of bone cells.
Comparing recovery times from tibial stress fracture in subjects
treated with active or placebo-controlled electric field stimulation,
including evaluation of male and female responses.
Assessing the fracture healing impact of pulsed ultrasound.
Attempting to accelerate stress fracture healing time using
conservative but generally favored treatments of rest from weight
bearing activity (this averages three months).
With DOD's critical investment support, the findings are already
impressive:
--Poor physical fitness when recruit training is initiated has been
identified as a strong predictor of injury. This has led to the
development of a scientifically based intervention to reduce
injuries at the Marine Corp Recruit Depot. An evaluation of
this intervention demonstrated an overall reduction in overuse
injuries and a 50 percent reduction in stress fractures, with
no decrement in physical fitness at graduation.
--Muscle elasticity--as measured by ultrasound--has been shown to
undergo physiological alterations with an abrupt transition to
a running training program similar to that employed for
military recruit training. MRI allows for imaging of soft
tissue and can detect these alterations in muscle structure
during running. Combining ultrasound characterization with MRI
scanning of the muscle recruitment during running will
ultimately enable physicians to pinpoint the relationship of
muscle elasticity to the level of tibial stress, and,
ultimately, fracture risk.
--Being able to assess metabolism and bone growth in humans will
advance our understanding of bone remodeling: key to building
and maintaining strong bone. DOD-funded scientists have
developed a prototype of the highest resolution positron
emission tomography (PET) devise existing to focus on meeting
this need for improved assessment.
--Data suggests that increased bone remodeling precedes the
occurrence of bone microdamage and stress fractures.
Researchers found that increases in cortical bone porosity
precede the accumulation of bone microdamage, suggesting an
important role of increased intracortical remodeling in the
development of stress fractures. If we can detect this porosity
before microdamage occurs, we could prevent stress fractures.
Areas of Need
Improved and more sensitive methods are needed for the noninvasive
assessment of bone metabolism along with standard measurements of bone
density and other parameters of bone strength to assess normal bone
remodeling, impending risk of bone injury, and bone responses to
treatment interventions.
Structural and biomechanical factors that contribute to tibial
stress fracture risk need to be explored using recent advances in
technology to detect microscopic damage to tibial bone structure non-
invasively, before occurrence of stress fracture injuries.
We need to determine the relationship between whole bone geometry
and tissue fragility in the human tibia, testing the linkage between
geometry, gender, and the occurrence of low-impact bone fractures
(those that occur with minimum force).
DOD scientists' research in genetic determinants of bone quality
may ultimately help protect women and men against musculoskeletal
injuries. Bone mineral density, while a major determinant of bone
strength, is just one parameter of bone quality. Both geometric
characteristics and density of bone are related to bone strength, and
muscle strength and endurance have been linked to the ability of bone
to withstand repetitive loading. Thus, susceptibility to stress
fracture clearly has both bone and muscle components. Research on the
effects of genetics, diet and nutrition, mechanical load, and other
factors that might affect bone quality can now be studied using new
technologies, such as magnetic resonance imaging, peripheral
quantitative computed tomography, regional DXA, and tibial ultrasound,
and has the potential to provide great insight into the bone remodeling
and adaptation process. In addition, new techniques such as virtual
bone biopsies are under development to provide more critical data.
Mr. Chairman, stress fractures and other bone related injuries
erode the physical capabilities and reduce the effectiveness of our
combat training units, compromising military readiness. A small
investment in bone health research can make a large contribution to
combat readiness. Therefore, it is imperative that the Department of
Defense build on recent findings and maintain an aggressive and
sustained bone health research program at a level of $6 million in
fiscal year 2005.
Senator Stevens. My good friend, the co-chairman, is here.
Do you have any opening statement, Senator?
Senator Inouye. No, thank you.
Senator Stevens. Very well.
Vice President Howard R. Hall of the Joslin Diabetes Center
please. Good morning.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD R. HALL, VICE PRESIDENT, JOSLIN
DIABETES CENTER
Mr. Hall. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye,
thank you for this opportunity to report on the progress of the
Joslin Diabetes Center cooperative telemedicine project with
the DOD and the Veterans Administration (VA) for the diagnosis,
management, and treatment of diabetes and diabetic retinopathy,
Army Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) medical
advanced technology PE0603002A.
I am Howard Hall of the Joslin Diabetes Center. I am also
here to request continued level funding at $5 million for this
collaborative project in fiscal year 2005.
As both of you know I believe, the Joslin Vision Network
(JVN) Eye Care and Comprehensive Diabetes Management Program is
a telemedicine initiative designed to access all people with
diabetes into cost effective, quality diabetes and eye programs
across cultural and geographic boundaries with reduced costs.
I am pleased to report that these innovative JVN eye care
and diabetes management programs are being deployed not only in
the DOD but also throughout the Indian Health Service (IHS) and
VA health care systems. Already we have 52 sites in 18 States
and the District of Columbia.
Currently the JVN telemedicine eye care system is the only
non-mydriatic system available that has been rigorously
validated, equivalent to the current gold standard for
retinopathy diagnosis.
Version 3 of the Joslin eye care is ready for deployment
this summer and will be simpler and less expensive to operate.
A new prototype JVN retinal imaging system that is portable and
50 percent less costly has been developed and is being to
undergo initial clinical validation.
Joslin has completed the first phase in the use of
automated detection of diabetic retinopathy which can increase
the cost efficiency of the JVN system by 42 percent.
Recognizing the need to manage total care of diabetic patients
and to empower better self-management so as to realize a
prevention of vision loss, the DOD/VA/Joslin collaborative has
developed the JVN comprehensive diabetes management program
(CDMP) using web-based interactive technologies.
By the end of this May 2004, CDMP will be integrated into
the DOD Healtheforces website for daily use. In addition, CDMP
is expected to be fully operational for both the VA VISN system
and in the Indian Health Services in July 2004.
The CDMP, the comprehensive diabetes management program,
can result in a three- to seven-fold reduction in health care
expenses.
The requested continuation of the current level of funding
for 2005, $5 million, will provide support for the existing JVN
eye care system for deployment of the JVN comprehensive
diabetes management program to participating sites, for
continued JVN refinements, and quite important, to perform
critical prospective clinical studies.
Mr. Chairman, Joslin is pleased to be a part of this
project for the Department of Defense and we are most
appreciative of the support that you and your colleagues have
provided to us. Please know that we would be grateful for
continued support again this year.
At this time, I would be pleased to answer any questions
that you or Senator Inouye may have. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. I think I
commented to you before my father was blind because of juvenile
diabetes. We are pleased to try to work with you.
Mr. Hall. Try to prevent it so others do not have to have
that. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Howard R. Hall
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you. I am Howard Hall of the Joslin
Diabetes Center. I am pleased to present an update on the collaborative
Joslin Diabetes Project with the Departments of Defense and Veteran's
Affairs on the health concerns related to diabetes.
Joslin is extremely appreciative of the funds provided for this
valuable project in the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act.
Our proposal for fiscal year 2005 funding will allow for the DOD/VA/
Joslin collaborative to continue to enhance research refinements and
extend clinical developments of Joslin Vision Network (JVN) Eye Care
and the Comprehensive Diabetes Management Program (CDMP).
The Joslin Vision Network (JVN) Eye Care and Comprehensive Diabetes
Management Program (CDMP) is a telemedicine initiative designed to
access all diabetes patients into cost-effective, quality diabetes and
eye care programs across geographic and cultural boundaries at reduced
costs.
This DOD/VA/Joslin collaborative is the core foundation for these
innovative eye care and diabetes management programs that are being
deployed not only in the DOD but also throughout the IHS and VA health
care systems.
Collectively, the JVN is deployed at 52 sites in the District of
Columbia and the following 18 states: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Hawaii,
Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and
Washington.
Summary
This request of $5,000,000 represents the collective costs of
Joslin and associated expenses of the Department of the Army, RDT&E.
Fiscal Year 2004 Status Report
JVN Deployment
As of January 2004 we have deployed in:
--The Department of Defense infrastructure: 11 independent remote JVN
imaging sites, 5 centralized JVN reading center sites. and 2
coordinating independent JVN servers.
--The VA system: 8 independent remote JVN imaging sites, 4
centralized JVN reading center sites, and 2 coordinating
independent JVN servers.
--The Joslin Diabetes Center system: 7 JVN imaging sites, and 4 JVN
reading center sites.
JVN Validation
Currently the JVN telemedicine's eye care system is the only non-
mydriatic (no pupil dilation needed) system available that has been
rigorously validated and shown to be equivalent to the current gold
standard for retinopathy diagnosis. The JVN validation study results
were published in the March 2001 issue of Ophthalmology.
JVN Application Enhancement
The JVN application has been refined to use totally non-proprietary
hardware and software and is fully DICOM and HL7 compliant as well as
being compliant with HIPAA security standards. Workstations are now
standard PCs with Microsoft 2000 operating systems interfaced with Agfa
PACS environment which facilitates direct interfaces to DOD CHS and VA
VISTA medical record systems.
Preparing for evolving PC functions, JVN Eye Care Version 3 is
ready for release this summer. With applications written in
Microsoft.Net operating system-platform, JVN software becomes modular.
This software enhancement will facilitate addition of new modules to
expand JVN value and will make JVN simpler and significantly less
expensive to operate.
New JVN Retinal Imaging System
During the initial Cooperative Agreement Joslin undertook the
development of a retinal imaging system that overcame the limitations
identified in current commercially available non-mydriatic retrieval
funders camera imaging systems. A prototype imaging system that is
portable and 50 percent less costly has been developed and is being
readied to undergo initial clinical validation.
JVN Computer-based Detection of Micro-aneurysms for
Screening Digital Retinal Images
This development effort represents the first phase in the use of
image analysis to automate identification of retinal lesions in
diabetic retinopathy. This ability will dramatically improve the
efficiency of the reading center and based on results from the
retrospective cost efficiency study will have a significant impact on
cost savings for the use of the JVN system. This effort has been
completed and results indicate that automated detection can be achieved
with a sensitivity and specificity of 70 percent. At this level we can
expect to increase the cost efficiency of the JVN system by 42 percent.
JVN Comprehensive Diabetes Management Program (CDMP)
A focus during the first 5 years of the DOD/VA/Joslin collaborative
was the recognition of the need to develop the JVN Comprehensive
Diabetes Management Program (CDMP). This development process was
focused on care management for the diabetic patient using web-based
interactive technologies. The driver for this application was the need
to manage the total care of diabetic patients and to empower better
self-management so as to realize a prevention of vision loss. The
development of the CDMP was started in year 3 of the funding cycle. The
JVN eye care component now becomes a module of the larger CDMP
application. The CDMP application is now ready to be deployed to
participating sites.
By the end of May 2004 CDMP will be integrated into DOD
HealtheForces website for daily use. In addition CDMP is expected to be
fully operational in both the VA VISN system and in the Indian Health
Services in July 2004.
CDMP Phase Two--Prospective Clinical Studies
Following upon comprehensive Broad Area Announcement (BAA) DOD
review process the second major phase of the Cooperative Agreement was
initiated in October 2003: performing the appropriate prospective
studies aimed at demonstrating the cost effectiveness and clinical
efficacy of the combined JVN eye care and diabetes management system.
This is the critical component of the work as the application will not
be adopted widely without data demonstrating value in terms of cost
reduction, increased efficiency in usage and increased clinical
effectiveness.
Equally important, this program provides a platform for propagating
the concept of a shared private medical intranet that assembles a
``virtual'' medical record that draws on sources of heterogeneous
information. The ultimate vision with development of the CDMP within
the DOD, the VA and Joslin is the ability to facilitate implementation
of a unified medical record that addresses the security and
confidentiality implications of web-connecting the nation's clinical
data.
The major goals of this continuing project are the establishment of
a telemedicine system for comprehensive diabetes management and the
assessment of diabetic retinopathy that provides increased access for
diabetic patients to appropriate care, that centralizes the patients in
the care process, that empowers the patient to better manage his
disease, that can be performed in a cost-effective manner, and that
maintains the high standard of care required for the appropriate
management of diabetic patients.
The DOD/VA/Joslin collaborators have designed prospective clinical
studies to cover a five year period to enable the appropriate
collection of data and to allow the expected changes to be measured as
significant clinical outcomes. The collaborators have written manuals
of operation for these studies, and submitted protocols for review at
organization IRBs.
This next phase of the DOD/VA/Joslin research program will assess
the usability of the JVN CDMP applications, assess diabetic patients'
current behaviors, undertake a multi-center CDMP clinical outcomes
efficacy and cost efficiency study, pursue a prospective study of JVN
Eye Care cost efficiency and conduct a Multi-center JVN Risk Benefit
Study.
First studies are slated to begin in June 2004 with the last study
to start in December 2004. The 3 year-long studies will be completed by
January 2008. Data analysis will be done from January 2008 to July
2008.
The expectation is that these studies will demonstrate that use of
JVN eye care and CDMP will result in improvements in care of diabetes
patients, improvements in patient control of diabetes, reduction of
risks such as blindness, increased productivity of people with diabetes
in the workplace and a reduction in utilization of expensive hospital
care resources such as ER visits and length of stay in hospital.
It is anticipated the studies will also show that CDMP can result
in a 3 to 7 fold reduction in health care expenses.
Fiscal Year 2005 Objectives
The current level of funding for 2005 ($5,000,000) will provide
support for existing JVN Eye Care systems; for deployment of the JVN
Comprehensive Diabetes Management Program (CDMP) to participating
sites; for continued refinements to the JVN platform; to bring on line
a new, refined JVN Imaging System; and to perform appropriate and
critical prospective clinical studies that will allow the DOD/VA to
further refine and increase their clinical effectiveness and cost
effectiveness of the combined JVN Eye Care and Comprehensive Diabetes
Management Program (CDMP).
Joslin Diabetes Project Requested Fiscal Year 2005 Budget
Administrative and Management Fees
Administrative and management fees were addressed on page 231 of
your Conference Report on H.R. 2658 Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2004. Administrative and management fees assessed
by DOD at 20 percent take $1,000,000 off the top of project
appropriations thereby reducing the project's reach and delaying full
implementation of the endeavor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Costs:
DOD Administrative and Management Costs (@20 $1,000,000
percent)...........................................
DOD/VA Participating Sites.......................... 1,757,000
---------------
TOTAL DOD/VA Costs................................ 2,757,000
===============
Joslin Costs:
Joslin Vision Network (JVN)......................... 1,228,000
Comprehensive Diabetes Management Program (CDMP).... 1,015,000
---------------
TOTAL Joslin Costs................................ 2,243,000
===============
TOTAL Requested Budget............................ 5,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, Joslin is please to be a part of this project with
the Department of Defense and we are most appreciative of the support
that you and your colleagues have provided to us. Please know that we
would be grateful for your continued support again this year. At this
time, I would be pleased to answer any questions from you or any other
Member of the Committee.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Do you have any estimate as to the number
of men and women in the military who might be afflicted?
Mr. Hall. Yes. I think the main thrust for the military--
there is a chance of people becoming diabetic but most of the
concern with this was military dependents for the DOD. At the
same time, the telemedicine comprehensive diabetes management
program is also being evolved with the Telemedicine and
Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRIC) into a disease
management. We are at the stage where this can actually go to
the front lines.
That is why we are interested in basically--eye care other
than diabetes is handled by the portable JVN system, and I am
just reporting on the diabetes component to you today. I do not
want to carry it on because with the limited budget we have, as
indicated in the written testimony, we cannot move out in other
fields, but we are working on that and I am also looking for
private funding in that regard.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.
Our next witness is Dr. Christopher Sager, American
Psychological Association. Good morning, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER SAGER, Ph.D., ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Dr. Sager. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, I
am Dr. Christopher Sager, Principal Staff Scientist at the
Human Resources Research Organization. I am submitting
testimony on behalf of the American Psychological Association,
APA, a scientific and professional organization of more than
150,000 psychologists.
Although I am sure you are aware that a large number of
psychologists are providing clinical services to our military
members here and abroad, you may be less familiar with the wide
range of research conducted by psychological scientists in the
Department of Defense. Our behavioral researchers work on
issues critical to national defense with support of the Army
Research Institute, the Army Research Laboratory, and the
Office of Naval Research, and the Air Force Research
Laboratory.
I would like to address the proposed cuts to the fiscal
year 2005 human-centered research budgets for these military
laboratories within the context of the larger Department of
Defense science and technology (S&T) budget.
The President's budget request for basic and applied
research for S&T at DOD in fiscal year 2005 is $10.55 billion,
a 12.7 percent decrease from the enacted fiscal year 2004
level. APA joins the Coalition for National Security Research,
a group of over 40 scientific associations and universities, in
urging the subcommittee to provide DOD with $12.05 billion for
S&T in fiscal year 2005. This figure is in line with the
recommendations of the independent Science Board and the
Quadrennial Defense Review.
A portion of this overall defense S&T budget funds critical
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. Some of my current work, for example,
focuses on developing measures of characteristics required of
first-term soldiers and non-commissioned officers in the future
Army. These efforts will be used to help Army selection and
promotion systems meet the demands of the 21st century.
In a congressionally mandated report to this committee, DOD
reported on the continuing erosion of its own support for
research on individual and group performance, leadership,
communication, human-machine interfaces, and decision-making.
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 operational
impact.
Despite the critical need for strong research in this area,
the administration has proposed an fiscal year 2005 defense
budget that would slash funding for human-centered research by
12 percent. Army, Navy, and Air Force basic behavioral research
would remain essentially flat for fiscal year 2005 and both the
Air Force and the Army would sustain deep, detrimental cuts to
applied behavioral research programs, cuts in the range of 35
percent. APA urges the committee to, at a minimum, restore
funding for human-centered research at the fiscal year 2004
level of $477.89 million.
In closing, I would like to quote again from the DOD's 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.''
Mr. Chairman, our servicemembers deserve the very best that
we can give them, and I hope that this subcommittee will
restore cuts to defense S&T funding and, in particular, the
human-centered research budget. Thank you. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher Sager, Ph.D.
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. Christopher
Sager from the Human Resources Research Organization. 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 the fiscal year
2005 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
The President's budget request for basic and applied research at
DOD in fiscal year 2005 is $10.55 billion, a 12.7 percent decrease from
the enacted fiscal year 2004 level. 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 $12.05 billion for 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 level research in fiscal
year 2005. 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 Iraq and Afghanistan 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 $12.05 billion in fiscal year 2005 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.''
Despite the critical need for strong research in this area, the
Administration has proposed an fiscal year 2005 defense budget that
would slash funding for human-centered research by 12 percent. Army,
Navy and Air Force basic behavioral research would remain essentially
flat in fiscal year 2005, and both the Air Force and Army would sustain
deep, detrimental cuts to their applied behavioral research programs.
APA urges the Committee to, at a minimum, restore funding for human-
centered research at the fiscal year 2004 level of $477.89 million.
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 would decrease from $477.89 million
appropriated in fiscal year 2004 to $421.29 million in the
Administration's fiscal year 2005 budget, a 12 percent cut. 6.2 level
applied behavioral research in particular would suffer dramatically
under the Administration plan. The Air Force's 6.2 program would be cut
by 19.7 percent, the Army's would be cut by 35 percent, and the Office
of the Secretary Defense (OSD) program would be cut by 31.3 percent
(the Navy's program would see a small decrease). In terms of 6.3 level
research, the Air Force would suffer a 23.4 percent cut and OSD would
see a 20 percent cut in fiscal year 2005. Basic, 6.1 level human-
centered research would remain essentially flat as it has for several
years now.
Behavioral and cognitive research programs eliminated from the
mission labs due to cuts or flat funding 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 dramatic, detrimental 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 Stevens. Well, we will look into that cut. It is
sort of a different type of reduction. We do not have any
support for it yet, but we will inquire into it.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, recently our attention has
been focused on prisoner abuse. Would your studies have been
able to detect flaws in one's character?
Dr. Sager. Senator Inouye, that is an excellent question. A
lot of the research I am personally involved with has to do
with the personal characteristics required of enlisted soldiers
in the Army. Among those are measures of conscientiousness and
other psychological constructs that are very important to that.
Yes, I think they would contribute to predicting problems and
preventing problems in that area. However, research in that
domain is very difficult and the Army is setting the standards
in a lot of ways in that domain.
Senator Inouye. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
testimony.
Our next witness is Kenneth Galloway, the Dean of
Vanderbilt University, appearing for the Association of
American Universities (AAU). Good morning, Dean.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH F. GALLOWAY, DEAN, SCHOOL OF
ENGINEERING, AND PROFESSOR OF ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERING, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
UNIVERSITIES
Dr. Galloway. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, I
am Kenneth F. Galloway, Dean of the School of Engineering and
Professor of Electrical Engineering at Vanderbilt University. I
appear before you today on behalf of the Association of
American Universities which represents 60 of America's most
prominent public and private research universities. I have
submitted a statement for the record and will briefly summarize
the key points.
I greatly appreciate this opportunity to testify in support
of basic research and applied research funded in the research,
development, testing, and evaluation section of the defense
appropriations bill. I would like to thank Chairman Stevens,
Ranking Member Inouye, and the members of the subcommittee for
your past support of defense science and technology programs
and specifically for basic and applied research sponsored by
DOD and conducted at our Nation's universities. Your ongoing
support of these programs is greatly appreciated.
As the subcommittee begins work on the 2005 defense
appropriations bill, the AAU offers the subcommittee two major
recommendations.
The first recommendation is that the committee support
defense S&T at a level equal to 3 percent of the total defense
budget. This has been recommended by both the Defense Science
Board and the Quadrennial Defense Review. The core S&T programs
include basic, applied, and advanced technology development,
the 6.1 and 6.2 and 6.3 items. These investments are important
to ensuring the technological superiority of America's military
forces.
The second recommendation addresses strengthening support
of basic research. Today that support has declined to less than
12 percent of DOD S&T funding. This has occurred as DOD has
shifted some of its focus from support of fundamental, long-
range research to meeting more immediate, short-term defense
objectives.
In the early 1980's the basic research portion was nearly
20 percent of total defense S&T. The AAU supports increasing
the competitively awarded defense research sciences and
university research initiative program elements in 2005 by $95
million. The association also endorses continued growth and
applied research at the 4.6 percent rate approved by Congress
last year.
Now, why do we think these recommendations are important?
DOD-funded research at universities is concentrated in fields
where advances are most likely to contribute to national
defense. DOD accounts for 68 percent of Federal funding for
university research in electrical engineering, 32 percent for
computer sciences, 50 percent for material science and
engineering, more than 50 percent for mechanical engineering,
and 29 percent for ocean sciences. Additionally, DOD provides a
significant amount of support for graduate students in critical
defense fields.
Examples of technologies in use today that have benefitted
from university-based research include the global positioning
system, GPS; the thermobaric bomb, or bunker buster; laser
targeting systems that give us precision weapons; lightweight
body armor; radar-evading materials, the internet; night vision
and thermal imaging; unmanned aerial vehicle control; bio and
chemical sensors. DOD investments in basic and applied research
made these technologies available to the warfighter today.
Many research efforts underway at universities and national
laboratories around the country will lead to development of new
technologies that will ensure our Nation's military superiority
tomorrow.
To conclude, the Nation must not sell short tomorrow's
warfighters by undercutting research today. The AAU urges the
subcommittee to strongly support the basic and applied science
behind the best fighting force in the world.
Again, I would like to thank the subcommittee for continued
support of the Department of Defense research and urge members
to sustain and grow the S&T programs that make such an
important contribution to our national security. Thank you very
much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth F. Galloway
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am Kenneth F.
Galloway, Dean of the School of Engineering and Professor of Electrical
Engineering at Vanderbilt University. I appear before you today on
behalf of the Association of American Universities, which represents 60
of America's most prominent public and private research universities in
the United States.
I greatly appreciate this opportunity to testify today in support
of basic research (6.1) and applied research (6.2) funded in the
Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) section of the
Department of Defense (DOD) appropriations bill. I would also like to
thank Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye, and the members of the
subcommittee for past support of Defense Science and Technology (S&T)
programs and specifically for basic and applied research sponsored by
DOD and conducted at our nation's universities. Your ongoing support of
these programs is recognized and greatly appreciated.
As the subcommittee begins its work on the fiscal year 2005 defense
appropriations bill, the AAU offers the subcommittee two major
recommendations.
Support Defense S&T at 3 percent of the total defense budget.--AAU
supports recommendations by the Defense Science Board (1998) and the
Quadrennial Defense Review (2001) to devote 3 percent of the DOD budget
to core S&T programs. The core S&T programs include basic (6.1) and
applied (6.2) research and advanced technology development (6.3) in the
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-Wide accounts. These investments are
key to ensuring the future safety and technological superiority of
America's military forces.
Strengthen support of basic research.--In the early 1980's, basic
research accounted for nearly 20 percent of total defense S&T funding.
Today, that support has declined to less than 12 percent, as DOD has
shifted some of its focus from support of fundamental, long-term
research to meeting more immediate and short-term defense objectives.
To begin to restore basic research funding to its effective
historic levels, AAU supports increasing the competitively awarded
Defense Research Sciences and University Research Initiative program
elements in fiscal year 2005 by $95 million. The association also
endorses continued growth in applied research at the 4.6 percent rate
approved by Congress last year, which would be an increase of
approximately $205 million.
Why defense research is important to universities (and universities are
important to defense research)
DOD is the third largest federal sponsor of university-based
research after the National Institutes of Health and the National
Science Foundation. More than 300 universities and colleges conduct
DOD-funded research and development. Universities receive more than 54
percent of defense basic research funding and a substantial portion of
defense applied research support.
DOD funded research to universities is concentrated in fields where
advances are most likely to contribute to national defense. DOD
accounts for 68 percent of federal funding for university electrical
engineering, 32 percent for computer sciences, 50 percent for
metallurgy and materials engineering, and 29 percent for ocean
sciences. 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.
Why investing in DOD research is important to the nation
If we do not invest adequately in DOD research, we will delay or
even prevent the development of technologies that would provide
critical protection to our future warfighters and make them more
effective in the field. We need only look at how past knowledge and
discoveries generated at U.S. universities have made major
contributions to the nation's defense efforts. Examples of technologies
used by troops today include the following.
--The Global Positioning System (GPS) is one of the greatest assets
to the modern warfighter. GPS provides a precision of location
that was unimaginable decades ago, enabling military leaders to
pinpoint targets in a way that increases lethality and
minimizes collateral damage. The system also enables commanders
to know the precise location in the field of their human and
material assets. This crucial battlefield resource was
developed from fundamental physics research in atomic clocks.
--The Thermobaric Bomb, or the ``bunker buster,'' has been used in
recent military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. The new
technology was transformed from a laboratory concept to an
operational battlefield technology in less than three months.
As Rear Admiral Jay Cohen of the Office of Naval Research noted
in his statement for a hearing of the Senate Emerging Threats
and Capabilities Subcommittee in April, 2002: ``Such speed was
possible because the science was done before the need became
urgent.''
--The ability of today's soldiers to fight in urban environments has
been profoundly increased by the use of lightweight and easily
deployed laser targeting systems. Troops today can discreetly
and precisely target a location, providing a critical
capability for increasingly frequent urban conflicts. Decades
ago, military research offices supported the fundamental
research that led to the development of the laser.
--Lightweight Body Armor, a new technology developed for the
Department of Defense, can stop 30-caliber armor piercing
bullets yet has an aerial density of only 3.5 pounds per square
foot. To make the new self-adjusting reinforced helmets and
body armor, which can be tailored to fit the mission,
researchers used a new boron-carbide ceramic plate that weighs
10 to 30 percent less than conventional armor and delivers
equal or greater protection.
There are many other examples of discoveries and technologies made
possible through university-based defense basic research:
--THE INTERNET started as ARPANET, which connected major universities
through the world's first packet-switched network. This
technology translated into a robust communications network
designed to protect the nation in the event of full attack.
--NIGHT VISION and thermal imaging technology make it possible for
the U.S. Army to use forward-looking infrared detectors to spot
enemy forces and roll into combat in pitch-blackness.
--UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES enable the warfighter to effectively and
affordably suppress enemy air defenses and conduct surveillance
missions without placing pilots at risk. University researchers
recently executed the most complex maneuver ever performed by
an unpiloted helicopter. This breakthrough could provide a new
tool for military reconnaissance and weapons delivery in
challenging terrains such as mountainous and urban areas.
--BIO-SENSORS detect the presence of a biological or chemical agent.
University researchers helped design a sensor that can
determine the presence of anthrax spores, enabling officials to
differentiate quickly between hoaxes and real threats.
Many research projects underway at universities and national labs
around the country will lead to development of new technologies to
ensure the nation's military superiority in the future. For example, at
Vanderbilt University, our AFOSR-supported research on Survivable
Electronics for Space and Defense Systems is leading to more resilient
microelectronic devices to be used in defense systems. These devices
are susceptible to damage and mission failure from radiation emanating
from a variety of sources. Vanderbilt research will enable electronics
designers to develop more reliable systems for defense applications and
to deploy more advanced technologies in challenging radiation
environments.
Another example of Vanderbilt research, sponsored by DARPA funding,
is the Monopropellant-Powered Actuation for a Powered Exoskeleton
Project. Vanderbilt researchers are developing a lightweight system to
power and control a wearable structure that will enable warfighters to
carry up to 300 pounds for 12 hours. This power system uses high-
intensity hydrogen peroxide to deliver many times more power than
batteries, at manageable temperatures, with completely benign emissions
of water and oxygen.
Other examples of DOD sponsored research occurring at other
universities around the county include:
--Semiconductors--The United States has been able to capitalize on
increased computing capacity to provide an economic and
military edge over other countries. But the U.S. computer-chip
industry is quickly approaching the physical limits of the
chip-making process. Without major research advances, the
semiconductor industry's ability to sustain the pace of
innovation could come to a halt in 10-15 years.
--Nanotechnology research promises both miniaturization of existing
equipment and the potential for new materials, properties, and
devices. Much of the current research is focused on improving
the survival and comfort of soldiers. The 140-pound pack and
cotton fatigues worn by infantry today could be transformed
into a lightweight battlesuit able to protect the warfighter
from enemy and environmental threats. At the same time, these
suits could monitor health, help treat injuries, enable
communications, and enhance performance.
--Explosives Detection Devices are an example of basic research
efforts where additional investments are still needed. Nuclear
quadropole resonance (NQR) technology detects and identifies
specific molecules, such as nitrogen, in explosives. The
technology has been adapted to detect landmines, roadside
explosives, and terrorist bombs in such places as Bosnia and
Iraq. But more research is needed to further transform and
refine the military's traditional explosive detection systems.
--Self-Healing Technology research addresses medical limitations on
the battlefield, including a lack of supplies, diagnostic and
life-support equipment, and time for treatment. Research
efforts underway will accelerate healing time and reduce
casualties.
CONCLUSION
The nation must not sell short tomorrow's warfighters by
undercutting research today. AAU urges the subcommittee to strongly
support the basic and applied science behind the best fighting force in
the world.
Again, I would like to thank the subcommittee for its continued
support of Department of Defense research and urge members to sustain
and grow the S&T programs that make such an important contribution to
our national security.
Senator Stevens. Well, Dean, you raise an interesting
conundrum because very clearly we have some systems coming on
that we will have to postpone if we do not cut other places. We
have the F-22, the V-22, Stryker, the Joint Strike Fighter. I
think you make a good point, but on the other hand, none of the
research you are talking about will be available by the time we
either win or lose completely the war on terrorism in the
Middle East. So I think you have requested a very difficult
thing from us. The decision to defer basic research and instead
apply the funding to moving new equipment like the armored high
mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV), et cetera is a
very clear decision Congress has already made. But we will look
at your request.
Dr. Galloway. I understand it is a very difficult time.
Senator Stevens. It is difficult.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. The military has done well in developing
body armor technology, and as a result, comparatively there are
very few thoracic injuries. But we have an overabundance of
amputations of all limbs, plus head injuries. Are you
researching anything that would cover arms, legs, heads?
Dr. Galloway. Senator, I am not aware of that work, but I
will look into that and find you a reply.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. The Senator is correct. We noticed just an
overwhelming change in the type of injuries that our people are
coming home with. They are coming home, but they are coming
home minus a lot of limbs and real serious head injuries, eye
injuries. We have got to develop a better protection overall
for our people. That type of basic research certainly would
support.
Thank you very much, Dean.
Dr. Galloway. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. We will now turn to Master Chief Joseph
Barnes, United States Navy. He appears as the National
Executive Secretary for the Fleet Reserve Association. Good
morning, Chief.
STATEMENT OF MASTER CHIEF JOSEPH L. BARNES, USN (RET.),
NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Barnes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
Senator Inouye, and other distinguished members of the
subcommittee, the Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) appreciates
the opportunity to present its views on the 2005 defense
budget. My name is Joe Barnes. I am the National Executive
Secretary for the Fleet Reserve Association and also co-chair
of the Military Coalition's Personnel Committee.
Before I address several priority issues, I want to thank
this distinguished subcommittee for its leadership, support,
and strong commitment to important quality of life programs
benefitting servicemembers, reservists, military retirees and
their families.
FRA strongly recommends full funding for the defense health
program and adequate appropriations to continue revitalizing
the TRICARE Standard program. The association also believes
TRICARE should be available for all reservists and their
families on a cost-sharing basis. When finally implemented, the
temporary Reserve health care program will provide coverage
only through December 2004 for reservists who are unemployed or
do not have employer-sponsored health care. FRA urges
appropriations to make this program permanent and that it
become the basis for a broader program for all reservists.
FRA also supports appropriations necessary to implement the
3.5 percent across-the-board increase on January 1, 2005.
The association also strongly supports continued progress
toward closing the military pay gap. Unfortunately, DOD's
proposal for targeted pay increases for senior enlisted
personnel and certain officer grades were not included in the
administration's budget request. At a minimum, FRA supports
funding pay increases at least comparable to the annual
employment cost index.
Adequate service end strengths are important to maintaining
readiness. If force size is inadequate and OPTEMPO too heavy,
the performance of individual servicemembers is affected. FRA
believes that there are inadequate numbers of uniformed
personnel to sustain the war effort and other operational
commitments. This situation also creates considerable stress on
the families of service personnel. It appears that DOD is very
concerned with the cost of personnel, to the extent that it is
reluctant to increase service end strengths.
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 was instrumental in the
enactment of this program in the early 1970's and strongly
supports reform legislation to increase the annuity and funding
the program at the intended 40 percent level rather than the
current level of approximately 19 percent.
When authorized, FRA supports funding for full concurrent
receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation,
increased Reserve Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) education
benefits which are currently funded well below the authorized
level, funding for family awareness and support and spouse
employment opportunities, which are integral to the well-being
and retention of the active and Reserve servicemembers, 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 continuing
opposition to privatization.
Finally, FRA advocates retention of the full, final months
retired pay by the retiree's surviving spouse and the extension
of the dislocation allowance to retiring servicemembers.
If authorized, the association asks for your support for
these proposals which have also been endorsed by the Military
Coalition. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to present the association's recommendations for fiscal year
2005.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Chief. That is a long
list. Some of us who have been around for a while understand
continuing to pay into a retirement fund, but that has been
tried before. It has really not been accepted by Congress so
far.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Well, Mr. Chairman, we all recognize the
heavy reliance upon Reserves and Guards in this war, so I can
assure you that we are looking at this very carefully.
Mr. Barnes. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Chief.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Master Chief Joseph L. Barnes
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:
The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is grateful for the opportunity to
present its military personnel goals for fiscal year 2005. Before
continuing, I want to express deep appreciation on behalf of the
Association's membership for the quality of life improvements
implemented over the past few years for our Nation's men and women in
the Uniformed Services. What this august group has done for our active
duty, reserve, and retired service members is not only superlative but
unusually generous for Congress in comparison with the previous two to
three decades.
In the active force, the plea is for increased funding to
compensate for the arduous operational and personal tempos thrust upon
the members of the uniformed services. Others prefer better housing,
perhaps increased child-care programs, or any of the many programs and
benefits available to them and their families. Reservists support
enhanced retirement benefits, special pays, and increased MGIB
proceeds. The retired community seeks funding for the Uniformed
Services Survivor Benefit Plan (USSBP), full concurrent receipt of
military retirement pay and VA service connected payments, and a
reasonable access to health care services.
ACTIVE DUTY COMPONENT
Pay.--Always number one in most surveys completed by FRA and the
active forces is pay. This distinguished Subcommittee, alerted to this
fact for the past six years, has improved compensation that, in turn,
enhanced the recruitment and retention of uniformed personnel in an
all-volunteer environment. Adequate and targeted pay increases for
middle grade and senior petty and noncommissioned officers have
contributed to improved morale and readiness. With a uniformed
community that is more than 50 percent married, satisfactory
compensation relieves much, if not all the tension brought on by
operational and personal tempos.
For fiscal year 2005, the Administration has recommended a 3.5
percent across the board basic pay increase for members of the Armed
Forces. This is commensurate with the 1999 formula to provide increases
of 0.5 percentage points greater than that of the previous year for the
private sector. With the addition of targeted raises, the formula has
reduced the pay gap with the private sector from 13.5 percent to 5.2
percent following the pay increase programmed for January 1, 2005.
FRA, however, is disappointed that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) is opposed to targeted pay increases for certain enlisted
and officer pay grades. This in the face of the Defense Department's
projected recommendation to affect targeted pays along the line of
those authorized for fiscal year 2004. Targeting pay hikes for fiscal
year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will aide the Department's quest to
increase basic pay for career personnel to equal those in the private
sector earned by workers having similar education and experience
levels.
FRA urges the Subcommittee to fund the authorized pay increase for
fiscal year 2005, and ensure that uniformed members of the Public
Health Service (USPHS) are included in the pay increase.
RETIRED COMPONENT
Survivor Benefit Plan.--FRA has experienced a greater concern for
improving the Uniformed Services Survivor Benefit Program (USSBP) than
any issue on its website (www.fra.org). With an average age of 68 on
the Association's membership roll, the concern is justified. Most
convincing is the need to revise the language in the current Plan to
reduce the ``social security offset'' that penalizes annuitants at a
time when the need is the greatest. Then there are the many members,
age 70 and older, who have been paying into the Plan for more than 30
years with the only relief more than four years into the future.
Although Congress has adopted a time for USSBP participants to halt
payments of premiums (when payments of premiums equal 30 years and the
military retiree is 70 years of age) the date is more than four years
away. Military retirees enrolling on the initial enrollment date (1972)
will this September be paying premiums for 32 years, by 2008, thirty-
six years.
FRA recommends and urges the Subcommittee to provide funding for
the restoration of the value of service members participating in the
Uniformed Services Survivor Benefit Plan (USSBP) by increasing the
survivor annuity over a ten-year period to 55 percent, and the date
2008 to October 31, 2004 when certain participants attaining the age of
70 and having made payment to the Plan for at least 30 years are no
longer required to make such payments.
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).--In concert with The Military
Coalition, FRA supports revised housing standards that are more
realistic and appropriate for each pay grade. Many enlisted personnel
are unaware of the standards for their respective pay grade and assume
they are entitled to a higher standard than authorized.
FRA extends appreciation to the Subcommittee for acting a few years
ago to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for service members.
Responding to the Subcommittee's leadership on this issue, the
Department of Defense proposed a similar 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 service members
and families who are strapped in meeting rising housing and utility
costs.
The Association applauds the Subcommittee's action, and is in hope
that this plan is funded for fiscal year 2005. Unfortunately, housing
and utility costs will become more expensive, and the pay comparability
gap, while diminished over recent years--thanks to the Subcommittee's
leadership--continues to widen. Members residing off base face higher
housing costs, along with significant transportation costs, and relief
is especially important for junior enlisted personnel who do not
qualify for other supplemental assistance.
FRA urges the Subcommittee to provide the necessary appropriations
to eliminate out-of-pocket housing expenses in fiscal year 2005.
Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS).--FRA is grateful for the
establishment of a food-cost-based standard for BAS and repealing the
one percent cap on BAS increases. There is more to be done to permit
single career enlisted members greater individual responsibility in
their personal living arrangements. In this regard, the Association
believes it is inconsistent to demand significant supervisory,
leadership and management responsibilities of noncommissioned and petty
officers, but still dictate to them where and when they must eat their
meals while at their home duty station.
FRA urges the Subcommittee to fund the necessary appropriations to
repeal the statutory provision limiting BAS eligibility to 12 percent
of single members residing in government quarters.
Force Size/Readiness/OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO.--Force size, readiness,
OPTEMPO, and PERSTEMPO should be addressed simultaneously. Readiness
cannot be achieved at the high level demanded if force size is
inadequate in numbers, OPTEMPO is too heavy and PERSTEMPO is affecting
the performance of individual service members. FRA believes that all
are suffering due to a shortage of uniformed members. Once again, DOD
apparently is so concerned with the cost of personnel that it is
reluctant to increase manpower strengths when it's obvious to FRA and
others there is a need for more troops. If DOD says there is no
requirement for more troops than authorized, then why did three of the
military services recently issued stop-loss orders to many of their
uniformed personnel? ``It reflects the fact that the military is too
small,'' says Charles Moskos, a leading military sociologist, ``which
nobody wants to admit.''
The Department played an integral role in having Congress give
birth to the All-Volunteer Force. As such, it must stay the course
realizing that people who volunteer to lay down their lives and limbs
will not do so at the same level of compensation offered their
predecessors of the WWII-Vietnam era. Today 50 percent or more of our
military personnel are married and have families. It costs money to
enfold these families under the military's social umbrella. If the
United States desires an all-volunteer armed force, it will have to pay
the price. Paying the price will allow the Department to increase the
size of its uniformed force in order to relieve the pressure of lengthy
deployments, long hours on duty, and family concerns, each having its
own negative effect on readiness. One service chief stated that he
would spend every dollar available to ``modernize'' his service (how
many years now?), but not one cent more for people. Such a statement
seems incredible when one knows historically that final victory is in
the hands of the people.
FRA recommends that the military services be afforded the
opportunity to determine the size of its forces and the number of
personnel necessary to perform the mission. However, when it appears
that an increase is captive to the choice of more weapons systems over
manpower, Congress should appropriate adequate funds to add more
uniformed numbers to the strength of the armed forces.
Impact Aid.--FRA is most appreciative for the Impact Aid authorized
in previous Defense measures but must urge this Subcommittee and its
full Committee to support a substantial increase in the funding for
schools bearing the responsibility of educating the children of
military personnel and federal employees. Current funds are not
adequate to ably support the education of federally sponsored children
attending civilian community elementary schools. Over the years,
beginning with the Nixon Administration, funding for Impact Aid has
decreased dramatically. For example, in the current fiscal year the
Military Impacted Schools Association (MISA) estimates Impact Aid is
funded at only 60 percent of need according to law. Our children should
not be denied the best in educational opportunities. Impact Aid
provides a quality education to the children of our Sailors, Marines,
Coast Guardsmen, Soldiers, and Airmen.
FRA implores Congress to accept the responsibility of fully funding
the military Impact Aid program. It is more important now to ensure our
service members, many serving in harm's way, they have little to
concern with their children's future but more to do with the job at
hand.
Dislocation Allowance (DLA).--Moving households on government
orders can be costly. Throughout a military career, service members
endure a number of permanent changes of station (PCS). Too often each
move requires additional expenses for relocating to a new area far
removed from the service members' current location.
Odd as it may appear, service members preparing to retire from the
Armed Forces 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. Retiring military personnel after completing 20
years of service is advantageous to the Armed Forces. It opens the
ranks to much younger and healthier accessions.
FRA recommends appropriating funds for 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 of 50 or more
miles.
MGIB-SR.--The Selected 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 past October 1,
the rate fell to 27 percent of the Chapter 30 benefits. While the
allowance has inched up by only 7 percent since its inception, the cost
of education has climbed significantly.
FRA stands four square in support of the Nation's Reservists. To
provide an incentive for young citizens to enlist and remain in the
Reserves, FRA recommends to Congress the pressing need to enhance the
MGIB-SR rates for those who choose to participate in the program.
Concurrent Receipt.--The fiscal year 2003 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes a special compensation that
establishes a beachhead to authorizing full concurrent receipt, a term
for the payment of both military non-disability retired pay and any VA
compensation for service-connected disabilities without a reduction in
one or the other payment. The fiscal year 2004 NDAA expanded the
beneficiary list to include those retired service members with at least
a 50 percent compensatory service-connected disability. Although FRA is
appreciative of the effort of Congress to address the issue, it fails
to meet the resolution adopted by the Association's membership to seek
full compensation for both length-in-service military retirement and VA
compensation. Currently, the receipt of VA compensation causes a like
reduction to a retired service member's military retired pay. This
leads to the belief, and well-deserved, that retired service members,
earning retired pay as a result of 20 years or more of service, are
forced to pay for their own disablement.
Most disabilities are recognized after the service member retires.
Some are discovered while the member is still performing active duty or
as the result of a retirement physical. However, it is to the benefit
of the Department of Defense to retire the member without compensation
for any disability. Instead, the member is directed to the Department
of Veterans' Affairs for compensatory relief for the damages incurred
by the member while serving the Nation in uniform.
FRA encourages Congress to take the helm and fully fund concurrent
receipt of military non-disabled retirement pay and veterans'
compensation program as currently offered in S. 392 introduced by
Senator Harry Reid (Nev.). Congress should remember that U.S. service
members, more so than any collective group, not only had a major hand
in the creation of this Nation, but have contributed for more than 227
years to the military and economic power of the United States.
Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA).--Recent threats to curtail or
halt cost of living adjustments (COLAs) have been lobbed in the
direction of military retired pay and related payments such as survivor
benefit annuities. Once again, Congress is urged to keep its promise
that military retired pay will maintain its purchasing power based on
increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
One must recall that the wisdom of Congress initiated the COLA
program in lieu of the ``re-computation'' system. Re-computation was a
term used to describe adjustments to military retired pay prior to the
1970s. Military retirees received retirement pay adjustments each time
active duty pay was increased. This system guaranteed the service
member if he/she retired at a certain percentage of active duty pay,
that pay would maintain the same percentage factor to active duty pay
throughout retirement. In 1963, Congress--concerned with a heightened
number of retired WWII members on the retired roll--decided to switch
to the CPI method.
Conversely, COLA protection is the paramount reason military
retirees make an irrevocable decision to elect significant reductions
in retired pay to provide surviving spouses and children with an
annuity following the retiree's death. The most compelling reason for
the decision is that the guaranteed inflation protection made the
Uniformed Services Survivor Benefit Plan (USSBP) a superior alternative
to life insurance policies. The sequestration of COLA funds violate
that guarantee and greatly diminishes the value of the USSBP.
FRA recommends that Congress--if it reduces the fiscal year 2005
budget--not target military and federal retirees' retirement pay. Such
action is discriminating and contrary to the promise made by Congress
to maintain the purchasing power of military retirement pay. Full
funding for the Defense Health Budget: Once again, a top FRA priority
is to work with Congress and DOD to ensure full funding of the Defense
Health Budget to meet readiness needs--including Graduate Medical
Education (GME) and continuing education, full funding of both direct
care and purchased care sectors, providing access to the military
health care system for all uniformed services beneficiaries, regardless
of age, status or location. A fully funded health care benefit is
critical to readiness and the retention of qualified uniformed service
personnel.
FRA is concerned with reports from the Services that the current
funding level falls short of what is required to meet current
obligations and that additional supplemental funding will once again be
required. For example, the association has encountered several
instances in which local hospital commanders at Malcom Grove Medical
Center, Andrew Air Force Base, Md. Dewitt Army Medical Center,
Arlington, Va., Bethesda Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., have
terminated service for retired beneficiaries, citing budget shortfalls
as the reason. Health care requirements for members returning from Iraq
are also expected to strain the military delivery system in ways that
are not anticipated in the budgeting process.
Similarly, implementation of the TRICARE Standard requirements in
fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Act--particularly those
requiring actions to attract more TRICARE providers will certainly
require additional resources that appear not to be in the current
budget request.
The FRA strongly recommends the Subcommittee continue to ensure
full funding of the Defense Health Program, to include military medical
readiness, needed TRICARE Standard improvements, and the DOD peacetime
health care mission. It is critical that the Defense Health Budget be
sufficient to secure increased numbers of providers needed to ensure
access for TRICARE beneficiaries in all parts of the country.
Pharmacy Cost Shares for Retirees.--In 2003, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the Defense Department considered a
budget proposal that envisioned significant increases in retiree cost
shares for the TRICARE pharmacy benefit, and initiating retiree copays
for drugs obtained in the direct care system. While the proposal was
put on hold for this fiscal year, FRA is concerned that DOD is
undertaking a review that almost certainly will recommend retiree copay
increases in fiscal year 2006.
Thanks to the efforts of this Subcommittee, it was less than three
years ago that Congress authorized the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program
(TSRx). DOD established $3 and $9 copays for all beneficiaries. Defense
leaders highlighted this at the time as ``delivering the health
benefits military beneficiaries earned and deserve.'' But the Pentagon
already has changed the rules and will remove many drugs from the
uniform formulary and raise the copay on such drugs to $22.
The FRA vigorously opposes increasing retiree cost shares that were
only recently established. Congress' recent restoration of retiree
pharmacy benefits helped restore active duty and retired members' faith
that their government's health care promises would be kept. If
implemented, this proposal would undermine that trust, which in the
long term, can only have adverse affects on retention and readiness.
The FRA urges the Subcommittee to continue to reject imposition of
cost shares in military pharmacies and oppose increasing other pharmacy
cost shares that were recently established.
Healthcare for Members of the National Guard and Reserve.--The FRA
is grateful to this Subcommittee for ensuring that the Temporary
Reserve Health Care Program was included in the fiscal year 2004
National Defense Authorization Act. This program will provide coverage,
through December 2004, for National Guard and Reserve members who are
unemployed or do not have employer-sponsored health care coverage.
TRICARE officials plan to build on existing TRICARE mechanisms to
expedite implementation; however, no one is certain how long this will
take. Immediate implementation is required, and a permanent program
must be established.
Health insurance coverage varies widely for members of the Guard
and Reserve: 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 ``kicks in'' at 30 days activation, many Guard and
Reserve families would prefer continuity of care through doctors and
their own health insurance. Being dropped from private sector coverage
as a consequence of extended activation adversely affects family morale
and military readiness and discourages some from reenlisting. Many
Guard and Reserve families live in locations where it is difficult or
impossible to find providers who will accept new TRICARE patients. The
FRA urges the authority for federal payment of civilian health care
premiums (up to the TRICARE limit) for dependents of mobilized service
members.
Dental readiness is another important aspect of readiness for Guard
and Reserve personnel. Currently, DOD offers a dental program to
Selected Reserve members and their families. During the recent
mobilization, soldiers with repairable dental problems were having
teeth extracted at mobilization stations in the interests of time and
money instead of having the proper dental care administered earlier.
Congress responded by passing legislation that allows DOD to provide
medical and dental screening for Selected Reserve members who are
assigned to a unit that has been alerted for mobilization in support of
an operational mission, contingency operation, national emergency, or
war. During the initial mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom, the
average time from alert to mobilization was less than 14 days, not
sufficient time to improve dental readiness. In some cases, units were
mobilized before receiving their alert orders. This lack of notice for
mobilization continues, with many reservists receiving only days of
notice before mobilizing.
The TRICARE Dental Plan benefits should be expanded for Guard and
Reserve service member. This would allow all National Guard and Reserve
members to maintain dental readiness and alleviate the need for dental
care during training or mobilization.
The FRA urges: making the Temporary Reserve Health Care Program
permanent and expanding coverage to all members of the National Guard
and Reserve Component and their families on a cost-sharing basis;
allowing federal payment of civilian health care premiums for the
families of deployed reservists who choose to keep their civilian
healthcare; and expansion of the TRICARE Dental Plan for National Guard
and Reserve service members in order to ensure medical readiness and
provide continuity of coverage to members of the Selected Reserve.
conclusion
FRA is grateful for the opportunity to present its goals for fiscal
year 2005. If there are questions or a need for further information,
please call Bob Washington, FRA Director of Legislative Programs, at
703-683-1400.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER, MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSORTIUM FOR OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Arthur Baggeroer. Is
that right? Is that close enough? He is from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education. Good morning, sir.
Dr. Baggeroer. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Stevens,
Senator Inouye, 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
Navy. My name is Arthur Baggeroer, and I appear on behalf of
the 76 members of the Consortium on Oceanographic Research,
which does include the University of Alaska and Hawaii and is
commonly called CORE.
I am Ford Professor of Engineering at MIT and one of the
Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)
Chairs for Ocean Science in the Departments of Ocean and
Electrical Engineering at MIT.
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. America's oceanographers were and
continue to be active partners with the Office of Naval
Research in providing today and tomorrow's sailors and marines
with the tools necessary to continue to be the finest
warfighters in the world. However, when we look to the coming
decades, we are deeply concerned that the Navy's robust support
for high-risk basic research is deteriorating.
Bold, high-risk, cutting-edge basic research has been a
crucial component of the Navy's battlespace superiority for
many decades. It is easy to enumerate a very long list. Much of
the research conducted decades ago deployed in the fleet today
was once high-risk and cutting-edge. None of the researchers
could have imagined its application in Iraq or Afghanistan. It
was not focused on specific applications. But without it and
without the support that made it possible, our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines would not have had the
technological edge they enjoy on the battlefield.
I am sure that you are aware of the global war on terrorism
is presenting the Navy with new and challenging threats. The
threats must be addressed by robust support for science and
technology.
There are a number of scientific challenges I outlined in
my written testimony, but I want to take a few moments to
discuss the threats posed by a couple, the proliferation of
quiet diesel and electric air independent propulsion submarines
in littoral operations.
These vessels or submarines are being purchased by many
states, the most prevalent being the Russian Kilo 4 class of
acquired by China and Iran and the German 200 series. These
boats are as quiet as a modern nuclear class submarine. While
limited in endurance and speed, they are clearly useful near
the coastal waters of a country for anti-surface warfare and
ASW and present a significant threat and challenge. The input
of basic oceanography, unmanned undersea vehicles and novel
communications are part of the paradigm for detecting,
tracking, and localizing these boats. While some of these
components may emerge as incremental improvements to existing
ones, the Navy now needs bold technologies to survey in near
real time the ocean environment, as well as fixed acoustic
systems to maintain persistent monitoring of important
operational regions. Enabling these innovations for use by
future officers are now part of the Office of Naval Research
(ONR) charter. Reduced commitments to this basic research now
just mortgages the future for combatting this threat.
I would also like to note that it is crucial for the Navy
to maintain a vigorous scientific research program to enhance
its mine countermeasures in littoral operations.
Finally, as operations increase in the littorals and the
adjacent shelves, it is vital that the Navy support the science
necessary to effectively characterize this region so the fleet
can effectively operate.
While basic research has served the warfighter, its
prominence in the defense S&T portfolio has declined
dramatically. It is no longer enjoying the robust support it
did in decades past. In the early 1980's, basic research stood
at over 17 percent of S&T funding. As we discussed earlier,
significant payoffs were seen. Unfortunately, now basic
research stands below 12 percent of the S&T funding. It is
crucial that we ensure robust support of DOD S&T so that we
have the capabilities to confront the challenges and threats of
the future battlefield. It is toward this goal that the basic
research should be and is directed but also with this goal in
mind that all funding decisions should be made.
Specifically, CORE recommends returning the basic research,
or 6.1, to the end of cold war levels, 16 percent of S&T, by
fiscal year 2009.
The new resources associated with these increases should be
directed to two basic research accounts where the majority of
the competitively awarded funds are accessible: the university
research initiative, URI, and the defense research science,
DRS.
Since the end of the cold war, basic research has paid its
part of the peace dividend. As we enter another era of
prolonged conflict, we strongly urge you to reenergize the
Department's support for basic research.
Thank you again for the opportunity to bring these
important issues to your attention. I welcome the opportunity
for any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arthur B. Baggeroer
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 Navy.
My name is Arthur B. Baggeroer and I appear of behalf of the 76
member institutions of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and
Education, commonly referred to as CORE. I am the Ford Professor of
Engineering and Secretary of the Navy/Chief of Naval Operations Chair
for Ocean Science in the Departments of Ocean and Electrical
Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Some of
CORE's other members include Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 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. Our membership
represents the nucleus of American academic oceanographic research.
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 and tomorrow's
sailors and marines with the tools necessary to continue 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 to the end of the Cold War and have provided the
technology base for today's fleet. However, when we look to the coming
decades, we are deeply concerned that the Navy's robust support is
deteriorating.
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 as the Internet and is the fundamental science behind the
technology underlying net-centric warfare, an increasingly important
asset to the Navy and Marine Corps.
As you may know, basic research supported by the Navy led to the
development of the laser. These discoveries led directly to the advent
of small, easily handled lasers that allow soldiers, sailors, airmen
and marines to precisely locate targets and provide coordinates for
sailors and airmen to deliver munitions to targets.
All of the underlying research for these systems was high-risk and
cutting edge when it was conducted decades ago and none of the
researchers could have imagined its application in Iraq or Afghanistan.
It was not focused on specific applications. But without it and without
the support that made it possible, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and
marines would not have had the technological edge they enjoy on the
battlefield.
While the Cold War is thankfully an artifact of history, and many
of the threats it posed to the Navy have receded, the Global War on
Terrorism presents the Navy with a new and equally challenging suite of
threats: threats that must be addressed by robust support for science
and technology.
Of particular concern to the Navy are the challenges of littoral
warfare, the threats posed by submerged mines, and the proliferation of
quiet diesel submarines. Academic oceanographers are working to help
the Navy meet all these challenges.
As you may be aware, sonar system performance in the littoral is
extremely complex. Presently we cannot reliably predict transmission
losses, a key component of the sonar equation, in these regions. The
seabed dominates this problem leading to a ``range curtain''
attenuating acoustic energy of threat submarines and limiting the
Navy's detection and tracking capability.
Better understanding of the geology and geoacoustics of the seabed
are critical to the successful deployment of ships and sensors. Also
complicating operations in the littoral is wave phenomena, more
pronounced in the littoral, which limit sonar performance. Finally,
ambient noise produced by high density fishing fleets and commerce lead
to very cluttered displays of the local acoustic environment--
complicating everything from ASW to the safe surfacing of a submarine.
Clearly this is a complicated environment for the Navy to operate in.
Addressing the uncertainties and challenges in this crucial environment
will require a reinvigorated regime of academic oceanographic research.
In addition to the challenges posed by littoral combat are the
threats posed to the fleet by submerged mines. Mine countermeasures and
clearance is a similarly complicated problem. Currently the Navy faces
a situation where cheap mines, costing less than $1,000, can impede the
operation of a battle group or access to a port. Currently, countries
make mines that appear to be an ``acoustic rock,'' i.e. they have
virtually all the physical attributes of a natural rock. Nevertheless,
dolphins can identify the threats but no current technology can. The
basic science of what are the distinguishing acoustical features of an
actual rock and ``acoustic one'' are vital for routine mine
countermeasures and clearance and prompt execution of Naval operations.
Finally, the availability of modern diesel electric submarines is
one of the greatest threats to Naval operations. These vessels are
being purchased by many states, the most prevalent being the Russian
Kilo 4 class acquired by China and Iran and the German 2xx classes.
These boats are as quiet as a modern nuclear class submarine. While
limited in endurance and speed, they are clearly useful near the
coastal waters of a country. The ASW threat is a significant challenge
and the input of basic oceanography, unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV's)
and novel communications, are part of paradigm for detecting, tracking
and localizing these boats. While some of these components may emerge
as incremental improvements to existing ones, the Navy needs bold new
technologies to survey in near real time in the ocean environment as
well as fixed acoustic systems to maintain persistent monitoring of
important operational regions. Enabling these innovations for use by
future officers are part of ONR's charter. Reduced commitments to the
basic research now needed just mortgages the future for combating this
threat.
These are all hard basic research issues, issues that will take
time to solve, but issues that are essential to the safe and effective
operation of the fleet.
While basic research played a critical role in winning the Cold
War, faithfully served the warfighter in Iraq and Afghanistan and
unquestionably will play a critical role in the global war on
terrorism, its prominence in the Defense S&T portfolio has declined
dramatically with the end of the Cold War. It no longer enjoys the
robust support it did in decades past.
In the early 1980's basic research stood at over seventeen percent
of S&T funding. As we discussed earlier, significant payoffs were seen.
This era of robust support for basic research paid off in technologies
such as UAVs (sea, air, land), thermobaric bombs, communications
systems, materials used in protection vests and battlefield medicine
advances.
Unfortunately, basic research now stands at below 12 percent of S&T
funding. Equally important funding levels have slipped below levels
required to maintain the stability and the readiness of the future
defense technical workforce and innovative military discoveries. It is
crucial that we ensure robust support for DOD S&T so that we have the
capabilities to confront the challenges and threats of the future
battlefield. It is toward this goal that basic research should be, and
is, directed. It is also with this goal in mind that all funding
decisions should be made.
Specifically, CORE recommends returning 6.1 (basic) research to end
of Cold War levels (16 percent of S&T) by fiscal year 2009 and
recommends establishment of measurements to link the research
enterprise with the acquisition and requirements communities to ensure
that additional resources are directed toward identified capability
gaps.
The new resources associated with these increases should be
directed to two basic research accounts where the majority of the
competitively-awarded funds are accessible: the University Research
Initiative (URI) and Defense Research Sciences (DRS). Sixteen percent
is not the high water mark for basic research in the S&T total, but a
practical place to start in putting these programs on the path to
recovery.
Since the end of the Cold War, basic research has paid its part of
the peace dividend. As we enter another era of prolonged conflict, we
strongly urge you to reenergize the department's support for basic
research.
In addition to our concerns about the funding levels for basic
research and S&T generally is the focus of research at the Office of
Naval Research. We are concerned that pressures outside of ONR may be
leading the office in a direction that departs from its traditional
aggressive support for high-risk basic research. We are distressed that
the 6.1 account, which is supposed to be discovery oriented basic
research, is increasingly becoming short-term product-driven applied
research. 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 discoveries, if we
expect to have the scientific underpinnings for the pioneering
innovations in the 6.2 and beyond programs.
The essential contribution of basic science to the capabilities of
the Navy After Next, is jeopardized by statements that the Navy's basic
research program will be ``integrated with more applied S&T to promote
transitions of discoveries.'' ``Integrat[ion] with more applied S&T''
is could send the message that program managers and scientist should
not focus on long term high-risk projects.
RADM Jay Cohen, Chief of Naval Research, recently clearly outlined
the importance of basic science to the warfighter. When asked how
science serves the Navy he responded:
In the 1970s, a researcher proposed an effort to measure time more
accurately . . . by a couple of orders of magnitude. At the time, the
Navy was skeptical about investing in measuring time; after all, the
Navy has been the timekeeper of the nation with the atomic clock at the
Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C. Well, when you can measure time
more accurately, you know position more accurately. That is the basis
for precision navigation. The debate went on for weeks, and the Navy
anguished over whether it should make the investment. Well, from having
made the decision to invest, today we enjoy the Global Positioning
System (GPS). Think about how that one idea has changed warfare. Think
about the other uses of that technology, war-winning capability for the
military and enhancements for commercial navigation. Think about the
difference in capability from the 1970s, when the idea was first
proposed, to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Our fear is that because of the direction ONR has been given to
focus on shorter term projects, a proposal like the one RADM Cohen
mentioned most likely would be rejected today.
The focus on integration of discovery-oriented basic research with
more application driven research is having a negative impact on the
quality of naval basic research by creating a risk-averse atmosphere in
both the universities and with program management and officers within
the Navy. The avowed focus on integration with development, is
discouraging researchers from pursuing bold and innovative ideas, lines
of research that often take years to complete and whose practical
application, while profound, is often decades out; and is forcing them
instead to focus on pursuing research that they know will result in
products. While it will surely be high quality research, it will not be
type research that will result in breakthroughs in understanding.
High-risk research that shows the promise of transformational
discoveries is prone to failure before it yields a pioneering
discovery. It is only by pushing the boundaries, constantly taking
risks, and looking for the bold idea, not the slight innovation, that
scientists will make the discoveries that will lead to the next laser,
tomorrow's global positioning system, or the net-centric warfare of
2030.
Additionally, the research community and Congress need to impress
upon Navy and Marine Corps leadership that while the basic research ONR
supports today will not deliver combat commanders a product they can
deploy in the next few years, it will afford the Lieutenants and
Captains under their command profoundly more robust weapons systems
when they are Admirals and Generals. It is because of an aggressive
regime of basic research thirty years ago, when today's military
leaders were junior officers, that they have such an effective and
diverse suite of combat systems available to them to prosecute their
mission. Working together, Congress and the research community must
communicate to the Secretary, the CNO and the Commandant, that basic
research is essential to the fleet and is a Congressional priority, and
that if they do not give ONR the ability and direction to pursue an
aggressive regime of high-risk cutting edge basic research now, the
nation will be shortchanging our sons and daughters, the sailors and
marines of tomorrow.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to bring these important
issues to your attention. I welcome the opportunity to answer any
questions.
Senator Stevens. We appreciate your testimony, but you are
referring to the 1980's and the strategic defense initiative
(SDI) period, and after the Soviet downfall, what the public
demanded was a peace dividend. That dividend was in the form of
a reduction of a lot of the expenditures that were associated
in being prepared to counter the activities of the Soviet
Union. So I think you are requesting something we just cannot
do.
Senator.
Senator Inouye. At this moment, our ground forces are
benefitting from unmanned air vehicles and unmanned ground
vehicles. Do we have anything close to being operational
underwater?
Dr. Baggeroer. Senator, we do have unmanned underwater
vehicles and they are currently part of the research agenda as
to how to use them effectively in regions where you would not
want to put a very valuable asset.
In response to Senator Stevens, we certainly do understand
the peace dividend. Our goal is to maintain the technological
edge for the next generation, and we certainly well understand
the constraints on the country while it is now fighting a war
both in Iraq and on terrorism.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
comments, but the Joint Strike Fighter came out of the research
of the 1980's, and it will not be fielded until about 2017 if
we keep it on schedule. We cannot keep it on schedule and go
back to your research budgets.
Dr. Baggeroer. The cycle time on an acquisition is a
frustration to us too.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Next, Major General Robert McIntosh, Executive Director,
Reserve Officers Association of the United States. Good
morning, sir.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT A. McINTOSH, UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE RESERVE (RET.), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF
THE UNITED STATES
Mr. McIntosh. Good morning, Senator. Mr. Chairman, Senator
Inouye, the 75,000 members of the Reserve Officers Association
(ROA) from all five branches of the armed forces thank you for
this opportunity to speak today.
Many of America's citizen warriors are continually being
asked to repair their disrupted civilian lives after
mobilization and then return to military duty on a repetitive
basis.
We believe that legislative changes should be targeted
toward retaining and recruiting the best citizen soldiers,
sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen.
Despite the work to date by the Congress and the Department
of Defense, much remains to be done to ensure Reserve and
National Guard recruiting and retention remain healthy in the
future. We must preserve one of America's greatest resources:
its skilled and dedicated citizen military.
Several important initiatives would enable our Nation's
Reserve components to optimize their support of national
defense and of national security. For your consideration, ROA's
formal written testimony includes a detailed description of
several needed changes and improvements. The following is a
partial list of these initiatives.
Full health care options for the selected Reserve and their
families.
Tax credit for employers.
A formal National Guard and Reserve equipment appropriation
process.
Reducing the antiquated age 60 Reserve retirement
eligibility criteria.
Improving Montgomery GI Bill provisions.
Repairing the one-thirtieth rule for special incentive and
skill pay by making the compensation qualification-based.
Increasing reenlistment bonuses.
And repairing the unfair degradation of survivor benefits
at age 62.
Many of these initiatives not only affect Reserve readiness
and the individual reservists but also impact employers,
spouses, and families. For example, offering TRICARE for
Reserve component members acts as an incentive for employers to
continue to hire reservists. Family and civilian employment
considerations are having a remarkable influence on whether
citizen soldiers choose to remain in the military.
Some in the Pentagon have been quoted in the media as
stating that the Reserve components are becoming unaffordable.
Even after factoring into the budget the cost of TRICARE
eligibility for all selected reservists and their families, the
cost of better incentive and retirement programs, citizen
soldiers remain a highly cost effective national asset. The
question should not be whether we can afford to bring pay and
benefits for the Reserve and Guard to a more equitable
standard, to a standard that reflects how we use our Reserve
components. Rather, the proper question is can we afford not to
take the necessary actions that will ensure the preservation of
our citizen military, a force composed of some of the most
skilled and talented men and women in America.
Time permitting, I look forward to taking your questions,
and thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Major General Robert A. McIntosh
ROA believes that Congress, the Department of Defense and most
military support associations have common interests and commitments
when it comes to supporting the troops who are engaged in this war, and
we are certainly showing proper solidarity and avoiding partisan
politics that might question certain decisions relative to the war.
ROA, like our sister associations, will stay firm in our commitment to
back the civilian and military leaders as they operationally execute
the war on terrorism and actions in Iraq. ROA will continue to support
the troops in the field in any way we can.
In recent years there have been several improvements in health
care, pay system, family support, mobilization and demobilization
problems. Even with recent improvements there remains a great deal yet
to be done. ROA's mantra is and will continue to be as follows: the
application of TRICARE for the selected Reserve, reduce retirement age
eligibility; the elimination of the 1/30th rule; the updating of
Montgomery GI Bill provisions, tax credit for employers; increased
bonuses for reenlistments, the repair of the age 62 survivor benefit
degradation, and an official acknowledgement of the National Guard and
Reserve equipment account (NGREA).
Recently a debate has begun. The debate is about whether the
Reserve Components are becoming too expensive and pricing themselves
``out-of-the-market.'' From a historical perspective it is interesting
to note that the argument about cost of Reserve and National Guard
incentives, benefits, and readiness postures also became quite intense
at the end of WW II. To quote from a 1948 ROA Headquarters Bulletin,
the subject of non-disability retirement for civilian officers: ``The
National Guard Association and the Reserve Officers Association are
working very closely together in connection with this legislation as it
is essential that the proper type bill be presented for consideration
by Congress.'' Another quote from a late 1940s ROA news letter, ``We
civilian soldiers, have a real task ahead of us. There are battles to
be won on the home front, not only now but for many years to come. This
can only be done by means of organization.'' That ``retirement bill,''
as it became to be called, was the genesis of the current age 60
retirement benefit for all members of the National Guard and Reserve.
At that time, just as now, there were those who said that Reserve
Component retirement benefit additions would be unaffordable and would
necessitate long-term costs. Also similar to today's discussion, the
leadership on Capitol Hill, immediately after WW II, was keenly aware
of the importance of a viable Reserve Component. Congress clearly
understood the important value of the bond between America's citizen
and its military that results from using citizen soldiers in most
phases of military actions. More recently the Abrams' Doctrine was a
force build philosophy after Vietnam--a philosophy that matured into a
policy and became a fundamental planning factor in creating today's
Total Force.
In 2004, we find ourselves again confronted with protecting one of
America's greatest assets--the Reserve Components. It should be no
surprise that recruiting and retaining an all-volunteer force require a
different approach than was required for yesteryear's drafted force.
Maintaining medical readiness, family medical considerations, and
updating retired pay eligibility criteria are now important to our
citizen warriors. Reservists fully understand their duty and are proud
to be serving. However, many in the National Guard and Reserve are
weighing the factors that affect remaining in the military. They want
change and they deserve change. And, yes, some of these needed changes
do cost money. If we wait until recruiting and retention numbers drop,
then we will immediately be faced with a crisis beyond just scrambling
to bring in the right numbers of people. It takes a minimum of two
years to train and equip a person to the point that they can do their
job without direct supervision. Experience has and should remain a core
strength of the Reserve Components.
Regarding the transformation and force structure rebalancing
initiatives by the Services and DOD, the Reserve Officers Association
acknowledges that continuous force structure change is appropriate, and
we support these efforts in concept, but at the same time, we have
significant concerns. We urge careful consideration and understanding
of the attributes of a properly balanced Total Force. ROA is concerned
that the rush to control personnel costs and to reduce the demand for
Reservists to be in early deployment units could lead to flawed force
structure planning. ROA acknowledges that some changes in structure and
mission assignment are appropriate, however, the overall cost
effectiveness of having a robust and experienced Reserve Component
force to compliment a more expensive regular force must be considered
carefully before eliminating or shifting significant numbers of Reserve
Component billets.
ROA fully understands that when citizen soldiers are used for an
extended period there is a substantial personnel cost--a cost of war.
The statement that ``while mobilized a Reservist or Guardsmen costs as
much as an active component member'' is not in dispute. On the other
hand, the citizen soldier cost over a life cycle (mobilized when needed
and placed into a trained and ready to go posture when not recalled) is
far less than the cost of an active component soldier. Additional cost
savings are found when prior service training, developed skills, and
experience are retained by having adequate numbers of Reserve billets
across the spectrum of military missions.
Even after factoring into the budget the cost of TRICARE
eligibility for all selected Reservists and their families and the cost
of better incentive and retirement programs, citizen soldiers remain a
highly cost effective national asset.
The starting point of any discussion about affordability should be
that the Reserve Components provide large portions of our total
military capability in many mission areas for a small fraction of the
Service and DOD total budget. When the nation needs surge capability
incrementally, the National Guard and Reserve cost single digit
percentages and return double-digit mission accomplishment. Also,
civilian skills that are needed by today's military and are resident in
citizen warriors are often not adequately considered in force structure
planning. If the wrong force transformation decisions are made in a
rush to reduce personnel costs, and if the balance between Reserve
Component forces and the more expensive active force is inefficient,
the results will be a less capable and a smaller Total Force. The high
costs of personnel turnover and of retraining should also be fully
considered when judging the affordability of solving compensation
issues for both the Active and the Reserve Components.
There will be a residual impact on retention of stop loss personnel
and the continued robust use of National Guard and Reserve personnel in
the war on terrorism. We are months, if not years, away from knowing
the true consequences to Reserve Component recruiting and retention.
ROA believes that absent the improvements we have outlined, there will
be substantial difficulty in sustaining the high caliber citizen
warrior force we enjoy today--a force comprised of some of our nation's
``brightest and best.''
TRICARE for Reserve Components.--The fiscal year 2004 NDAA
authorized TRICARE for Reservists to provide health coverage for
unemployed Reservist or those unable to get insurance. This legislation
will address previously identified mobilization and retention issues
within the services.
ROA urges Congress to permanently establish the current TRICARE
program for Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve
categories that are unemployed or not eligible for healthcare.
Reduce Retirement Age Eligibility for Reservists.--Currently the
Reserve Components are the only Federal entity that does not receive
their earned retirement annuity at the time they have completed their
service. Reducing the retirement eligibility age would close the gap
between completion of service and collection of annuity.
ROA urges Congress to reduce the age when a Reserve Component
member is eligible for retirement pay to age 55 and make retirement
below age 60 optional.
Authorize Tax Credits for Employers of Reservist.--Reservist
employers often shoulder the burden of extra costs to support National
Defense through the participation of their employees in the military.
Support by employers of members in the Reserve Component enables the
Total Force. Today's increased OPTEMPO makes employer support more
important than ever. Employer pressure is listed as one of the top
reasons for Reservists to quit.
ROA urges Congress to support employer tax credits as a way to help
offset costs associated with employees' Reserve activities and
reinforce employer support.
Pay Differential.--While there was once a clear and distinct line
between Active and Reserve forces, as the two components merge into a
continuum of forces, the argument for greater parity of benefits
becomes increasingly compelling. The following areas of pay still are
governed without parity between Active Duty and Reserve Components:
Aviation Career Incentive Pay, Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay, Career
Enlisted Flyers Incentive Pay, Special Duty Assignment Pay, Foreign
Language Proficiency Pay, and Diving Special Duty Pay.
ROA urges Congress to delete the 1/30th rule for those areas of pay
that require Reserve Component personnel to maintain the same
qualification levels as active duty.
Raise the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) age 62 Benefit.--Public Law
99-145 replaced the Social Security offset system with a ``two-tier''
system for those who first become retirement-eligible after September
30, 1985, but under which survivors' benefits will automatically be
reduced from 55 percent to 35 percent upon survivors' attaining age 62.
ROA urges Congress to restore the SBP age 62 benefit from 35
percent back to 55 percent.
Just as there is a need to ensure the Reserve Component force is
properly funded so is there a need to equip them to the Joint Force
Command specifications. Currently Reserve equipment requirements are
prioritized with active duty requirements. In most instances the
Reserve priorities do not make it within the realm of being funded.
Before 1997, the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation
(NGREA) was a critical resource to ensure adequate funding for new
equipment for the Reserve Components. The much-needed items not funded
by the respective service budget were frequently purchased through this
appropriation. In some cases, it was used to bring unit equipment
readiness to a needed state of state for mobilization. Frequently, the
funds were used to purchase commercial off-the-shelf items that units
were unable to obtain through traditional sources. However, in 1997 an
agreement between the administration and Congress eliminated the
account with the objective of the Active Component providing the needed
funds through their individual appropriations.
The Reserve and Guard are faced with mounting challenges on how to
replace worn out equipment, equipment lost due to combat operations,
legacy equipment that is becoming irrelevant or obsolete, and, in
general, replacing that which is gone or aging through normal wear and
tear. Today, the ability to use NGREA funds for cost effective
acquisition is non-existent. An analysis has shown that with the
implementation of the post-1997 policy, procurement for the Reserve
Components has decreased. In fiscal year 2004, procurement for the
Reserve Components' percentage of the DOD procurement budget is at its
second lowest in recorded history at 3.19 percent. This comes even
after Congress added $400 million for NGREA. Meanwhile, procurement for
the Active Component continued to realize consistent real growth from
fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2009 at 108.6 percent.
In the past, ``cascading'' equipment from the Active Component to
the Reserve Component has been a reliable source of serviceable
equipment. However, the changes in roles and missions that have placed
a preponderance of combat support and combat service support in the
Reserve Components has not left much to cascade. Also, funding levels,
rising costs, lack of replacement parts for older equipment, etc. has
made it difficult for the Reserve Components to maintain their aging
equipment, not to mention modernizing and recapitalizing to support a
viable legacy force.
The Reserve Components would benefit greatly from a National
Military Resource Strategy that includes a National Guard and Reserve
Equipment Appropriation.
Army
The Army Reserve's list of unresourced equipment requirements
closely mirrors the fiscal year 2004 list. However, it is important, in
the light of on-going operations with equipment losses due to combat,
fair wear and tear, and needed modernized equipment to meet mission
requirements, that a number of these unresourced requirements are
enumerated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Shortfall 2005 Buy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Medium Tactical......................... 1,845 600
Medium Tactical Vehicles...................... 7,161 800
Movement Tracking Systems..................... 9,463 2,075
All Terrain Lift System (Atlas)............... 173 100
HMMWV (Plain)................................. 3,833 600
HMMWV (Up Armored)............................ 898 100
Night Vision Image System..................... 22,797 7,000
Tactical Fire Fighting Truck.................. 62 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These items are just part of a long list of equipment needed by our
Army Reserve units to perform their wartime mission for the Total
Force. Although the sum total of these requirements is considerable,
the rebalancing of the forces between Active and Reserve Components
will likely produce effects on the Total Force. And, as mentioned
earlier, the lack of resources in the NGREA will make it difficult to
make up and critical shortfalls that occur in the short term.
Navy
Total Naval Reserve equipment procurement has steadily declined
from $260 million in fiscal year 1997 to about $35 million in fiscal
year 2002, with NGREA and congressional add-ons virtually disappearing
and equipment shrinking precipitously. Congress recognized the problem
and increased NGREA funding to $400,000 in fiscal year 2004. As a
result of the Global War on Terrorism, and the ongoing support by Naval
Reservists to Active Duty Commands, ROA feels that this upward trend
must continue.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfunded Equipment Cost Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-40A Transport Aircraft...................... $130.0 2
NWC and NCF Tactical Trucks................... 36.0 ...........
NAVELSF Communications Equipment.............. 13.0 ...........
MH-60 Helicopter.............................. 66.0 2
F/A-18 AT-FLIR targeting pods................. 16.0 6
C-130T Avionics Modernization Program......... 40.0 ...........
F/A-18 A+block 2 Mod, Radar upgrades.......... 53.0 10
F/A-18 A+CATM/Captive Carry Assets............ 3.0 ...........
Littoral Surveillance Sys/Joint Fires Network. 30.0 1
F/A-18 Armament Equipment..................... 8.0 ...........
F-5 Block Upgrade............................. 10.0 ...........
E2C Navigation Upgrade........................ 16.0 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Corps
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F/A-18A ECP-583 (12 USMCR aircraft)........................ 70.0
CH-53E Helicopter FLIR..................................... 45.0
NBC and Initial Equipment Issue (Reserves)................. 7.3
KC-130 Upgrades............................................ 10.5
CH-53E Upgrades $3.3 million............................... 38.0
CH-53E Aircrew Procedure Trainer (APT) Flight Simulator.... 12.8
AH-1W Aircrew Procedures Trainer (APT) Flight Simulator.... 10.0
Supplemental Aviation Spares Package....................... 7.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force
C-5: Fund Part A and Part B installation of C-5A Airlift Defensive
Systems of $83 million for 32 aircraft to provide a greater degree of
survivability to both aircraft and aircrew and promote common
operational utility between active duty and reserve forces. Restore
procurement of C-5 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) kits cut in
fiscal year 2004 and those needed in fiscal year 2005 for 60 kits.
C-9A: Designate C-9 aircraft with the primary mission of aero-
medical support and allow those aircraft to support VIP/SAM, OSA, Team
Travel and other mission support areas during low demand times and to
support increasing the C-9 fleet at Scott AFB with three C-9Cs from
Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland when they retire their aircraft in
fiscal year 2005.
C-17: Increase procurement of C-17 Globemaster III aircraft by at
least 42 additional aircraft at a rate of 15 to 18 aircraft per year,
which will ensure an adequate airlift force in the future; and program
new production C-17 aircraft into the AFR.
C-40C: Increase procurement of C-40 aircraft by at least six
additional aircraft to ensure an adequate special mission airlift force
for the AFR by at least two C-40s per year for three years.
C-130J: Authorize and appropriate funds for the C-130J Multiyear
Procurement in fiscal year 2005 and accelerate acquisition for Reserve
units in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Mississippi.
LITENING PODS: Support $7.8 million to procure 5 LITENING Pods
toward the multiyear procurement of 30 pods for $43.8 million.
APN-241 Radar: Support $7 million to procure 8 APN-241 Radar
upgrades.
AFR F-16 Helmet Mounted Cuing System: Support $9 million to procure
approximately 40 night vision goggles toward the multiyear procurement
of 80 for $20.6 million.
Fund F-16 Block 25/30/32 to stay viable for employment in modern
combat using precision guided munitions, and operating against modern
threat aircraft equipped with helmet cued weapons.
Information Technology: Support $2.5 million toward a total
requirement of $54.7 million.
Pararescue Jumper Equipment: Support $0.7 million toward a total
requirement of $9.1 million.
Vehicle Requirements: Support $2 million toward a total requirement
of $10.6 million.
Pathfinder Force Protection: Support $9 million toward a total
requirement of $55.5 million.
Motor Vehicles for Medical: Support $2.8 million to procure 44
vehicles.
Hydrant Fueling Trucks: Support $1.4 million to procure 9 vehicles.
Other Army Requirements
The Army Reserve faces critical funding shortfalls in several key
areas. The shortfalls come in the pay and allowances accounts totaling
$348.4 million and the operations and maintenance accounts totaling
$180 million.
--Of these requirement shortfalls, the most critical is $281 million
in Inactive Duty Training (IDT), which will prohibit the Army
Reserve from meeting its peacetime statutory requirement for 48
drills. Even though there is some cost avoidance due to
mobilizations, it will not reach the level required to
successfully conduct the critical training that soldiers need
for individual and unit readiness. Based on current estimates,
the Army Reserve would be forced to cease training by late
spring or early summer 2005.
--In the area of professional development, the Army Reserve is funded
at only slightly more than 50 percent of its $148.6 million
requirement. These funds are needed to meet the Chief of Staff
of the Army's established goal of 85 percent in military
specialty training and professional development. The Chief,
Army Reserve, briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee that
the goal would be achieved by the end of fiscal year 2005. This
shortfall will cause the Army Reserve not to meet the 85
percent goal.
--Insufficient resources are available to fund the Army Reserve's
portion of the DOD integrated worldwide common-user network for
exchanging secure and non-secure data. The funding shortfall of
just over $33 million is crucial to meet the challenges of
expanding key command and control applications and service
demands, increase security requirements and increase network
capability to insure needed connectivity.
--Army Reserve Base Operations (BASOPS) required funding is $73.5
million short of its $355.4 million requirement or 74 percent.
To provide a viable program which includes such critical items
as civilian pay, leases, utilities, and custodial contracts, it
is imperative that BASOPS be funded at least at the 95 percent
level to insure that those BASOPS items which require 100
percent funding can be met.
--Antiterrorism, Force Protections, and Installation Preparedness for
the Army Reserve minimum essential funding level of $67.6
million is under funded by 46 percent. This funding is critical
to the Army Reserve meeting mandated DOD requirements and
maintaining minimum Force Protection standards for Army Reserve
facilities worldwide. As Active Component bases are prepared to
meet increased threats, Reserve Component facilities, which are
located in thousands of local communities, become a lucrative
target for those that consider military capability as a
criminal or terrorist target.
--Army Reserve environmental programs that are a ``must fund'' are
unfunded by $33.4 million or 44 percent. As a result, legally
mandated requirements and the requirements of executive orders
will not be met. Legal consequences could possibly restrict use
on training lands at Army Reserve installations such as Forts.
--The Army Reserve Defense Health Program Accrual is funded at 98
percent of the $680 million requirement. However, the $7.1
million shortfall is the result of DOD actuarial studies that
establish accrual rates based on ``full-time'' and ``part
time'' personnel. The accrual rates for fiscal year 2005
increased considerably in both categories. Analysis indicates
that the rate change will leave the Army Reserve with this
critical shortfall. This is an item of considerable
congressional interest, and the rate change creates a
significant effect on all three military services.
--Family Programs are a critical to Reserve Component soldiers and
their families. Active Component soldiers and families, for the
most part, live in close communities on military installations
where it is possible to maintain a bond between the soldiers,
their families, and their units. Many Reserve soldiers do not
even live in the same communities as their units. Keeping
families informed and supported can be difficult, particularly
in more rural areas. In fiscal year 2004, the Army Reserve's
family programs suffered a $3.9 million shortfall from a
requirement of $7.5 million. In fiscal year 2005 this shortfall
is $5.6 million. The Reserve Officers Association recommends
full funding of the $15.4 million requirement for Army Reserve
Family Programs to provide essential services to soldiers and
their families and to facilitate the Army Reserve's ability to
adequately prepare soldiers for deployments and help families
to become self-reliant.
Other Requirements
Reserve Personnel Appropriation: Last year the Reserve Components
took cuts in their RPA requirement based on the previous year's usage.
These unfunded requirements came at a time when many personnel were
either demobilized or released from stop-loss hence enabling them to
complete their RPA requirements. Additionally, the services are now
faced with implementing the Secretary of Defense's transformation
decisions resulting in conversion and upgrade requirements for school
and special tours. ROA members have been contacting us to report
anecdotally that their training location has run out of money for
funding their requirements (discretionary (non-mission/support)
activity, and especially OJT and upgrade training, is now at a
standstill at most units for this fiscal year).
The unknown in determining the level of challenge to be overcome in
the rest of fiscal year 2004 is the continually changing variant of
demobilization. The initial planning, based on active duty MAJCOM-
planned demobilizations, assumed large-scale numbers of returnees in
February and March. At this point, there seems to be some slippage in
that projection, which will affect Reserve participation activities
between now and the end of the fiscal year.
Reconstitution: The services will also need to perform a
reconstitution assessment to determine the results of the mobilization.
In terms of training consideration will need to consider: Skills that
must be refreshed for specialty, training needed for upgrade but
delayed, ancillary training missed, Professional continuing education
requirements for single-managed career fields and other certified or
licensed specialties required annually, and professional military
education needed to stay competitive.
To summarize, the question should not be whether we can afford to
bring pay and benefits for the Reserve and Guard to a more equitable
standard--to a standard that reflects how we use our Reserve
Components. Rather, the proper question is can we afford not to take
the necessary actions that will ensure the preservation of our citizen
military--a force composed of the some of the most skilled and talented
men and women in America.
Senator Stevens. I note that you recommend that certain
individual ready Reserve categories that are unemployed or not
eligible for health care have TRICARE permanently. Now, how do
you determine who are the certain individuals and those who are
not eligible for health care?
Mr. McIntosh. Actually what we are proposing and what we
advocate is TRICARE for the entire selected Reserve as an
option for anyone who is a drilling combat-ready reservist.
Senator Stevens. Most of those people are employed by small
businesses, many of whom do provide health care. The minute we
did that, that would be an advantage that other portions of the
economy do not have. I do not really understand why that should
be the case. Why should a person that is retired and in the
ready Reserve enjoy the benefits of being on active duty?
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, since we are mobilizing reservists
repetitively, we want to retain and recruit the best Americans
to be in our Reserve force. We believe the opportunity to sign
up for TRICARE versus the cost of medical care in their
civilian lives is an opportunity we ought to take and will pay
great dividends in the future. When a reservist, for example,
returns from numerous deployments and is thinking about leaving
the Guard and Reserve, if they are invested in TRICARE have
children that are using that or a spouse that is using that,
they will be much less likely to leave. So we are really
recruiting and retaining the family as a whole picture here
relative to medical care.
Senator Stevens. Is that not a disincentive to staying on
active duty? More people will go into the ready Reserve and not
stay on active duty.
Mr. McIntosh. Actually we have not studied that completely.
I believe it would not be an incentive for people to leave the
active force and join the Reserve. I think people leave the
active force for many, many reasons, and I would not see them
leaving because they know they could retain TRICARE even after
they left. But it is a fair question, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. I just wanted to note
that many of your suggestions should be made to the authorizing
committee. I am certain you have done that.
Mr. McIntosh. And it is, Senator, and we are aware of that.
Thank you, though.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General. Appreciate
your coming.
Our next witness is Tom McKibban, President of the American
Association of Nurse Anesthetists. Good morning, sir.
STATEMENT OF TOM L. MCKIBBAN, CERTIFIED REGISTERED
NURSE ANESTHETIST, MS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS
Mr. McKibban. Good morning. Chairman Stevens and Senator
Inouye, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. My name is Tom McKibban. I am a certified
registered nurse anesthetist, better known as a CRNA, and
President of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists,
known as the AANA. The AANA represents more than 30,000 CRNA's,
including 497 active duty CRNA's, and 742 reservists in the
military. As of May 2003, more than 360 CRNA's were deployed in
the Middle East providing anesthesia care on ships, on the
ground, and for U.S. special forces operations.
Today maintaining adequate numbers of active duty CRNA's is
of utmost concern for the Department of Defense to meet its
military medical readiness mission. For several years, the
number of CRNA's serving in active duty has fallen somewhat
short of the number authorized by the DOD. This is complicated
by strong demand for CRNA's in both the public and private
sectors. The AANA appreciates this committee's continued
support for the funding, the incentive special pay (ISP) for
CRNA's to address this issue.
The considerable gap between civilian and military pay was
addressed in the fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Act
with an ISP increase from $15,000 to $50,000. At this time we
would request full funding to increase ISP to $50,000 for all
services to recruit and retain CRNA's.
To ensure 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 about a 2003 proposed rule to include
anesthesiologist assistants, known as AA's, as authorized
providers under the TRICARE program. The rule is under review
by the OMB. The TRICARE proposal demands two providers, an
anesthesiologist and an AA, provide military personnel and
dependents the same care that either an anesthesiologist or
nurse anesthetist can provide alone. There is insufficient
evidence of the safety and cost effectiveness of AA's to
authorize these providers into the TRICARE program.
Last, the AANA is proud to announce the establishment of a
joint VA/Defense Department program in nurse anesthesia
education. This program cost effectively makes use of the
existing U.S. Army School of Nurse Anesthesia, Fort Sam
Houston, to educate CRNA's for both the VA and the U.S. armed
services. This joint nurse anesthesia graduate program begins
this June in San Antonio, Texas.
In conclusion, the AANA believes that the recruitment and
retention of CRNA's in the services is critical to our men and
women in uniform. Funding an increase in the ISP will help meet
this challenge.
Also, we believe that recognizing AA's under TRICARE will
not improve medical readiness of the DOD.
Last, we commend and thank this committee for your
continued support for CRNA's in the military.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank
you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom L. McKibban
The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) is the
professional association representing over 30,000 certified registered
nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) in the United States, including 497 active
duty CRNAs and 742 reservists in the military. 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
Let us begin by describing the profession of nurse anesthesia, and
its history and role with the military medical system.
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. Today CRNAs participate in
approximately 65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year
in the United States. Nurse anesthetists are also the sole anesthesia
providers in more than 65 percent of rural hospitals, assuring access
to surgical, obstetrical and other healthcare services for millions of
rural Americans.
CRNAs have a personal and professional commitment to patient
safety, made evident through research into our practice. In our
professional association, we state emphatically ``our members' only
business is patient safety.'' Safety is assured through education, high
standards of professional practice, and commitment to continuing
education. Having first practiced as registered nurses, CRNAs are
educated to the master's degree level and meet the most stringent
continuing education and recertification standards in the field. Thanks
to this tradition of advanced education, the clinical practice
excellence of anesthesia professionals, and the advancement in
technology, we are humbled and honored to note that anesthesia is 50
times safer now than 20 years ago (National Academy of Sciences, 2000).
Research further demonstrates that the care delivered by CRNAs,
physician anesthesiologists, or by both working together yields similar
patient safety outcomes. In addition to studies performed by the
National Academy of Sciences in 1977, Forrest in 1980, Bechtholdt in
1981, the Minnesota Department of Health in 1994, and others, Dr.
Michael Pine MD MBA recently concluded once again that among CRNAs and
physician anesthesiologists, ``the type of anesthesia provider does not
affect inpatient surgical mortality'' (Pine, 2003). Thus, the practice
of anesthesia is a recognized specialty in nursing and medicine. Both
CRNAs and anesthesiologists administer anesthesia for all types of
surgical procedures from the simplest to the most complex, either as
single providers or together.
NURSE ANESTHETISTS IN THE MILITARY
Since the mid-19th Century, our profession of nurse anesthesia has
been proud to provide anesthesia care for our past and present military
personnel and their families. From the Civil War to the present day,
nurse anesthetists have been the principal anesthesia providers in
combat areas of every war in which the United States has been engaged.
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 anesthesiologists 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 and Desert Storm. Military have CRNAs
provided critical anesthesia support to humanitarian missions around
the globe in such places as Bosnia and Somalia. In May 2003,
approximately 364 nurse anesthetists had been deployed to 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 Iraqi 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. Major General Barbara C.
Brannon, Assistant Surgeon General, Air Force Nursing Services,
testified before this Senate Committee on April 28, 2004, to provide an
account of CRNAs on the job overseas. She stated, ``Major Kathyrn
Weiss, a CRNA from Hurlbert Field, deployed with the Army's 10th
Special Forces Group to Northern Iraq to provide frontline emergency
medical capabilities in an imminent danger area within the range of
enemy artillery. The team was recognized by the award of the Bronze
Star for their meritorious achievements. Major Weiss is just one
example of the tremendous capability of our CRNAs.''
In the current mission ``Operation Iraqi Freedom'' CRNAs will
continue to be deployed both on ships and ground, as well as U.S.
special operations forces. This committee must ensure that we retain
and recruit CRNAs now and in the future to serve in these military
overseas deployments.
CRNA RETENTION AND RECRUITING--HOW THIS COMMITTEE CAN HELP THE DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT
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 fallen somewhat short of the number
authorized by the Department of Defense. This is further complicated by
strong demand for CRNAs in both the public and private sectors.
However, it is essential to understand that while there is strong
demand for CRNA services in the public and private healthcare sectors,
the profession of nurse anesthesia is working effectively to meet this
workforce challenge. The AANA anticipates growing demand for CRNAs. Our
evidence suggests that while vacancies exist, there is not a crisis in
the number of anesthesia providers. The profession of nurse anesthesia
has increased its number of accredited CRNA schools, from 85 to 88 the
past two years. The number of qualified registered nurses applying for
CRNA school continues to climb, with each CRNA school turning away an
average of 23 qualified applicants in 2002. The growth in the number of
schools, the number of applicants, and in production capacity, has
yielded significant growth in the number of nurse anesthetists
graduating and being certified into the profession. The Council on
Certification of Nurse Anesthetists reports that in 1998, our schools
produced 942 new graduates. By 2003, that number had increased to
1,474, a 56 percent increase in just five years. The growth is expected
to continue. The Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia
Educational Programs (COA) projects that CRNA schools will produce an
estimated 1,900 graduates in 2005.
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.
The Incentive Special Pay for Nurses
According to a March 1994 study requested by the Health Policy
Directorate of Health Affairs and conducted by the Department of
Defense, 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 for CRNAs in the healthcare
community leading to higher incomes, widening the gap in pay for CRNAs
in the civilian sector compared to the military. The fiscal year 2003
AANA Membership survey measured income in the civilian sector by
practice setting. The median income in a hospital setting is $120,000,
anesthesiologist group $108,000, and self-employed CRNA $140,000
(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 CRNA's salary of $84,000 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), healthcare,
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 an 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 2005. The ISP recognizes the special skills and advanced
education that CRNAs bring to the Department of Defense healthcare
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 healthcare 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 necessarily eligible for board
certification pay since their graduate degrees are not in a clinical
specialty. 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 the Defense Department and the respective services
to reexamine the issue of awarding board certification pay only to
CRNAs who have clinical master's degrees.
DOD/VA RESOURCE SHARING: VA-DOD NURSE ANESTHESIA SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF
TEXAS HOUSTON HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER, HOUSTON, TX
The establishment of a joint VA-Department of Defense program in
nurse anesthesia education holds the promise of making significant
improvements in the VA CRNA workforce. This will improve retention of
VA registered nurses, while cost-effectively making use of existing
U.S. government programs and the U.S. Army nurse anesthesia school.
This VA nurse anesthesia graduate program begins this June at the
Army's Fort Sam Houston Nurse Anesthesia program in San Antonio, Texas.
This VA nurse anesthesia program creates three openings for VA
registered nurses to apply to and earn a Master of Science in Nursing
(MSN) in anesthesia granted through the University of Texas Houston
Health Science Center. Three students are enrolled for the program
start date June 2004.
The 30-month program is broken down into two phases. Phase I, 12
months, is the didactic portion of the anesthesia training at the U.S.
AMEDD Center and School (U.S. Army School for Nurse Anesthesia). Phase
II, 18 months, is clinical practice education, in which VA facilities
and their affiliates would serve as clinical practice sites. The agency
will use VA hospitals in Augusta, Georgia, and Dayton, Ohio. Similar to
military CRNAs who repay their educational investment through a service
obligation to the U.S. Armed Forces, graduating VA CRNAs would serve a
three-year obligation to the VA health system. Through this kind of
Department of Defense-DVA resource sharing, the VA will have an
additional source of qualified CRNAs to meet anesthesia care staffing
requirements.
We are pleased to note that both the U.S. Army Surgeon General and
Dr. Michael J. Kussman, MD MS FACP (Department of Veterans' Affairs
Chief Consultant, Acute Care) approved funding to start this VA nurse
anesthesia school. With modest levels of additional funding, this joint
VA-Defense Department nurse anesthesia education initiative can grow
and thrive, and serve as a model for meeting other VA workforce needs,
particularly in nursing.
DOD and VA resource sharing programs effectively maximize
government resources while improving access to healthcare for veterans.
UPDATE: INCLUSION OF AAS UNDER TRICARE
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, 2003. (68 FR
16247, 4/3/2003). The regulation is now being reviewed at the Office of
Management of Budget (OMB) as of February 9, 2004. There still has been
no congressional review about adding these new providers, and no
assessment of their safety record or cost-effectiveness.
The AANA has several objections to this proposal. First, there is
insufficient evidence of the safety and cost-effectiveness of AAs to
authorize these providers into the TRICARE program. DOD has not
sufficiently demonstrated what benefit TRICARE may gain by recognizing
AAs as an authorized provider. As we understand this matter, AAs (in
the very limited number of states that license their practice) may
administer anesthesia only under the close and immediate medical
direction of anesthesiologists. The TRICARE proposed rule does not
define this type of medical direction of AAs. In addition,
correspondence from TRICARE says an AA would be an ``extra pair of
hands'' for an anesthesiologist, suggesting one-to-one constant
supervision in the operating room. By contrast, both experience and
anesthesiologists themselves say ``direct supervision'' implies a
scheme in which AAs are supervised by someone some distance away, not
necessarily in the operating room.
Even so, the TRICARE proposal demands two providers, an
anesthesiologist and an AA, to provide military personnel and
dependents the same care that either an anesthesiologist or nurse
anesthetist could provide alone. The agency's proposal to introduce AAs
into TRICARE is further undermined by AAs' lack of diffusion within the
healthcare system. Since AAs' introduction 30 years ago, only seven
states have thought it prudent to provide AAs separate licensure or
certification and only two schools exist to train them. Last, the
proposal has drawn the opposition of 37 retired military and Veterans
organizations and the 5.5 million members of The Military Coalition,
and several members of the House and Senate.
The proposed rule to introduce AAs under TRICARE is not in response
to a shortage of anesthesia providers. Further Congressional review is
required on the safety and cost-effectiveness of AAs before they are
recognized under TRICARE.
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 an
increase in ISP. Also, we believe that the inclusion of improperly
supervised Anesthesiologists Assistants (AAs) in the TRICARE system
would impair the quality of healthcare for our military personnel and
dependents, and should not be approved. Last, we commend and thank this
committee for their continued support for CRNAs in the military.
Senator Stevens. I have two questions. One is, how often is
the special pay bonus to be paid in your judgment if it is
raised to $50,000?
Mr. McKibban. I believe it is a yearly, sir.
Senator Stevens. A yearly?
Mr. McKibban. A yearly ISP, yes.
Senator Stevens. Is there reenlistment yearly? I do not
understand. Normally that is a reenlistment bonus. Do you sign
up for just 1 year?
Mr. McKibban. No. I believe this is a yearly special pay
for their specialty to ensure that they continually will serve
in the military, sir.
Senator Stevens. Is that master's degree requirement a
matter of law or a matter of regulation?
Mr. McKibban. I believe it is a matter of regulation. It is
law. I am sorry, sir.
Senator Stevens. I am compelled to say what Senator Inouye
said to the previous witness. I am afraid you have asked us to
do two things not within the jurisdiction of this committee. We
do not handle the legislation. Changes in the law should be
addressed to the Armed Services Committee. I hope you will
present those requests to them.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Yes. What is the current shortage of nurse
anesthetists in the armed forces?
Mr. McKibban. Number-wise? The Army and the Air Force--I do
not have the exact numbers. Last week we were just notified
that now the Navy is predicting a shortage in the Navy side of
it too, sir.
Senator Inouye. So there is a shortage but you are not
aware of the number.
Mr. McKibban. I do not have the exact number, no, sir.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. McKibban.
Appreciate it.
Mr. McKibban. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Ms. Joyce Raezer,
President of the National Military Family Association. Good
morning, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF JOYCE WESSEL RAEZER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, THE NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Raezer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not the
President. I am representing the President today. Our President
is Candace Wheeler. I am the Director of Government Relations.
The National Military Family Association (NMFA) thanks you
and Senator Inouye for the opportunity to speak about the
quality of life of military families and the service members.
With other members of the Military Coalition, NMFA is
grateful for your leadership last year in securing increased
funding for family support programs such as the family advocacy
program and for pay and allowances to help offset the
extraordinary demands of military service. Military families
were most grateful to Congress for extending last year's
increases to imminent danger pay and family separation
allowance through December 2004. We hope Congress will make
these increases permanent, and even if not made permanent, that
funding will be provided to keep the family separation
allowance at or near the current level for all eligible service
members. Family separation allowance is not combat pay.
Additional expenses families incur when the service member is
assigned away from home are not based on a service member's
assignment location. To the family, gone is gone.
Longer and more frequent deployments are indications that
our force is stretched thin. Military families are also
stretched too thin.
Our message to you today, however, is simple. Funding
directed toward family readiness works. Funding you have helped
to provide supports additional National Guard family assistance
centers, more child care, increased staffing and programming
directed to families of deployed service members, and return
and reunion programs. New DOD programs such as Military One
Source will make even more counseling and other assistance
available, especially to isolated families.
Funding directed toward family support is making a
difference but it is still sporadic. Consistent levels of
targeted funding are needed, along with consistent levels of
command focus on family support, professional backup for the
volunteers carrying the largest load of family support, and
additional help for isolated Guard and Reserve families and
families with special needs. Preventive mental health resources
must be more accessible for families and service members over
the long term.
A significant element of family readiness is quality
education for military children despite the challenges posed by
ever-moving students and situations where the military parent
is deployed or in harm's way. Now more than ever, we ask that
you ensure both DOD and civilian schools educating military
children have the resources to meet the counseling, staffing,
and program challenges arising from new, ongoing, and changed
missions, especially when deployments are extended. Families in
Europe, for example, where some service members' Iraq tours
were recently extended are concerned that funds will not be
available for summer school this year. They need to know that
the DOD schools can provide programs their children need.
We applaud the increased partnerships between military
commanders, DOD officials, and school officials to promote
quality education for military children. The successful joint
venture education initiative in Hawaii and the new military
student website are just two examples of how folks are working
together to provide more information to parents, commanders,
and educators about issues affecting military children and to
further partnerships to support children.
Because Impact Aid is not fully funded, NMFA recommends
increasing the DOD supplement to Impact Aid to $50 million to
help civilian districts better meet the additional demands
placed on them and the children they are charged to educate.
NMFA also asks that you ensure the defense health system
has adequate funding to make the challenges it faces. NMFA is
concerned that the cost of performing additional duties under
the new TRICARE contracts will be one strain too many,
especially for the direct care system that is already dealing
with a multitude of stressors such as maintaining readiness,
mobilizing Guard and Reserve members, and implementing new
benefits. Some military treatment facilities are cutting back
on hours or services at exactly the time when they are supposed
to be pulling in more care under the new TRICARE contracts. How
can the new contracts function to the benefit of beneficiaries
if they are designed to do one thing and that one thing is
blocked?
The future of successful initiatives such as family-
centered care is in jeopardy if the direct care system must
avert central funding to other demands. Please ensure not only
the defense health system is funded to fulfill its
responsibilities, but also that oversight is sufficient to
prevent harm to beneficiaries during a transition process to
new contracts that are supposed to help them.
Mr. Chairman, the concern you and Senator Inouye have
expressed today sends an important message to service members
and their families. Congress understands the link between
military readiness and the quality of life of the military
community. Strong families ensure a strong force. Thank you for
your work in keeping our families and force strong.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joyce Wessel Raezer
The National Military Family Association (NMFA) is the only
national organization whose sole focus is the military family and whose
goal is to influence the development and implementation of policies
which will improve the lives of those family members. Its mission is to
serve the families of the Seven Uniformed Services through education,
information and advocacy.
Founded in 1969 as the Military Wives Association, NMFA is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) primarily volunteer organization. NMFA today
represents the interests of family members and the active duty, reserve
components and retired personnel of the seven uniformed services: Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Public Health Service and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NMFA Representatives in military communities worldwide provide a
direct link between military families and NMFA staff in the nation's
capital. Representatives are the ``eyes and ears'' of NMFA, bringing
shared local concerns to national attention.
NMFA receives no federal grants and has no federal contracts.
NMFA's web site is located at http://www.nmfa.org.
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, the
National Military Family Association (NMFA) would like to thank you for
the opportunity to present testimony on quality of life issues
affecting servicemembers and their families. NMFA is also grateful for
your leadership in the 1st Session of the 108th Congress in securing
increased funding for essential quality of life programs, such as
National Guard and Reserve family support and the Family Advocacy
Program, as well as pay and allowances, such as the increased Family
Separation Allowance, that help to offset the extraordinary demands of
military service. NMFA thanks Congress for providing funds for
servicemember's R&R travel, additional child care, and schools that
educate military children.
As a founding member of The Military Coalition, NMFA subscribes to
the recommendations contained in the Coalition's testimony presented
for this hearing. In this statement, NMFA will expand on a few issues:
Pay and allowances; health care; family support, including the unique
needs of Guard and Reserve families; and education for military
children.
Pay and Allowances
Servicemembers and their families appreciate the dramatic
improvements in military compensation achieved over the past several
years. The combination of across-the-board raises at the level of the
Employment Cost Index (ECI) plus 0.5 percent and targeted raises for
certain ranks have improved their financial well-being. The five-year
plan, ending in fiscal year 2005, to increase Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH) has been especially beneficial for military families
living in high cost of living areas.
Family Separation Allowance
Military members and their families were most grateful to Congress
last year for including increases in Family Separation Allowance and
Imminent Danger Pay in the fiscal year 2003 Supplemental Appropriations
bill. They were relieved when these increases were authorized and
funded to continue through December 2004, yet alarmed that last fall's
debate over both the amount of Family Separation Allowance and who
should receive it is surfacing again. NMFA understands DOD is looking
at the wide range of pays and allowances in order to determine their
proper mix and use. We believe, however, that the amount of Family
Separation Allowance must remain the same for all eligible
servicemembers, no matter where they are deployed. Family Separation
Allowance is not combat pay--it is paid in recognition of the
additional costs a family endures when a servicemember is deployed. It
helps pay for the additional long distance phone calls the deployed
servicemember and family make; it pays for the car or home repairs the
servicemember performs when at home; it pays for the tutoring a child
needs when the family chemistry or algebra expert is deployed. These
costs are not incurred just by the families of servicemembers in a
combat zone; whether the servicemember is in Iraq, Afghanistan, on a
ship in the Pacific, or on an unaccompanied tour in Korea, to the
family, ``gone is gone!''
NMFA must also note that, while families of deployed servicemembers
face similar costs of separation no matter where the servicemember is
deployed, other pay and benefits change dramatically. Servicemembers
deployed to certain combat zones not only receive Imminent Danger Pay
and other combat-related pays, but also are entitled to certain tax
advantages. Servicemembers in other locations, such as Korea or on
board ships outside combat zones, do not receive the same tax
advantage. Thus, their families have similar expenses to meet with less
income. To these families, last year's increase in Family Separation
Allowance was an especially welcome relief to tight family budgets.
NMFA asks this Subcommittee to ensure that funding is continued to
sustain the increased level of Family Separation Allowance for all
eligible servicemembers. NMFA also asks Congress to consider indexing
the Family Separation Allowance to inflation so that we do not have to
wait for another war for this allowance to be increased again.
Health Care
This year, NMFA is focused on health care transition issues and the
costs to the defense health system imposed by these issues: the
transition to the new TRICARE contracts, Guard and Reserve family
members' transition to the TRICARE benefit when the servicemember is
called to active duty, and the transition that occurs during the return
and reunion process as servicemembers and their families adjust to the
end of a deployment.
Transition to New TRICARE Contracts
NMFA's concerns during the transition to the new TRICARE
contracts--the first contract handoff occurs on June 1--revolve around
the ability of the Defense Health System to ensure beneficiaries can
access care in a timely manner and the ability of the system to
maintain continuity of care. NMFA is concerned that the direct care
system may not be able to fulfill its new responsibilities under the
new contracts while working so hard to meet readiness requirements
related to deployments and force health protection, care for wounded
and injured servicemembers, and care for the active duty families,
retirees, and survivors enrolled in TRICARE Prime to primary care
managers in their facilities. Under the new contracts, military
treatment facilities (MTFs) will be responsible for appointing, which
is often done by the TRICARE managed care support contractors under the
current contracts. MTFs must also fill the void created by the
departure of key medical personnel currently provided by the TRICARE
contractors under resource sharing arrangements. These arrangements end
on the day health care delivery begins under the new TRICARE contracts,
as the responsibility for them shifts from the TRICARE contractor to
the MTFs. NMFA is pleased that DOD has offered MTFs the opportunity of
a bridge process to work with outgoing and incoming contractors to keep
resource sharing providers in place until establishing their own
arrangements. Unfortunately, NMFA has heard most MTFs are not taking
advantage of this bridge option and are looking at other contracting
options that will not preserve the continuity of care and access
currently enjoyed by patients. The relationships resource sharing
personnel have developed with patients in places such as Madigan Army
Medical Center, where the pediatric clinic is staffed entirely by
resource sharing, should not be severed abruptly at a time when this
continuity of care is needed most.
NMFA is concerned that the costs of performing additional duties
under the new TRICARE contracts will be one strain too many for a
direct care system dealing with a multitude of stressors. NMFA is
hearing that several MTFs are cutting back on pharmacy or clinic hours,
eliminating contract staff, or capping TRICARE Prime enrollment even as
they are forced to commit more personnel to support deployments, ensure
newly-mobilized Guard and Reserve members are medically-ready to
deploy, and care for wounded servicemembers returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan. Cutbacks in the direct care system can result in one of
two scenarios. An MTF may appeal to the ``patriotism'' of active duty
families, survivors, retirees and their families by telling them that
appointments are currently not available and asking them to wait. Or,
if it chooses to ensure that TRICARE Prime access standards are met, it
may be forced to send beneficiaries into the civilian purchased care
networks for their care, probably at a greater cost to the government.
When each of the current twelve regions started delivery of
services under TRICARE in the mid to late 1990s, significant problems
for beneficiaries developed. Over the ensuing years, most of the
problems have been identified and corrected. The acceptance of and
satisfaction with TRICARE Prime, the HMO piece of TRICARE, has steadily
increased among beneficiaries. The transition to the new contracts must
not once again put TRICARE at the top of concerns at beneficiary
forums. Just as servicemembers are stretched thin with repeated
deployments and time away from home, families are under increased
stress. Problems accessing health care or difficulty in obtaining
accurate information on how to do so should not be an additional part
of this equation. The promise of TRICARE was that in times of high
military operations tempo the purchased care system could pick up the
slack when MTFs were stretched thin because of military optempo. This
promise can only be kept if the defense health program is fully funded
to meet its medical readiness mission and to provide the employer-
sponsored health care benefit. Further, it must incorporate enough
flexibility to permit funding to be moved between the two segments as
needed to ensure beneficiary access to quality care and to provide that
quality care in the most cost-effective setting possible.
Guard and Reserve Health Care
NMFA is grateful to Congress for its initial efforts to enhance the
continuity of care for National Guard and Reserve members and their
families. Unfortunately, as discussed in the statement submitted by The
Military Coalition, the temporary health care provisions enacted in the
fiscal year 2004 NDAA have not yet been implemented. Information and
support are improving for Guard and Reserve families who must
transition into TRICARE; however, NMFA believes that going into TRICARE
may not be the best option for all of these families. Guard and Reserve
servicemembers who have been mobilized should have the same option as
their peers who work for the Department of Defense: DOD should pay
their civilian health care premiums. The ability to stay with their
civilian health care plan is especially important when a Guard or
Reserve family member has a special need, a chronic condition, or is in
the midst of treatment. While continuity of care for some families will
be enhanced by the option to allow Guard and Reserve members to buy
into TRICARE when not on active duty--if ever implemented--it can be
provided for others only if they are allowed to remain with their
civilian health insurance. Preserving the continuity of their health
care is essential for families dealing with the stress of deployment.
Post Deployment Health for Servicemembers and Families
The Services recognize the importance of educating servicemembers
and family members about how to effect a successful homecoming and
reunion and have taken steps to improve the return and reunion process.
Information gathered in the now-mandatory post-deployment health
assessments may also help identify servicemembers who may need more
specialized assistance in making the transition home. Successful return
and reunion programs will require attention over the long term. Many
mental health experts state that some post-deployment problems may not
surface for several months after the servicemembers return. NMFA is
especially concerned about the services that will be available to the
families of returning Guard and Reserve members and servicemembers who
leave the military following the end of their enlistment. Although they
may be eligible for transitional health care benefits and the
servicemember may seek care through the Veterans' Administration, what
happens when the military health benefits run out and deployment-
related stresses still affect the family? As part of its return and
reunion plan, the military One Source contracts will help returning
servicemembers and families access local community resources and to
receive up to six free face-to-face mental health visits with a
professional outside the chain of command. NMFA is pleased that DOD has
committed to funding the counseling provided under the One Source
contract and is implementing this counseling for servicemembers and
families of all Services.
Post-deployment transitions could be especially problematic for
servicemembers who have been injured and their families. Wounded
servicemembers have wounded families and, just as it will take some
time for servicemembers physical wounds to heal, it will take time for
the emotional wounds to heal. These servicemembers have received
excellent care through military hospitals. In many cases, their
families have also received superior support services through the
hospitals' family assistance personnel. The medical handoff of the
servicemember to the VA is steadily improving and the VA and DOD are
working well together to improve the servicemembers' continuity of
care. Ensuring the handoff to the VA or community-based support
services needed by the wounded families is just as important.
The new round of TRICARE contracts must provide standardized ways
to access health care across all regions and emphasize providing
continuity of care to beneficiaries during the transition from old to
new contracts. The Defense Health System must be funded sufficiently so
that the direct care system of military treatment facilities and the
purchased care segment of civilian providers can work in tandem to meet
the responsibilities given under the new contracts, meet readiness
needs, and ensure access for all TRICARE beneficiaries. 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 options for obtaining
mental health services and other return and reunion support must be
provided to families as well as to servicemembers.
Family Support
Since our testimony before this Subcommittee last year, NMFA is
pleased to note the Services continue to refine the programs and
initiatives to provide support for military families in the period
leading up to deployments, during deployment, and the return and
reunion period. Our message to you today is simple: funding directed
toward family support works! We have visited installations that
benefited from family support funding provided through the wartime
appropriations. This money enabled the National Guard Bureau to open
additional Family Assistance Centers in areas with large numbers of
mobilized Guard and Reserve members. It enabled the Services to provide
additional child care for active duty families through their military
child development centers and Family Child Care providers and to work
on developing arrangements with child care providers in other locations
to serve Guard and Reserve families. It enabled military family centers
to hire additional staff and to increase programming and outreach to
families of deployed servicemembers. It improved the ability of
families to communicate with deployed servicemembers and enhanced
Service efforts to ease servicemembers' return and reunion with their
families.
Funding directed toward family support is making a difference, but
still sporadically. Consistent levels of targeted funding are needed,
along with consistent levels of command focus on the importance of
family support programs. NMFA remains concerned that installations must
continue to divert resources from the basic level of family programs to
address the surges of mobilization and return. Resources must be
available for commanders and others charged with ensuring family
readiness to help alleviate the strains on families facing more
frequent and longer deployments. As the mobilization and de-
mobilization of Guard and Reserve members continues, support for their
families remains critical.
Projected force numbers for the second rotation of troops under
Operation Iraqi Freedom call for 40 percent to be Guard and Reserve
members. This number does not include servicemembers called up for duty
in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and those who continue to
serve in Bosnia. National Guard and Reserve families often find
themselves a great distance from traditional military installation-
based support facilities. They may also be far from the Guard armory or
reserve center where their servicemember trains. How then does the
family learn about all their active duty benefits or receive answers
about how to follow the rules? Continued targeted funding for Family
Assistance Centers and other support programs is essential to assist
these families in their transition from the civilian to military life.
What's Needed for Family Support?
Family readiness volunteers and installation family support
personnel in both active duty and reserve component communities have
been stretched thin over the past 2\1/2\ years as they have had to
juggle pre-deployment, ongoing deployment, and return and reunion
support, often simultaneously. Unfortunately, this juggling act will
likely continue for some time. Volunteers, whose fatigue is evident,
are frustrated with being called on too often during longer than
anticipated and repeated deployments. We now hear from volunteers and
family members whose servicemembers are serving in a second long
deployment to a combat zone since the war on terrorism began. Family
member volunteers support the servicemembers' choice to serve; however,
they are worn out and concerned they do not have the training or the
backup from the family support professionals to handle the problems
facing some families in their units. Military community volunteers are
the front line troops in the mission to ensure family readiness. They
deserve training, information, and assistance from their commands,
supportive unit rear detachment personnel, professional backup to deal
with family issues beyond their expertise and comfort level, and
opportunities for respite before becoming overwhelmed. NMFA is pleased
that the Army is establishing paid Family Readiness Group positions at
many installations dealing with deployments to provide additional
support to families and volunteers--more of these positions are needed.
NMFA knows that the length of a deployment in times of war is
subject to change, but also understands the frustrations of family
members who eagerly anticipated the return of their servicemembers on a
certain date only to be informed at the last minute that the deployment
will be extended. Other than the danger inherent in combat situations,
the unpredictability of the length and frequency of deployments is
perhaps the single most important factor frustrating families today.
Because of the unpredictable nature of the military mission, family
members need more help in acquiring the tools to cope with the
unpredictability. A recent town meeting in Europe was held for family
members of soldiers who were among the 20,000 troops recently extended
for ninety more days. The commander of U.S. Army Europe heard first-
hand of the disruptions caused by this extension to families who only a
few weeks before had been sitting in reintegration briefings and
planning how to spend the time during the servicemembers' promised
block leave. Now, these families face changes in move dates and fears
they will not be settled at new assignments before school starts.
Activities for children--including summer school--are now needed more
than ever. School principals who thought parents would be home for
graduation must arrange for video teleconferences to Iraq so that
parents can still participate in the event. Families who purchased
plane tickets for block leave trips back to the states must now seek
refunds. Rear detachment personnel, family readiness volunteers and
family center staff who were also looking forward to down time must now
work harder to ensure that support is available for families in their
charge.
Joint Family Support: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
NMFA applauds the increase in joint coordination to improve family
readiness that has occurred over the past few years. As the military
becomes more ``joint,'' it makes sense to use a joint approach to
family support, providing consistent information and using scarce
personnel and other resources to the best advantage. A start in
improved joint family readiness support has been DOD's establishment of
a common web portal with links to military Service, private
organization, and other useful government sites
(www.deploymentconnections.org). All active and reserve component
personnel and their families can now access the ``One Source'' 24-hour
information and referral service. One Source provides information and
assistance, not just for post-deployment concerns, but also in such
areas as parenting and child care, educational services, financial
information and counseling, civilian legal advice, elder care, crisis
support, and relocation information. The service is available via
telephone, e-mail, or the web and is designed to augment existing
Service support activities and to link customers to key resources, web
pages and call centers. It is also available to family center staff,
many of whom tell NMFA that they regard it as a useful tool to expand
the assistance they can provide families. One Source is operated for
the military Services by a civilian company that provides similar
Employee Assistance Programs for private industry. Early statistics on
use indicate that servicemembers and families are accessing One Source
primarily for everyday issues and basic information about military
life. Military families who use One Source, including spouses who
testified before the House Military Construction Appropriations
Subcommittee in February, are pleased with the support and information
provided.
While NMFA believes One Source is an important tool for family
support, it is not a substitute for the installation-based family
support professionals or the Family Assistance Centers serving Guard
and Reserve families. NMFA is concerned that in a tight budget
situation, family support staffing might be cut under the assumption
that the support could be provided remotely through One Source. The One
Source information and referral service must be properly coordinated
with other support services, to enable family support professionals to
manage the many tasks that come from high optempo. The responsibility
for training rear detachment personnel and volunteers and in providing
the backup for complicated cases beyond the knowledge or comfort level
of the volunteers should flow to the installation family center or
Guard and Reserve family readiness staff. Family program staff must
also facilitate communication and collaboration between the rear
detachment, volunteers, and agencies such as chaplains, schools, and
medical personnel.
NMFA applauds the various initiatives designed to meet the needs of
servicemembers and families wherever they live and whenever they need
them and requests adequate funding to ensure continuation both of the
``bedrock'' support programs and implementation of new initiatives.
Higher stress levels caused by open-ended deployments require a higher
level of community support. Family readiness responsibilities must be
clearly delineated so that the burden does not fall disproportionately
on volunteers.
Education for Military Children
A significant element of family readiness is an educational system
that provides a quality education to military children, recognizing the
needs of these ever-moving students and responding to situations where
the military parent is deployed and/or in an armed conflict. 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. The military member deployed to that
dangerous place cannot afford to be distracted by the worry that his or
her child is not receiving a quality education. Addressing the needs of
these children, their classmates, and their parents 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.
NMFA is pleased to report that most schools charged with educating
military children have stepped up to the challenge. They are the
constant in a changing world and the place of security for military
children and their families. The goal, according to one school
official, ``is to keep things normal for the kids.'' The schools' role
is to ``train teachers in what to look for and deal with what they
find.'' NMFA received many positive stories from parents and schools
about how the schools have helped children deal with their fears, keep
in touch with deployed parents, and keep focused on learning. We have
also heard stories of schools helping each other, of schools
experienced in educating military children and dealing with deployment-
related issues providing support for school systems with the children
of activated Guard and Reserve members. In the process, many schools
have increased the understanding of their teachers and other staff, as
well as their entire communities, about issues facing military
families.
The Department of Defense is supporting this effort in several
significant ways. Late last year, DOD launched a new education website
(www.militarystudent.org) to provide information on a variety of
education topics to parents, students, educational personnel, and
military commanders. Its information is especially valuable for schools
and families dealing with the issues of deployment for the first time.
NMFA is also pleased to report that other Services are following the
Army's lead and hiring full-time School Liaison Officers at certain
installations. The Army not only has School Liaison Officers at all
locations, but has also expanded to provide these information services
to the reserve components, recruiters and other remotely-assigned
personnel and their families.
NMFA applauds DOD initiatives to work with states to ease
transition issues for military children and to ensure that military
leaders and school officials are working together to provide high
quality education for all their community's children. Hawaii's
education officials are working closely with the Pacific Command
through the Joint Venture Education Forum (JVEF). The JVEF has helped
officials target Impact Aid and DOD supplement funding where most
needed, marshaled military support to improve school facilities and
sponsor school programs, conducted training sessions about the military
for school personnel, and established model peer mentoring programs
where students can help incoming military children acclimate to their
new school. We believe such coordination between the military and the
state and local entities charged with educating military children will
bring an increased awareness to civilian neighborhoods about the value
the military brings to their communities. To the military Services,
this collaboration will bring a better awareness of the burden being
shouldered by local taxpayers to educate military children. To military
children and their parents, this collaboration shows that quality
education is a shared priority between the Department of Defense and
their local schools.
NMFA is appreciative of the support shown by Congress for the
schools educating military children. It has consistently supported the
needs of the schools operated by the DOD Education Activity (DODEA),
both in terms of basic funding and military construction. Congress has
also resisted efforts by a series of administrations to cut the Impact
Aid funding so vital to the civilian school districts that educate the
majority of military children. NMFA is also appreciative of the
approximately $30 million Congress adds in most years to the Defense
budget to supplement Impact Aid for school districts whose enrollments
are more than 20 percent military children and for the additional
funding to support civilian school districts who are charged with
educating severely disabled military children. NMFA does not believe,
however, that this amount is sufficient to help school districts meet
the demands placed on them by their responsibilities to serve large
numbers of military children. Additional counseling and improvements to
security are just two of needs faced by many of these school districts.
NMFA requests this Subcommittee to increase the DOD supplement to
Impact Aid to $50 million so that the recipient school districts have
more resources at their disposal to educate the children of those who
serve.
DODEA
Department of Defense schools are located in overseas locations
(DODDS) and on a small number of military installations in the United
States (DDESS). The commitment to the education of military children in
DOD schools between Congress, DOD, military commanders, DODEA
leadership and staff, and especially military parents has resulted in
high test scores, nationally-recognized minority student achievement,
parent involvement programs and partnership activities with the
military community. This partnership has been especially important as
the overseas communities supported by DODDS and many of the
installations with DDESS schools have experienced high deployment
rates. DOD schools have responded to the operations tempo with
increased support for families and children in their communities.
While DOD schools have been immune from some of the constraints
besetting civilian schools affected by state and local budget
pressures, military families served by DOD schools have expressed
concerns in recent years about DOD rescissions that cause cuts in
maintenance, staff development, technology purchases and personnel
support and also forced the elimination of some instructional days in
some districts. NMFA is hearing concerns that DODDS will not be able to
fund summer school this summer. Given the high deployment levels and
deployment extensions affecting some communities in Europe, we know
that children will need this opportunity for learning and involvement
with their peers more than ever. We ask that Congress work with DOD to
ensure DOD schools have the resources they need to handle their
additional tasks.
NMFA also asks this Subcommittee to understand the importance
military parents attach to schools that educate their children well.
DOD is currently preparing a Congressionally-requested report to
determine whether it could turn some DDESS districts over to
neighboring civilian education agencies. While NMFA does not object to
the concept of a report to determine whether school systems are
providing a quality education, using tax dollars well, or are in need
of additional maintenance or other support funding, we are concerned
about the timing of the study and the reaction it has caused in
communities already dealing with the stress of the war and deployments.
Families in these communities wonder why something that works so well
now seems to be threatened. NMFA attended an October 2003 community-
input forum sponsored by the Director of DODEA. We were impressed not
just with the strong support commanders and other community leaders
gave to these schools, but also with the efforts they had made to reach
out to local civilian schools to improve education for all military
children.
NMFA applauds the DOD vision that the Department focus on quality
education for all military children. We have stated for years that DOD
needs to do more to support civilian school districts educating most of
the 85 percent of military children who do not attend DOD schools. We
believe, however, that shifting children from highly successful,
highly-resourced DOD schools to neighboring districts may cause more
harm than good to both military children and their civilian peers.
Adding to the stress in military communities also harms the education
of military children. NMFA does not know what DOD's final
recommendations will be. We encourage Members of Congress to study
those recommendations closely before making any decision that could
damage the educational success the DDESS schools have achieved.
Schools serving military children, whether DOD or civilian schools,
need the resources available to meet military parents' expectation that
their children receive the highest quality education possible. Because
Impact Aid from the Department of Education is not fully funded, NMFA
recommends increasing the DOD supplement to Impact Aid to $50 million
to help districts better meet the additional demands caused by large
numbers of military children, deployment-related issues, and the
effects of military programs and policies such as family housing
privatization. Initiatives to assist parents and to promote better
communication between installations and schools should be expanded
across all Services. Military children must not be placed at a
disadvantage as State and Federal governments devise accountability
measures.
Strong Families Ensure a Strong Force
Mr. Chairman, NMFA is grateful to this Subcommittee for ensuring
funding is available for the vital quality of life components needed by
today's force. As you consider the quality of life needs of
servicemembers and their families this year, NMFA asks that you
remember that the events of the past 2\1/2\ years have left this family
force drained, yet still committed to their mission. Servicemembers
look to their leaders to provide them with the tools to do the job, to
enhance predictability, to ensure that their families are cared for,
their spouses' career aspirations can be met, and their children are
receiving a quality education. They look for signs from you that help
is on the way, that their pay reflects the tasks they have been asked
to do, and that their hard-earned benefits will continue to be
available for themselves, their families, and their survivors, both now
and into retirement.
Senator Stevens. Well, we travel a lot and we find the
results of your work, and we thank your family association very
much for what you are doing in really bringing to the families
knowledge of what we are trying to do and what we have been
able to achieve. So we will examine your statement in greater
detail and we thank you very much for the statement.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Well, I agree with the chairman that a
strong family system equals a strong military.
Ms. Raezer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator
Inouye.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is retired Captain
Marshall Hanson of the United States Navy Reserve, Chairman of
the Association for America's Defense.
Oh, pardon me. I am reading the wrong one. We will go to
Melanie K. Smith, Director of the Lymphoma Research Foundation.
You are next. Sorry about that.
STATEMENT OF MELANIE K. SMITH, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC POLICY
AND ADVOCACY, LYMPHOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Ms. Smith. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, it
is my pleasure to appear before you today to request that you
expand the congressionally directed medical research program to
include research on the blood cancers. I am Melanie Smith,
Director of Public Policy and Advocacy for the Lymphoma
Research Foundation (LRF), a voluntary health agency that funds
lymphoma research and provides education and support services
to individuals with lymphoma and their families and friends. On
behalf of LRF, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
This subcommittee is to be commended for its leadership in
funding special research programs at the Department of Defense
with a particular emphasis on cancer research. We realize that
at the time that 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 (NIH) and that are hailed by patient
advocates because they allow meaningful consumer input in the
planning of the research portfolio and their view of research
proposals.
We understand that the subcommittee is carefully evaluating
the congressionally directed medical research program (CDMRP)
and has asked the Institute of Medicine to consider options for
expanding the funding of these research ventures potentially
through public-private partnerships. In light of this
evaluation and the difficult Federal budget situation, it may,
on first consideration, seem illogical for LRF to propose an
expansion of CDMRP. However, we think that an investment in
blood cancer research will complement and strengthen the
existing blood cancer program at CDMRP and that the benefits of
a blood cancer research program will far exceed the financial
commitment to it.
We make this bold statement based on the history of cancer
research and treatment. We believe that directing funds to
blood cancer research will yield benefits not only for blood
cancer patients but also for patients that have been diagnosed
with solid tumors. Advances in the treatment of the blood
cancers have generally been of direct benefit to those with
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 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 are thought to
be responsible for cell proliferation began in the blood
cancers but are now thought to hold promise for breast,
prostate, ovarian, and other forms of cancer.
Each year approximately 110,000 Americans are diagnosed
with one of the blood cancers. More than 60,000 will die in
2004 and 700,000 Americans are living with these cancers. Taken
as a whole, the blood-related cancers are the fifth most common
cancer behind lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer.
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 the responsibility to make
recommendations about Veterans Administration 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.
In fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, the subcommittee
funded a research program at the Department of Defense that
supports 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 $15 million over
the last 3 years, be continued and that a parallel initiative
be launched that would fund all other types of blood cancer
research or that the CML program be expanded to fund research
on all forms of blood cancer, perhaps with a special set-aside
for CML.
We believe that an investment of $16 million in a new blood
cancer research program would have the potential to enhance our
understanding of the blood cancers, viral and environmental
links to these diseases and contribute to the development of
new treatments.
The subcommittee can strengthen the overall CDMRP cancer
research efforts and contribute to development of new
treatments for people with a blood cancer and those with solid
tumors. We believe an investment in blood cancer research would
be a wise one.
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to present this
proposal to you today. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Questions, Senator?
Senator Inouye. No.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Ms. Smith. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Melanie K. Smith
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to
appear before you today to request that you expand the Congressionally
Directed Medical Research Program to include research on the blood
cancers. I am Melanie Smith, Director of Public Policy and Advocacy of
the Lymphoma Research Foundation (LRF), a voluntary health agency that
funds lymphoma research and provides education and support services to
individuals with lymphoma and their families and friends.
This Subcommittee is to be commended for its leadership in funding
several special research programs at the Department of Defense (DOD),
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 meaningful consumer
input in the planning of the research portfolio and the review of
research proposals.
We understand that the Subcommittee is carefully evaluating the
CDMRP and has asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to consider options
for expanding the funding of these research ventures, potentially
through public-private partnerships. In light of this evaluation and
the difficult federal budget situation, it may on first consideration
seem illogical for LRF to propose an expansion of CDMRP. However, we
think that an investment in blood cancer research will complement and
strengthen the existing blood cancer programs at CDMRP and that the
benefits of a blood cancer research program will far exceed the
financial commitment to it.
We make this bold statement based on the history of cancer research
and treatment. We believe that directing funds to blood cancer research
will yield benefits not only for blood cancer patients but also for
patients that have been diagnosed with solid tumors. Advances in the
treatment of the blood cancer have generally been of direct benefit to
those with 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 strategy of
combining chemotherapy with radiation therapy began in the treatment of
Hodgkin's disease and is now wisely 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 that are thought to be responsible for cell proliferation,
began in the blood cancers but are now thought to hold promise for
breast, prostate, ovarian, and other forms of cancer. Research on the
blood cancers has also contributed to knowledge about staging cancer,
as the concept of cancer staging to accurately define disease severity
and target appropriate therapy began in lymphoma and is now used in all
cancers.
We believe that there are additional facts that justify a DOD
investment in blood cancer research, including the potential links
between military service and development of certain blood cancers. For
example, exposure to Agent Orange has been associated with blood
cancers. Possible exposures to other toxins might also be linked to
development of blood cancers, and an enhanced blood cancer research
program will help us understand these links.
In the remainder of my statement, I will briefly provide additional
information about the blood cancers, research on the possible causes of
these cancers, and the benefits of expanding the current leukemia
research program to include all blood cancers.
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
2004, 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 this drug
is also approved for use in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Two
new radioimmunotherapies have been approved for patients with
refractory NHL, and a new proteasome inhibitor for treating multiple
myeloma was approved in 2003. These treatments represent progress in
the fight against the blood cancers, but there is much work still to be
done.
Although there have recently been 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. A DOD
program could accelerate the achievement of this goal and may also
benefit survivors with other forms of cancer.
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 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 suffer from
those cancers as a result of service-connected exposure.
The Current DOD Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia Program
In fiscal year 2002, fiscal year 2003, and fiscal year 2004, the
Subcommittee funded a research program at DOD that supports 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 $15 million over the
last three years, be continued and that a parallel initiative be
launched that would fund all other types of blood cancer research, or
that the CML program be expanded to fund research on all forms of blood
cancer, perhaps with a special set-aside for CML.
We believe that an investment of $16 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 the development 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 Subcommittee can, through a modest enhancement of the existing
CDMRP, strengthen the overall CDMRP cancer research effort and
contribute to development of new treatments for people with a blood
cancer and those with solid tumors. In an age of severe fiscal
constraints, the Subcommittee is understandably reluctant to increase
its commitment to the CDMRP. However, an investment in blood cancer
research would be a wise one.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to you and
would be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Captain Marshall
Hanson.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARSHALL HANSON, UNITED STATES
NAVAL RESERVE (RET.), CHAIRMAN,
ASSOCIATIONS FOR AMERICA'S DEFENSE (A4AD)
Mr. Hanson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye. The
Associations for America's Defense are very grateful to testify
today.
A4AD looks at national defense, equipment, force structure,
funding and policy issues, not normally addressed by the
military support community. We would like to thank this
committee for the on-going stewardship on issues of defense. At
a time of war, its pro-defense and non-partisan leadership sets
the example.
Support for our deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are
of primary importance and warrant top priority. A4AD would like
to highlight some areas of emphasis.
As a Nation we need to be supplying our troops with the
initial issue equipment needed in training and later in combat.
A well-equipped soldier or marine is better prepared. Our
associations are pleased with improvements in personnel
protection over the past year. We credit both Congress and DOD
leadership with increased armor protection provided soldiers in
combat. Yet, troops preparing for Iraq are being given empty
vests in which to train. Every soldier, Guardsmen or marine
should receive an armored vest with initial issue, allowing
them to go through basic and advanced combat training in full
battle attire.
Good protection goes beyond steel and Kevlar. U.S. ground
forces are under attack from improvised explosive devices (IED)
on a routine basis. Countermeasure technology is available and
should be funded to provide protection from attacks by jamming
the electronic signals that detonate IED's.
From 1984-2001, 90 percent of worldwide combat aircraft
losses were attributable to shoulder fired missiles. Aircraft
have proven vulnerable in Iraq. Funding should be made
available for the next generation of electronic aircraft
survival equipment to reduce the risk to personnel and
equipment.
The Pentagon is recommending the repeal of separate budget
requests for procuring Reserve equipment. A combined equipment
appropriation for each service will not guarantee needed
equipment for the National Guard and Reserve components. We ask
this committee to continue to provide appropriations against
unfunded National Guard and Reserve equipment requirements.
Included in our written testimony is a list of unfunded
equipment for the Reserve components and the National Guard.
Equipment is only as good as the people who use it. A4AD
believes the administration and Congress must make it a high
priority to maintain, if not increase, end strengths of already
overworked military forces.
The associations have additional concerns on how the Guard
and Reserve are being utilized by the Pentagon and see a move
away from the traditional mission of the Guard and Reserves to
an operational part-time fighting force. A congressionally
mandated comprehensive review of current Guard and Reserve
roles and missions, and the proposed realignment of both the
Army and Navy is needed, before these forces are hollowed out.
We would like to thank you for your ongoing support of the
Nation, the armed services, and the fine young men and women
who defend our country. I stand by for questions, and feel free
in the future to contact us if you have any additional
concerns.
Senator Stevens. Well, we do thank you for your emphasis
and we are trying to really reach the same goals you have
outlined. I am not sure we have the money to do it all, but we
thank you very much for your suggestions.
Senator.
Senator Inouye. I agree with you, sir, and I think we have
reached that 4 percent minimum when you add the supplemental in
there. But we will do our best.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of 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 eleven 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.
Association of Old Crows, Enlisted Association National Guard 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, and 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 on-going stewardship that it has demonstrated on
issues of Defense. At a time of war, 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 related issues for the Armed Forces.
Initial Issue Combat and Personnel Protection
Initial Issue.--Unfunded requirements remain. It includes the
following items: Small Arms, Protective Inserts (SAPI), Outer Tactical
Vests (OTV), Individual Load Bearing equipment (ILBE), All Purpose
Environmental Clothing System (APECS), Lightweight Helmet (LWH),
Modular General Purpose Tent System, Modular Command Post System,
Lightweight Maintenance Enclosures, and Ultra Light Camouflage Net
System. These help in training, and later in combat.
General Property and Support equipment.--Sun, wind and dust
goggles, mosquito netting, field showers, field tarps and multi-faith
chaplain's kits. Upgrade from the M16A2 service rifle to the M4 Carbine
should continue as it is a lighter and better version of the M-16.
Lightweight, Air-Mobile, Rapid Deployable, Hard-Wall Shelter (HELAMS)
are a lightweight, self-deployable, hard-wall mobile shelter. Lessons
learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom show that tents did not perform
well in the hostile environment of the desert.
Personnel Protection.--Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine Corps
commandant, and Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said
that they are working together to provide the best possible protection
for their personnel who will be taking over the dangerous security and
stability duties in Iraq.
General Schoomaker is supplying the Interceptor body armor to about
three-fourths of the U.S. troops heading to Iraq, and plans to have the
interceptor body armor now over there in sufficient numbers for
everybody else. All of the protective gear will be kept in the combat
zone to supply all active Army, National Guard and Army Reserve
personnel in Iraq and Kuwait. The Marine Corps' requirements are
included in these numbers.
General Hagee said that the 25,000 Marines who went into Iraq will
have about 3,000 hardened trucks and Humvees, including those provided
by the Army. General Shoomaker has also shared that there are three
assembly sites in Iraq and Kuwait, which is retrofitting Humvees and
trucks with armor plating.
Position Statement.--The A4AD associations are pleased with
improvements in personnel protection over the past year. We credit both
the Congressional and DOD leadership with increased quantities in body
armor, armoring kits and hardened vehicles.
A4AD would like to highlight a continued need for personnel
protection. Procurement needs to be expanded to include troops that are
stateside. Troops training for Iraq were given empty vests in which to
train, without armored plates. Every soldier, guardsmen or marine
should receive an armored vest with initial issue, permitting them to
go through basic and advanced combat training in full battle attire.
Hardened vehicles should be included in training because of different
driving characteristics.
It has been noted that all 8,400 armor kits should have been done
by April 30th. On March 11, commanders on the ground in Iraq asked the
Pentagon for another 856 add-on armor Humvee kits; 236 truck kits,
including FMTVs; and 800 gun-truck armor kits. But Pentagon leaders
have not addressed the request; because of funding concerns.
Position Statement.--There will be no funding or requisitions for
these additional armor kits after April 30th. Supplemental funding is
needed for these additional requirements.
Counter-measures to Improvised Explosive Devices
Currently in Iraq, U.S. ground forces and our coalition allies are
coming under attack from Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's) on a
routine basis. These devices are cobbled together from unexploded
ordinance or from explosives left behind after the collapse of the
former regime. Many are activated while ground troops pass a particular
point using radio signals generated from electronics as simple as a
garage door opener or as sophisticated as a cellular telephone.
Countermeasure technology is now available for installation on
unarmored personnel carriers like Humvees to provide protection from
attacks by jamming the electronic signals that detonate IED's.
A limited quantity of this technology has been deployed, but this
is not enough. All future procurement should require the installation
of similar jamming technology to provide protection to ground forces
now, and in future deployments. Additional research and development
should be initiated immediately to enhance and expand the personal
security benefits of this type of technology against similar future
threats.
Position Statement.--Immediate emphasis is needed for the
procurement of sufficient quantities of countermeasures to protect
every unarmored personnel carrier now deployed in the battle space.
Aircraft Survivability Equipment
Much media attention has been paid to the problem of air
survivability for helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the past,
Congress has examined the anti-missile defense systems that need to be
retrofitted into many of our deployed helicopters.
Position Statement.--With the cancellation of the Comanche
helicopter program by the Army, it has been reported that funding for
this program would be re-programmed toward reviewing, upgrading and
installing countermeasure protections on Army helicopters. Congress
should quickly approve this request.
From 1984-2001, ninety percent of worldwide combat aircraft losses
were attributable to Shoulder Fired Missiles. Also called MANPAD (Man
Portable Air Defense Systems), these are most often heat-seeking
missiles, employing sensors that home in on the airplane's infrared
signature, likely the engine. Their ability to accurately target
aircraft from as far as 3 miles and as high as 20,000 feet makes them
very difficult to protect against.
Fixed wing aircraft are also flying in theatre: C-5s, C-9s, C-17s,
C-40As and C-130s. Most military aircraft, including transports, are
equipped with sensors that can detect incoming missiles and can drop
flares to deflect the heat-seeking missiles or chaff to spoof those
that are radar-guided.
Approximately 50 percent of the Air Mobility Command fleet has
anti-missile defensive systems. But 100 percent of AMC's C-17s (105
aircraft), and 90 percent of the C-130s (approximately 500) are so
equipped. The C-130, C-17 and C-5 fleets have flare-based
countermeasures systems. Used in combat drops, the C-17's cockpit floor
is sheathed with Kevlar to protect the pilots against ground fire. Only
a handful of C-17s are being equipped with a new laser countermeasure
system, called LAIRCM. Many C-130s have electronic warning receivers,
using sensors in the nose and tail and chaff. The tanker fleets of KC-
135s and KC-10s have no defensive systems.
Because of the high power settings all transport jet aircraft are
vulnerable to MANPADS when in approach or after take-off climb phase of
flight.
In January, an Air Force C-5 transport plane carrying 63 troops was
struck by a surface-to-air missile as it left Baghdad Airport but
managed to land safely. In December an Air Force C-17 cargo and troop
transport plane was hit by a surface-to-air missile after takeoff from
Baghdad with a crew of three and 13 passengers. Several unsuccessful
attacks were made on C-103 aircraft in 2003.
Chaff and flares typically are employed to deflect heat-seeking
missiles. In Baghdad, flares are often fired in a precautionary mode
when landing. Confidence in these basic missile defense systems is not
absolute. Pilots are flying evasively to reduce further risk. ``High
and fast'' is one tactic reported to minimize aircraft exposure to the
``bad guys''.
New technologies and tactics utilized by non-traditional combatants
have stretched the effectiveness of existing countermeasure systems for
fixed and rotary wing aircraft in the battle space. Recent events in
Iraq have demonstrated the vulnerability of our aircraft to attack from
ground fire, rocket propelled grenades, and MANPADS, or shoulder-fired
missiles.
Advancements in technology allow upgrade missile defense systems.
Newer ``aircraft survivability equipment,'' or ASE, can be described as
integrated countermeasure dispensing systems that include detection
equipment, threat adaptive computer, and deployable decoys. Another
system includes a new laser countermeasure system; called LAIRCM where
the computer guided intense light interferes with the missile guidance.
These systems are designed to provide the capability of automatic
or pilot commanded response, and works alone or in coordination with
other countermeasures defensive systems to defeat Air Interceptor (AI),
Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA), and Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs).
The Army Guard is flying unarmed and unarmored twin engine
aircraft, called the C-23 Sherpa and C-12 Hurons with passengers and
cargo from Kuwait into Iraq. It is essentially a commercial airplane in
a combat theater. The Sherpa crews are counting on installing defensive
chafe and flare devices similar to those used on C-130s and designed to
decoy a missile away from the target.
Position Statement.--Congress should immediately fund the
installation and/or upgrade of countermeasure systems in all fixed and
rotary wing aircraft in the battle space to provide the greatest degree
of protection for the U.S. warfighter.
Anti-explosive foams.--Military aircraft can be as vulnerable as
civilian airplanes to threats other than missiles. A tracer bullet into
a fuel tank can have disastrous effects. One solution is to retrofit
the aircraft fuel tanks with a foam lining that is anti-explosive. The
density of the foam captures most projectiles, and fumes or fuel are
protected from heat and spark. This is a low cost upgrade.
Other protective measures.--IR suppression, ECM, fuel tank fire
suppression, night vision lighting (NVL), DECM/CIRCM, aircraft, and
aircrew personnel armor and self-defense, and paratroop door armor.
Position Statement.--Appropriated monies should include simpler
self-protective measures as well as more sophisticated. Aircraft
survival is a full range package.
Maintaining the National Guard and Equipment List
In the recent authorization bill submission to Congress, the
Department of Defense is requesting that National Guard and Reserve
equipment accounts be merged with that of the parent service.
A single equipment appropriation for each service would not
guarantee that the National Guard and Reserve Components would get any
new equipment. The National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA)
is vital to ensuring that the Guard and Reserve has some funding to
procure essential equipment that has not been funded by the services.
Dollars intended for Guard and Reserve Equipment might be redirected to
Active Duty non-funded requirements.
This action would essentially end Congressional support of Guard
and Reserve equipment accounts and severely reduce its ability to
ensure that National Guard and the Reserve Components receive adequate
funding to perform their missions and maintain readiness. Neither the
National Guard nor Reserve would have the funds to pay for equipment
that has not been programmed by the parent services. This will lead to
decreased readiness.
This move is reminiscent of the attempt by DOD, last year, to
consolidate all pay and O&M accounts into one appropriation per
service. Any action by the Pentagon to circumvent Congressional
oversight should be resisted.
Position Statement.--We ask this committee to continue to provide
appropriations against unfunded National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Requirements. To appropriate funds to Guard and 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.
Unfunded Equipment Requirements
This last year, this working group provided input for equipment for
both Active duty, and the Reserve and Guard. With the Armed Forces
engaged in the Global War on Terrorism, it is not the time for debate
on equipment needs for the regular forces.
Position Statement.--Unfunded AD requirements have been submitted
to Congress and should be supported at best levels.
$6.0 billion for the Army, $2.5 billion for the Navy, $2.4 billion
for the Air Force, and $1.3 billion for the Marine Corps.
Reserve Component requirements are provided for the major four of
the uniformed services. The services are not listed in priority order.
Top Guard and Reserve Equipment Requirements:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force Reserve:
C-40's Medivac [replaces aging C-9A] (4)................. 261.3
Large aircraft I/R Counter Measures...................... 42.9
B-52 Litening II Targeting Pod........................... 7.8
A-10 Litening Targeting Pod.............................. 37.7
C-130 APN-241 Radars..................................... 38.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Litening ER is a self-contained, multisensor laser target
designating and navigation system that enables pilots to detect and
identify ground targets for highly accurate delivery of both
conventional and precision-guided weapons.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Guard:
C-17's (per aircraft)............................... 184
C-40C Special Mission Aircraft (1).................. 65
Fire Vehicle Replacements (per year)................ 15
Patient Decontamination Assemblages................. 3.4
Regional Equipment Operators Training Site.......... 12
Army Reserve:
Light Medium Tactical Vehicles [LMTV] (600)......... 92
Medium Tactical Vehicles [MTV] (800)................ 146
Movement Tracking System [MTS] (2005)............... 25
Multi-band Super Hi Frequency [SHF] Terminal (38)... 114
High Frequency [HF] Radio (1,255)................... 53
All Terrain Lifting Army System [ATLAS] (100)....... 10
Army Guard:
High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV). ..............
Single Channel Ground Air Radio System (SINCGARS)... ..............
Heavy Expanded-Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT)...... ..............
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)........... ..............
Military Tactical Generator Sets.................... ..............
Reserve Marine Corps:
F/A-18 ECP--583 Upgrade (combined AD/RC)............ 63
CH-53E HNVS ``B'' Kits (Forward Looking Infrared) 46.2
(combined AD/RC)...................................
Initial Issue equipment............................. 10
General Property and Support Equipment.............. 3
Depot Level Maintenance Program..................... 6.4
Naval Reserve:
Littoral Surveillance System, LSS coastal defense 19
(1)................................................
Naval Coast Warfare Boats (28)...................... 45
P-3C AIP Kits (2)................................... 29
F/A-18 ECP-560 Upgrades (8)......................... 24
C-40 A Inter-theater Transport (2).................. 130
C-130 Propeller Upgrade Modification Program [PUMP] ..............
and ground tools...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Commission/Comprehensive Review of the Guard and Reserve
A number of the services are reviewing and suggesting major changes
to their Reserve Component. A4AD is concerned that ongoing manpower
reviews are being budget driven where the bottom line dollar will
undercut effective mission accomplishment. The Active Duty services are
anxious to ``transform'' their Reserve without Congressional oversight.
Position Statement.--If our Active Duty leadership makes
unfortunate choices, there is a potential of unnecessary Defense costs
for Congress to remedy. A Congressional mandated comprehensive review
of the current Guard and Reserve issues, roles and missions, along with
realignment and integration plan of both the Army and Navy is very much
needed. We believe that the best way to address these issues is through
a Congressionally mandated Commission on Guard and Reserve
Transformation Issues for the 21st Century.
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, within DOD there is subtle pressures are to be found
encouraging personnel cuts.
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. If the current Active Duty end strength was adequate, the demand
for Reserve and Guard call-up would not be so urgent.
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.
Position Statement.--End strengths need to be closely examined by
both the House and Senate as a first step in addressing this situation.
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.
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.
Position Statement.--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.
conclusion
A core of military and veteran associations is 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.
Please contact us with any questions.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is David Evans from
Illinois Neurofibromatosis. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DAVID EVANS ON BEHALF OF ILLINOIS
NEUROFIBROMATOSIS, INC.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, for
this opportunity to appear before you today to present this
testimony to the subcommittee on the importance of continued
funding for neurofibromatosis, NF, a terrible genetic disorder
associated with military purposes and closely linked to common
diseases widespread among the American population.
I am David Evans representing Illinois Neurofibromatosis,
Inc., which is a participant in our national coalition of NF
advocacy groups. I have lived with NF my entire life. Although
I have not suffered any of NF's more severe symptoms, I have
experienced rude comments and harassment my entire life. On
July 4, 1996, I was threatened with arrest if I would not leave
a water park in Crestwood, Illinois. After other patrons
complained to the owner, he informed me that I looked terrible
and should wear a shirt or leave. I explained NF to him and
assumed the matter was settled. Later, however, he brought in
the police and I was forced to leave. As a result of this
experience, I have become active in Illinois NF, Inc. and have
been on the board of directors since 1997.
NF is a genetic disorder involving uncontrolled growth of
tumors along the nervous system which can result in terrible
disfigurement, deformity, deafness, blindness, brain tumors,
cancer, and death. NF can also cause abnormalities such as
unsightly benign tumors across the entire body and bone
deformities. In addition, one-half of the children with NF
suffer from learning disabilities. It is the most common
neurological disorder caused by a single gene. While not all NF
patients suffered 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 disorder.
Approximately 100,000 Americans have NF. It appears
approximately in 1 every 3,500 births and strikes worldwide
without regard to gender race or ethnicity. It is estimated
that 50 percent of the new cases result from 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. NF research will benefit
over 150 million Americans in this generation alone because NF
has been directly implicated in many of the most common
diseases affecting the general population.
NF research is directly linked to military purposes because
NF is closely linked to cancer, brain tumors, learning
disabilities, heart disease, brain tissue degeneration, nervous
system degeneration, deafness, and balance. Because NF
manifests in the nervous system, this subcommittee in past
report language has stated that the 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 NF may be relevant to
understanding Gulf War Syndrome and to gaining a better
understanding of wound healing. Today NF research includes
important investigations into genetic mechanisms which involve
not just the nervous system but also other cancers.
Recognizing NF's importance to both the military and the
general population, Congress has given the Army's NF research
program strong bipartisan support. The Army program funds
innovative, groundbreaking research which would not otherwise
have been pursued and has produced major advances in NF
research. 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 alone. Unfortunately, despite
this increase, the number of awards has remained relatively
constant over the past couple of years, resulting in many
highly qualified applications going unfunded.
Because of the enormous advances that have been made as a
result of the Army's NF research, research in NF has truly
become one of the great success stories in the current
revolution of molecular genetics, leading one major researcher
to conclude that more is known about NF genetically than any
other disease. Accordingly, many medical researchers believe NF
should serve as a model to study all diseases.
Mr. Chairman, the Army's highly successful NF research
program has shown tangible results and direct military
application with broad implications for the general public. Now
in that critical area of clinical translation research,
scientists closely involved with the Army program have stated
that the number of high quality scientific applications justify
a much larger program. Therefore, increased funding is now
needed to take advantage of promising avenues of investigation
to continue building on the success of this program and to fund
translational research, thereby continuing the enormous return
on the taxpayers' investment.
I am here to respectfully request an appropriation of $25
million in the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense
appropriations bill for the Army neurofibromatosis research
program. This is a $5 million increase over the fiscal year
2004 funding level of $20 million.
Thank you for your support of this program and I appreciate
this opportunity to testify to the subcommittee.
Senator Stevens. Would you please provide for the record
the monies received for NF from any other Government source
such as NIH? We would appreciate it.
Mr. Evans. From NIH?
Senator Stevens. Will you also provide for the record--I
want it for the record, not now, thank you.
Mr. Evans. Okay, we will provide that to you.
Senator Stevens.--how many members of the armed services
have NF.
Mr. Evans. Although we know there are members of the armed
services, we do not have a number.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. No questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Mr. Evans. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Evans
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
too many common diseases widespread among the American population.
I am David Evans, representing Illinois Neurofibromatosis, Inc.,
which is a participant in a national coalition of NF advocacy groups. I
have lived with NF my entire life. Although I have not suffered any of
NF's severe symptoms, I have experienced the social problems caused by
being afflicted with NF. I have endured rude comments and harassment my
entire life. On July 4, 1996 I was threatened with arrest if I would
not leave a water park in Crestwood, Illinois. After other patrons
complained to the owner; he informed me that I looked ``terrible'' and
should wear a shirt or leave. I explained NF to him and assumed the
matter was settled. Later however, he brought in the police and I was
forced to leave. As a result of this experience I became active in
Illinois NF, Inc. and have been on the board of directors since 1997.
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. NF research will
benefit over 150 million Americans in this generation alone because NF
has been directly implicated in many of the most common diseases
affecting the general population.
NF's Connection to the Military
NF research is directly linked to military purposes because NF is
closely linked to cancer, brain tumors, learning disabilities, heart
disease, 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 2004, this funding has amounted to $130.3 million,
in addition to the original $8 million appropriation in fiscal year
1992. Between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2003, 361 proposals were
received, of which 119 awards have been granted to researchers across
the country. The Army program funds innovative, groundbreaking research
which would not otherwise have been pursued, and has produced major
advances in NF research, such as the development of advanced animal
models, preclinical therapeutic experimentation 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
alone. Unfortunately, despite this increase, the number of awards has
remained relatively constant over the past couple of years resulting in
many highly qualified applications going unfunded.
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 2005 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.
I am here today to respectfully request an appropriation of $25
million in your fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense Appropriations
bill for the Army Neurofibromatosis Research Program. This is a $5
million increase over the fiscal year 2004 level of $20 million.
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 me 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 present this testimony to the Subcommittee.
______
May 17, 2004.
Senator Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, 119 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Stevens: Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense regarding the
Army's Neurofibromatosis Research Program (NFRP). Neurofibromatosis
(NF) is a terrible genetic disorder directly associated with military
purposes and closely linked to many common diseases affecting
approximately 150 million Americans.
As I discussed in my testimony, Neurofibromatosis (NF) research is
directly linked to military purposes because it is closely linked to
cancer, brain tumors, learning disabilities, memory loss, brain tissue
degeneration and regeneration, nervous system degeneration and
regeneration, deafness, balance and healing after wounding. Indeed, the
House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a prior year underscored
the importance of NF research to the military by stating in Report
Language 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, and is important to gaining a better understanding of
wound healing.
As a result of the huge success of the highly acclaimed NFRP,
researchers are now engaged in translational research which will
directly benefit the military, NF patients and close to 150 million
Americans in the general population who suffer from NF's many related
disorders.
Most importantly, the Army's NFRP does not fund the same kind or
level of research as NIH. Rather the Army's NF medical research program
funds much more aggressive, higher risk and innovative research from
which the real breakthroughs in science come, including funding NF's
first clinical trials, therapeutic experimentation, development of
advanced mouse models, natural history studies as well as encouraging
the development of consortia and bringing researchers from other fields
into NF research. To ensure coordination and avoid duplication or
overlap, the director of NF research at NINDS sits on the Army's
Integration Panel for NF as have other NIH officials in the past.
The NFRP has been widely acclaimed by the NF research community,
and just in the past year, it received nearly 60 percent more
applications than the year before. Thanks to the NFRP, we are now at
the threshold of treatments and a cure for this devastating illness and
its related disorders. There is no question that the Army NF Program
has accelerated the rate of progress by many years and has resulted in
research advances that otherwise might never have occurred. 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.
Neurofibromatosis (NF) is really two genetically distinct
disorders. Both disorders affect males and females equally and people
of all races and ethnic groups. Half of the people with NF do not have
a family history of the disorder. Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF-1),
which is the most common, affects 1 in 4,000 births. Neurofibromatosis
type 2 (NF-2) affects 1 in 40,000.
In order to ensure maximum efficiency, the Army coordinates and
collaborates closely with other federal agencies that are involved in
NF research, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In fiscal year 2004 approximately
$19.4 million went to complimentary NF Research at the various
institutes at NIH, including NCI ($5.6 million), NINDS ($6.3 million),
NICHD ($0.8 million), NEI ($0.3 million), NIDCD ($2.0 million), NHGRI
($3.8 million), NCRR ($0.4 million), and NHLBI. This funding however,
typically funds more traditional, less innovative and more basic
orientated research than the Army Program.
Recognizing the importance of the NFRP to military and civilian
populations, as well as its strong track record in advancing NF
research on a limited budget, Congress has consistently funded the NFRP
over the past decade, rising to a level of $20 million in fiscal year
2004. The program enjoys bipartisan support, including strong support
in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The Army's Congressionally Mandated NF Research Program (NFRP) has
furnished the figures of 124 cases of NF reported in 2003 and 731
seeking treatment among all Services active duty military and their
dependents during the last 10 years. However, the number of cases of
known NF in the military is really not the issue but rather, the
enormous implications advances in NF research have for direct military
purposes such as healing after wounding, brain tissue regeneration,
memory loss, nerve tissue regeneration, balance problems, hearing loss,
blindness, as well as its direct connection to cancer, brain tumors,
heart disease and cognitive disorders which affect the general
population as well.
Because of the characteristics of NF and the wide range of
manifestations and varying degrees of severity, NF is difficult to
diagnose. In addition, the symptoms are progressive over the
individual's lifetime and many applicants to military service are
unaware that they have NF until later in adulthood. Therefore NF is
frequently missed in admitting physicals and is often not diagnosed
until military service is completed. Fourteen year Army veteran Ted
Yates, who is featured in the attached Stripe article, is a prime
example of one who had his military career cut short because of NF.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully invite your attention to all the
invaluable information provided by the Army regarding the NFRP on its
website: http://cdmrp.army.mil.
Thank you for your attention, and I hope this answers any questions
you may have. If you or your staff wishes to talk further, you can
speak with me at (847) 290-5025, or with my Washington representatives
Ed Long and Katie Weyforth at (202)544-1880.
Sincerely,
David H. Evans.
______
[From Stripe, August 28, 1992]
Veteran Copes With Genetic Disorder
disease takes two distinct forms; undetectable until tumors begin
(By Barry Reichenbaugh, Stripe staff writer)
For Ted Yates, it's been a source of lasting pain.
First he bore the emotional pain of watching his mother endure
years of a disease people knew very little about. Then his adult life
brought physical pain as he discovered he also had the same disease. It
came to be known as neurofibromatosis.
Through it all he has persisted.
Yates recently spent a week at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for
some routine testing and to record some comments for an educational
video about the condition affecting his body.
As an Army major with a masters degree in civil engineering, his
career was cut short by a loss of hearing resulting from
neurofibromatosis 2.
Neurofibromatosis is a genetic condition that causes tumors to form
on nerves anywhere in the body. The condition occurs in two distinct
forms. NF-1 causes coffee-colored spots on the skin and both internal
and external tumors which may disfigure a person's appearance: NF-2
frequently causes brain and spinal tumors which can lead to loss of
hearing, sight and balance.
The disorders are sometimes inherited and sometimes the result of
spontaneous mutation, according to existing information on
neurofibromatosis. There is no test for either form of NF, no way to
prevent the disease, and no cure. The disease is lesser-known than
Muscular Distrophy, Tay-Sachs and Huntington's Disease, but it affects
more people.
``The thing's so traumatic,'' Yates says. ``People have facial
paralysis, they can't hear, their eyes don't operate properly, like me
they're clumsy. They go into the bedroom and sit. And it's hidden.''
Yates and two brothers inherited the disorder from their mother,
who died in her sixties while undergoing an operation for the removal
of tumors.
He says doctors had no idea he had NF-2 when he had his first tumor
removed in 1965 at age 25. He wasn't severely affected by the disorder
and continued his Army career for another decade. Operations for tumors
affecting his acoustic nerves in the late 1970s led to complete
deafness and his medical retirement from the Army after 14 years of
service.
His last operation was in 1984. Since then, because tumors can
recur at any time, Yates has periodic Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans
done around his head and spine to detect new growths.
The tumors that people who have NF commonly develop can cause
constant pain. The external tumors can severely disfigure the skin and
cause mental anguish on top of the physical pain.
``One thing I learned early on is that people in our society put
too much emphasis on appearance,'' says Yates. ``And once they see your
face . . . they pity you. They want to kind of get away from you.
Nobody has wanted to talk about NF . . . now we do.''
Awareness is getting better, says Mary Ann Wilson of
Neurofibromatosis, Inc., but her organization and others continue their
efforts to educate medical professionals and the public. NF, Inc., is a
national not-for-profit organization in Mitchellville, Md. ``Through
educating the public we also promote tolerance toward people who have
NF, especially the ones who look different and who have the multiple
tumors,'' says Wilson.
She says NF, Inc., is producing an educational videotape about the
disorder, its symptoms and its affect on people and their families.
Starting this fall the video will be shown at medical facilities and
schools to physicians, social workers, genetic counselors and the
public. Wilson's group is actively involved in attracting funding and
support for continued research in hope of finding a cure for the
disorders.
The National Institute of Health is working to find the origin of
NF-2. Researchers there have traced the NF-2 genetic trail through
several generations of Yates' family.
``Mr. Yates' family is a very large family, and that makes it
useful for these kinds of studies,'' says Dr. Dilys Parry, a clinical
genetics researcher with the National Institute of Health in Bethesda,
Md. ``To try to map a gene you need to have affected and unaffected
individuals in two and preferably three or more generations. His family
alone provided us enough information to map the gene.
``We know the chromosome the gene is on,'' says Parry. ``We have
some DNA markers that we know are near the gene, but we don't have the
gene yet.''
Parry says once researchers have the gene they can figure out what
the normal gene is doing and what went wrong to cause NF-2. With that
knowledge, she says, they may be able to develop therapeutic methods to
prevent tumors from growing.
One tragic aspect of both NF-1 and NF-2 is that since there's no
test to uncover the disorders before tumors first appear, people with
NF can pass the disorder on to their children before they know they
have it themselves.
``The one thing that ties all of us together,'' says Wilson,
``whether NF-1 or NF-2, is the unpredictability of the condition. You
don't know if your children have it until it manifests itself.''
``Once you know you have NF you can probably go two ways--you can
either accept it or reject it,'' says Yates. ``And if you accept, it
you really don't need anybody's help to cope. If you reject it you
do.''
Yates is one of those people who accepts the disorder but doesn't
let it keep him housebound. In addition to spending his time in his
woodworking shop and tending his vegetable garden and fruit trees,
Yates has touched the lives of scores of young people in his home of
Enterprise, Ala., through his involvement in youth soccer. Two of his
YMCA teams have earned state championships.
``I really enjoy seeing kids develop,'' answers Yates when asked
what he likes about coaching soccer. ``You take 15 individuals and you
can mold them into a team. You can see them get better--team-wise and
individually.
``What they're learning is a little about life--they're learning
that they can't do everything by themselves--it takes somebody else
involved to really get a job done.''
That's also how Yates sees his life with NF-2.
``You really have to fight depression all the time,'' he says.
``It's hanging right there on your shoulder all the time. I stay busy.
I push myself. If I get up and I don't feel good and I think I'm not
going to do anything today--I'll say `no, you're going to do
something,' and then I'll start doing something.''
He says he gets encouragement from his wife, Laraine, his family
and friends, including friends made here at Walter Reed during numerous
visits over the years.
The Neurosurgery Clinic staff at WRAMC sees several patients with
neurofibromatosis, says Capt. James Ecklund, M.D., chief resident in
neurosurgery. Yates, he says, has ``a fairly complex case'' of NF-2 in
that he has ``a lot of tumors.'' But despite his condition, says
Ecklund, Yates copes very well with his problems.
``He's a wonderful guy,'' says Ecklund. ``He's doing well in spite
of his deafness. He's an excellent reader of lips.'' .
Yates says he appreciates the treatment he gets every time he comes
to Walter Reed.
``I've been coming here since 1983,'' says Yates, ``and no matter
who's here, they've all been good to me. I can't say enough about the
staff here. The people who've been here a while know me and they treat
me real good. It's just like homecoming when I come up here. They're
all glad to see me and want to know how I'm doing.''
______
Neurofibromatosis: Inherited, Caused by Genetic Mutations
(By Barry Reichenbaugh, Stripe staff writer)
There are two genetically distinct forms of neurofibromatosis: NF-1
and NF-2.
Both forms are genetic disorders of the nervous system that can
cause tumors to form on the nerves anywhere in the body, at any time,
according to educational literature prepared by Neurofibromatosis,
Inc., of Mitchellville, Md.
Neither form of the disease can be passed on by contact.
Neurofibromatosis is either inherited, or it develops by some
unexplained genetic mutation. All races and both sexes are equally
affected.
NF-1 (formerly called Recklinghausen's Disease) occurs in about one
in 4,000 births and is characterized by:
--Multiple cafe-au-lait colored spots on the skin;
--Tumors of varying sizes on or under the skin;
--Freckling in the underarm or groin area.
Some people with NF-1 have mild symptoms and live relatively normal
lives. Others have many nerve fiberous lumps on the face and body.
Changes in hormone levels during puberty or pregnancy can increase the
problem. Kids with NF-1 sometimes have learning disabilities and speech
problems, seizures and can be hyperactive.
NF-2, or bilateral acoustic neurofibromatosis, occurs in about one
in 50,000 births and is characterized by:
--Tumors affecting the hearing nerves, often resulting in hearing
loss and balance problems;
--Tumors of the brain or spinal cord and skin;
--Unusual cataracts of the eye occurring at an early age.
Signs of NF-2 usually appear after puberty. People with NF-2 may
lose their hearing or sight, experience headaches, dizziness and
balance problems.
An affected person has a 50 percent chance of passing the disorder
on to each offspring. Neurofibromatosis 1 and 2 may be associated with
bone deformation, hearing loss, vision impairment, and seizures.
People who do not have neurofibromatosis cannot pass the disease on
to their children.
For more information on neurofibromatosis, contact Mary Ann Wilson
at (301) 577-8984, TDD (301) 461-5213, or write to NF, Inc., Mid-
Atlantic chapter, 3401 Woodridge Court, Mitchellville, MD 20721-2817.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Benjamin Butler,
Legislative Director for the National Association of Uniformed
Services. Good morning, sir.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. BUTLER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES
Mr. Butler. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, the National
Association for Uniformed Services is very grateful for the
invitation to testify before you about our views and
suggestions concerning defense funding issues. I would like to
highlight part of my written testimony pertaining to military
health care.
We would like to thank the subcommittee and the full
Appropriations Committee for its leadership in the past,
resulting in TRICARE improvements for all military medical
beneficiaries. However, we must again urge that the Senate
provide full funding of the defense health program.
A recent action in the Washington, DC, area illustrates the
impact that funding can have on health care. According to a
document from a medical treatment facility (MTF) commander in
the Washington, DC, area, ``Our Nation is at war. As a result,
this is an exceptional tight fiscal year for which no
supplemental funding is anticipated.''
Consequently, within the local military health care
network, enrollment in TRICARE Prime for new enrollees is
restricted to active duty and active duty family members only.
New retirees and family members under age 65 may enroll only
with a civilian primary care manager.
In addition, certain special services within the network
are limited and beneficiaries may not have access to urology,
physical therapy, and optometry, and for certain the Fort
Belvoir ear, nose, and throat clinic because of its closure.
We are concerned that what is happening locally within the
Washington, DC, area will be duplicated across the country and
within all MTF and TRICARE networks.
And these actions go beyond just patient access. For
example, it affects the entire military medical department.
Doctors need to have access to patients with medical conditions
to practice and develop their skills. Without patient access
and skill development of doctors and teams required for
delivery of high quality general and specialized procedures,
there is a tremendous adverse effect on military medical
readiness. Especially affected are fields like cardio surgery,
urology, general surgery, ophthalmology, and internal medicine.
Our concerns are that urologists, general surgeons, and
other doctors will be reduced to treating routine situations on
an active duty only population within the United States, and if
this happens, how can DOD interest military doctors in
remaining on active duty?
Most retirees and their family members under the age of 65
joined TRICARE Prime to continue care in the military system.
Forcing them out of the military care denies them the care they
want and the military doctors the full range of patients they
need for their training and skills.
Many in military medicine have been concerned for years
about the eroding patient base. Closing TRICARE Prime to
retirees and their family members on base accelerates the
erosion of the referral base to military medical centers where
most of the specialized training takes place.
Funding shortfalls that cause MTF commanders to cut off
retirees from direct military medical care and that force them
to seek care in the civilian sector has the potential of
harming the military medical departments.
Mr. Chairman, the overall goal of the National Association
of Uniformed Services (NAUS) is a strong national defense. We
believe that comprehensive, lifelong medical care for all
uniformed services beneficiaries, regardless of age, status, or
location, furthers this goal. As evidenced by the recent
changes in the military health care system locally, none of
these goals can be achieved without adequate funding and
without the people to work on, the skills that are so important
to our military doctors could diminish.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[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.
Position: We urge the committee to provide funding for the annuity
increase as described in S. 1916, 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, 2004,
one year beyond the 30th anniversary of the program. Enrollees who have
reached the age of 70 and have paid their SBP premiums for more than 30
years (360 payments) are already being penalized.
Position: We ask that you provide funding to allow those early
enrollees to be allowed this relief as described in S. 2177.
Survivor Benefits Program/Dependency and Indemnity Compensation Offset
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.
Position: The National Association for Uniformed Services strongly
urges funding for S. 585.
MILITARY EXCHANGES AND COMMISSARIES
Issue One.--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.
Examples of this include a recent proposal studied by DOD to implement
a policy of variable pricing at military commissaries that would
actually reduce the savings to the military customer. While the
variable pricing study requested by DOD does not seem to offer a
favorable recommendation, we are concerned that additional bad ideas
like this will be generated in the future that will ultimately hurt the
benefit.
NAUS understands 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.
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. 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 Two.--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.
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.
A recent action in the Washington, DC area illustrates the impact
that funding can have on the health care benefit. According to a
document from a MTF commander in the Washington, DC area, which may
duplicate similar notices issues by other MTF commanders around the
country, ``Our nation is at War. As a result, this is an exceptional
tight fiscal year for which no supplemental funding is anticipated.''
Consequently, within the Fort Belvoir Health Care Network, which is
a part of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center network, enrollment in
TRICARE Prime for new enrollees is restricted to Active Duty (AD) and
Active Duty Family Members (ADFM) only. New retirees and family
members, under age 65, may enroll only with a civilian primary care
manager. Furthermore, enrollment in TRICARE Plus (for retirees/family
members over 65) is no longer available to new enrollees, or the Prime
enrollees aging into Medicare.
In addition, certain special services within the network are
limited and beneficiaries may not have access to Urology, Physical
Therapy, and Optometry; and, for certain the Fort Belvoir Ear Nose and
Throat clinic because of its closure.
We are concerned that what is happening locally within the
Washington, DC area will be duplicated across the country and within
all MTF and TRICARE Networks.
And, these actions go beyond just patient access. For example it
affects the entire military medical department. For example, doctors
need to have access to patients with medical conditions to practice and
develop their skills. Without patient access and skill development of
doctors and teams required for delivery of high quality general and
specialized procedures--there is a tremendous adverse affect on
military medical readiness. Especially affected are fields like
cardiothoracic surgery, urology, general surgery, ophthalmology and
internal medicine. Does the military have no further need for doctors
treating Ear, Nose and Throat problems?
Other concerns are:
--How will the remnants of the military medical departments be able
to take care of troops involved in the various theaters of
operations that are or will be involved in fighting the War on
Terror?
--Will urologist/general surgeons be reduced to treating routine
situations on an active duty only population within the United
States?
--If so, how can DOD interest them in remaining on active duty? Most
retirees and their family members under the age of 65 join
TRICARE-Prime to continue care in the military system. Forcing
them out of military care denies them the care they want and
doctors the full range of patients they need for their training
and skills.
--What about the retired Medical Corps officers that were lured to
return as civilian doctors to staff MTFs?
Many in military medicine have been concerned for years about the
eroding patient base. Closing TRICARE-Prime to retirees and their
family members at the base level accelerates the erosion of the
referral base to military medical centers where most of the specialized
training takes place.
Funding shortfalls that are more than likely a reaction to a mid-
term budget review and other DOD imposed restrictions that causes MTF
commanders to cut off retirees from direct military medical care and
that forces them to seek care in the civilian sector has the potential
of harming the military medical departments.
We are also concerned about staffing MTFs with ``temporary'' hire
physicians. After witnessing an ever changing medical program that has
no job security, what kind of physician can be found to work in such an
environment? Would they be the ones at the end of their careers that
are anxious to leave at the first sign of trouble or a better job?
Additional questions also arise concerning the time, money, and effort
was used to secure contract physicians in the first place.
Not all retirees are old. Many are retiring at the 20-year point
between the ages of 37-42. Others, many who are now patients at our
military medical centers are being treated for wounds received in Iraq
and other places, and will be placed on the retired list while they are
in their very early 20's or 30s. What reaction can we expect from these
wounded troops after being told that if they stay in the military or
are medically retired will be persona non grata in the direct care
system at age 65?
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. As evidenced by the recent changes in the military health
care system locally none of these goals can be achieved without
adequate funding, and without the people to work on, the skills that
are so important to our military doctors could diminish.
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 a recent 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.
Permanent ID Card for Dependents Age 65 and Over
One of the issues stressed by NAUS is the need for permanent ID
cards for dependents age 65 and over. With the start of TRICARE for
Life, expiration of TFL-eligible spouses' and survivors' military
identification cards, and the threatened denial of health care claims,
causes some of our older members and their caregivers' significant
administrative and financial distress.
Formerly, many of them who lived miles from a military installation
or who lived in nursing homes and assisted living facilities just did
not bother to renew their ID card at the four-year expiration date.
Before the enactment of TFL, they had little to lose by doing so. But
now, ID card expiration cuts off their new and all-important health
care coverage.
A four-year expiration date is reasonable for younger family
members and survivors who have a higher incidence of divorce and
remarriage, but it imposes significant hardship and injustice to the
more elderly dependents and survivors.
NAUS is concerned that many elderly spouses and survivors with
limited mobility find it difficult or impossible to renew their
military identification cards. A number of seniors are incapacitated
living in residential facilities, some cannot drive, and many more do
not live within a reasonable distance of a military facility. Often the
threat of loss of coverage is forcing elderly spouses and survivors to
try to drive long distances to get their cards renewed. Renewal by mail
can be confusing and very difficult for beneficiaries or their
caregivers. The bottom line is that those who cannot handle the
daunting administrative requirements to renew their ID card every four
years potentially face a significant penalty.
Position: NAUS urges that the Subcommittee direct the Secretary of
Defense to authorize issuance of permanent military identification
cards to uniformed services family members and survivors who are age 65
and older, with appropriate guidelines for notification and surrender
of the ID card in those cases where eligibility is ended by divorce or
remarriage.
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. Well, I certainly wish we had the funding.
We might be able to meet some of these requests today. But I do
think you have got a point.
Do you know the cost of using the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program (FEHBP) in lieu of the TRICARE option?
Mr. Butler. We have that information available. I will
provide it for the record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. I would like to see that.
Also, have you requested the military ID cards before? I
think that is a very valid idea. They should have them anyway
to have access to military facilities if they want to seek
medical care at such a facility when they are traveling. Have
you asked for that before?
Mr. Butler. Asked for military identification (ID) cards?
Senator Stevens. Yes, for uniformed service family members
and survivors who are 65 and older. Have you asked for that
before?
Mr. Butler. Yes, we have. We have presented that in
testimony before with the over 65 that have a hard time getting
their ID cards renewed. We believe when they turn 65, that it
should be indefinite at that time.
Senator Stevens. We would support that. I am not sure we
can do it or whether it should go to the Armed Services
Committee, but it is a good suggestion.
Senator.
Senator Inouye. No questions.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Enjoyed your
testimony.
Our next witness is Harry Armen, President-elect, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers.
STATEMENT OF HARRY ARMEN, PRESIDENT-ELECT, AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
Mr. Armen. Good morning. My name is Harry Armen. I am
President of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, a
120,000 member engineering society founded in 1880. I have 39
years of experience in the defense aerospace industry.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before your
subcommittee to present our views on the importance of science,
engineering, and technology programs sponsored by the DOD,
programs that are critically important to fundamental
scientific advances and to the next generation of highly
skilled scientists and engineers. I want to specifically thank
this subcommittee and you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Senator
Inouye, for the ongoing support that you have shown for the DOD
science and technology programs.
The stated goal of the administration and Congress is to
maintain defense S&T funding at 3 percent of the defense
budget. This would require $12.1 billion for fiscal year 2005.
We urge you to support this level of funding to enhance both
the security and the economic vitality of the Nation.
While we appreciate your continued support for the overall
program, we remain very concerned about the growing level of
investments in near-term applied R&D at the expense of long-
term investments in basic research. We urge you to reverse the
declining percentage of funding that supports basic research
within the S&T portfolio.
In the early 1980's basic research was 20 percent of that
portfolio. That level has declined to less than 12 percent. We
strongly urge this subcommittee to support basic research that
will lead to the next generation of advances in defense
technology and ultimately to fielded systems. Here is why.
Reductions in the basic research budget will have adverse
consequences on the development of the science and engineering
workforce. DOD basic research and graduate education programs
are tightly linked. The failure to invest now to sustain these
programs will reduce the number and quality of students who
become engineers and scientists in the future. I cannot impress
upon you enough that this is an urgent situation, one that
keeps me and should keep the members of the subcommittee awake
at night. We are simply not attracting the best and brightest
of our young students to enter the field of defense R&D.
Furthermore, unlike in the past, engineering students from
abroad are not planning to remain in the United States after
graduation, but are instead planning to return to their home
countries to explore opportunities there. While the commercial
industry is able to utilize talent from abroad, the defense
industry cannot.
A recent RAND study concluded that two-thirds of all
Federal R&D funding that went to institutes of higher learning
in 2002 was provided by the Department of Health and Human
Services. Most of that went to life sciences. In sharp
contrast, the DOD provided 7 percent. Our students followed the
dollars.
We have an opportunity now to reverse the situation by
attracting the best and the brightest young minds to consider a
career in defense R&D. I urge the members of the subcommittee
to continue your support to strengthen DOD science,
engineering, and technology programs. It will require your
continued commitment and attention to defense R&D to ensure
that our best engineering and scientific minds are once again
willing to apply their talents to meeting the future defense
needs of this Nation.
I thank you for the opportunity to offer our views.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harry Armen
The ASME DOD Task Force of the Inter-Council Committee on Federal
Research and Development (ICCFRD) is pleased to provide this testimony
on the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and the
Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) programs within the fiscal
year 2005 budget request for the Department of Defense. We appreciate
the opportunity to provide input on these areas that are critical to
the national security and economic vitality of the United States.
Introduction
ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide engineering Society serving a
membership of 120,000. It conducts one of the world's largest technical
publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical conferences and 200
professional development courses each year, and sets many industrial
and manufacturing standards. The work of the Society is performed by
its member-elected Board of Governors through five Councils, 44 Boards,
and hundreds of Committees operating in 13 regions throughout the
world.
ASME's DOD Task Force (herein referred to as ``the task force'') is
comprised of university and industry members who contribute their
engineering and policy expertise to review the DOD budget and
legislative requests. The Task Force believes it is uniquely qualified
to evaluate budget and policy issues in the area of DOD's science,
engineering and technology development programs. This analysis is
provided as a public service and we are proud to contribute to a better
public policy-making process.
DOD Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Accounts
The Administration requested $68.9 billion for the Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) portion of the fiscal year
2005 DOD budget. These resources are used mostly for developing,
demonstrating, and testing weapon systems, such as fighter aircraft and
warships. This amount represents growth from last year's appropriated
amount of about 6 percent, and is historically the highest funding
level for overall engineering activities, even when adjusted for
inflation. Therefore, even with new requirements generated from the
transformational military, missile defense, and the war on terrorism,
this funding level appears to be sufficient to develop, demonstrate,
and bring military systems to the production phase that will be
required in the near future. Hence, the Task Force supports the overall
funding request for RDT&E.
DOD Science, Engineering and Technology Accounts
A relatively small fraction of the total RDT&E budget is allocated
for the core Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) programs.
Specifically, the Administration's proposed SET request is $10.55
billion, 15 percent of the RDT&E total, and 15 percent lower than the
fiscal year 2004 appropriated level of $12.5 billion. The Task Force is
very concerned with the proposed significant reductions in the SET
accounts, particularly in the areas of basic research and in programs
that fund advanced science, mathematics, and engineering education.
There are three (3) components to the SET budget: basic research
(6.1), applied research (6.2), and advanced technology development
(6.3). The Administration's request in all three of these areas is less
than present funding levels.
The request for basic research (6.1) is $1.3 billion, 5 percent
lower than the fiscal year 2004 appropriated amount of $1.4 billion.
Basic research is less than 12 percent of the SET budget, and less than
2 percent of the RTD&E total, and yet the programs supported by this
account are critically important to fundamental scientific advances and
to the next generation of highly skilled scientists and engineers.
Almost all of the current high-technology weapon systems, from laser-
guided, precision weapons, to the global positioning satellite (GPS)
system, have their origin in fundamental discoveries generated by these
defense-oriented, basic research programs. Proper investments in basic
research are needed now, so that the fundamental scientific results
will be available to create innovative solutions to future defense
needs of this country. Over the last 40 years, more than half of all
mechanical and electrical engineering graduate students have been
funded under these DOD basic research programs. Many of the technical
leaders in corporations and government laboratories which are
developing current weapon systems, such as the F-22 and the Joint
Strike Fighter, were educated by fellowships and/or research programs
funded by DOD basic research programs. Failure to invest sufficient
resources in basic, defense-oriented research could reduce innovation
and weaken the future S&E workforce.
The request for applied research (6.2) is $3.9 billion, 14 percent
below the fiscal year 2004 funding level of $4.4 billion. The programs
supported by this account are generally intended to take basic
scientific knowledge, perhaps phenomena discovered under the basic
research programs, and apply them to important defense needs. These
programs may involve laboratory proof-of-concept and are generally
conducted at universities and government laboratories. Some devices
created in these defense technology programs have duel use, such as
GPS, and the commercial market far exceeds the defense market. Many
small companies that fuel job growth in many states obtained their
start in defense programs, but later broaden their market. However,
without initial support many of these companies would not exist.
Failure to properly invest in applied research would prevent many ideas
for devices from being tested in the laboratory, and would stunt the
creation and growth of small entrepreneurial companies.
The request for advanced technology development (6.3) is $5.3
billion, 17 percent lower than the present funding level of $6.3
billion. These resources support programs that develop technology to
the point that they are ready to be used in weapon systems. Generally
without real system-level demonstrations, which are funded by these
accounts, companies are reluctant to incorporate new devices into
system development programs.
The Congress in general, and this subcommittee specifically, has
acted in recent years to increase funding in the DOD SET accounts, and
we thank you for your support. The oft-stated goal of both the
Administration and Congress is to maintain defense SET funding at 3
percent of the overall defense budget. This would require $12.1 billion
for the SET accounts for fiscal year 2005, which is an increase of
approximately $1.6 billion above the Administration's request. We
recommend you support this level of funding to maintain stable funding
in the SET portion of the DOD budget. This level of funding will
enhance the long-term security and economic vitality of our country.
We further recommend that the Administration and Congress undertake
a five-year program to reverse the declining percentage of funding
within the SET portfolio that supports basic research. This is
precisely the type of work that yielded discoveries used today in
weapons systems, platforms and protective gear successfully fielded to
save lives. In the early 1980s, basic research accounted for nearly 20
percent of SET funding. This level has declined to less than 12 percent
of the SET budget and less than 2 percent of the overall RDT&E budget.
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.
Science and Engineering (S&E) Workforce
The DOD supports 37 percent of all federal research in the computer
sciences and 44 percent of all engineering research, as well as
significant shares of research in mathematics and oceanography. DOD's
impact is even greater in several engineering sub-disciplines such as
electrical engineering and mechanical engineering. DOD funds research
in these disciplines for their contributions to national defense, but
this research is also a key source for major innovations in the
civilian economy. Through their research, engineers and scientists 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.
A December 2003 National Science Board report titled ``The Science
and Engineering Workforce: Realizing America's Potential'' stated, ``.
. . demographics data indicate that participation of U.S. students in
science and engineering will decline if historical trends continue in
S&E degree attainment by our college-age population. At the same time,
retirements of scientists and engineers currently in the workforce will
accelerate over the coming years.''
Reductions in the SET budgets have potential adverse consequences
on the development of the S&E workforce. DOD basic research and
graduate education programs are tightly linked by design. The failure
to invest now to sustain these programs will reduce the number and
quality of engineers and scientists in the future. Many of the highly
trained and competent people that emerge from these research programs
contribute directly to the design and development of defense systems.
Still others, who receive advanced technical educations as a result of
these programs, but who do not work directly in the defense industry,
make contributions to national security by enhancing America's economy.
There is also a growing and alarming trend in many industries to
outsource engineering and other highly-skilled service activities to
foreign workers. In the past outsourcing was largely driven by cost
considerations and was limited to low-cost, low-skilled workers.
However, there is an emerging trend to outsource highly skilled
engineering workforce products such as software and systems design and
integration. It is not clear that a U.S. based defense contractor,
relying heavily on engineers and scientists in other countries,
represents a domestic capability. Domestic content legislation for
defense procurement makes little or no sense if the engineers that
design the systems ultimately reside outside the United States.
The Task Force believes that protectionist measures will not be
able to serve the long-term policy objective of having the capability
to design, develop, and manufacture defense systems within the United
States. In order to assure this capability, sufficient manpower,
particularly those with the critical skills needed for creating
advanced defense systems, needs to be available in sufficient numbers
in the United States. Therefore, prudent investments in programs that
create a robust, domestic supply of engineers and scientist with
masters and doctoral level educations is in the national interest.
As the Administration and Congress respond to and prepare for
terrorism, increasing funding for DOD's SET Programs is vital. These
programs protect the stability of the Nation's defense base, strive to
maintain technological superiority in our future weapons systems, and
educate new generations of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and
skilled technicians who maintain our position as the world's
technological leader.
Conclusion
In Summary, the Task Force supports the overall RDT&E request of
$68.9 billion, but urges the subcommittee to increase the science,
engineering and technology (SET) component accounts by $1.6 billion to
$12.1 billion. The proposed 15 percent reduction in science,
engineering and technology funding would stifle innovation needed for
future defense systems and have a detrimental impact on the production
of scientists and engineers, with advanced technical degrees, required
to develop military systems in the years to come. In addition, we
recommend that the Administration and Congress undertake a five-year
program to reverse the declining percentage of funding within the SET
portfolio that supports basic research.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. Your
organization did visit us, and we had some conversations about
mechanical engineering dropping behind in terms of investment
for R&D.
Are you into nanotechnology at all in terms of your
applications in the military field?
Mr. Armen. We are starting to, yes, sir. Yes, we are with
new material systems and new coatings. Yes.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. No questions.
Senator Stevens. You have a point and I think we should
look closely at that because it is true that the foreign
students we are assisting in their education are not staying
with us, but they are not basically in your field either. So I
think we should do our best to attract more people into this
type of research for the military.
Mr. Armen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Our next witness is Seth Allan Benge of the National
Military Veterans Alliance. Good morning, sir.
STATEMENT OF SETH ALLAN BENGE, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
RESERVE ENLISTED ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF
THE NATIONAL MILITARY VETERANS ALLIANCE
Mr. Benge. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
Senator Inouye, as Legislative Director for the Reserve
Enlisted Association, it is an honor for me to testify on
behalf of the National Military and Veterans Alliance. The
alliance is an umbrella group made up of 29 military retiree
veterans and survivor associations with almost 5 million
members.
Our concerns are many, but our time is brief, so I will
discuss a few issues that deal directly with our Nation's
Reserve forces. There are some subjects that we believe will
need to be addressed and will require funding from this
committee.
During testimony before this committee, the Reserve chiefs
have recognized the Montgomery GI Bill for selected Reserves as
an important recruiting and retention tool, but the GI bill for
reservists has not kept pace with the ever-rising costs of
education. In 1985, when this education assistance was first
legislated, it was 47 percent of the active duty benefit. Today
that percentage is down to only 27 percent. Eventually this
lagging will have a dampening effect on its usefulness. It is
important that we begin to correct this problem by starting to
incrementally raise the monthly rates. The alliance requests
appropriations funding to raise the monthly payment of the
title 10 Montgomery GI Bill and lock that rate at 50 percent of
the chapter 30 benefit.
Another effective tool to keep quality men and women in our
Reserve forces are bonuses. Here also the Reserve program has
fallen behind. The law creates a limit on the amount that can
be paid out to members of the Reserves. Currently this cap is
set at $5,000 per reservist. This amount, in some cases, simply
is not enough. These bonuses are used to keep men and women in
mission-critical military occupational specialties that are
experiencing falling numbers or are difficult to fill. The
operational tempo, financial stress, and civilian competition
for these jobs makes bonuses a necessary program for the
Department of Defense to fill essential programs.
Another point for consideration is that Guard and Reserve
members are not eligible for Reserve bonuses while mobilized,
but neither are they eligible for active duty bonuses. This
catch-22 means that reservists are denied the opportunity to
receive bonuses tax-free like their active duty brother. This
would help offset losses in pay. The alliance would like to see
the Reserve chiefs receive the funds and the authority to award
bonuses above the $5,000 limit and we support extending the
bonus authority to Reserve component members who have 14 to 20
years in service.
The National Military 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 these points when finalizing your appropriation
bills this year. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
your attention.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Seth Allan Benge
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 Retirees Association;
American WWII Orphans Network; AMVETS; Association of Old Crows;
Catholic War Veterans; Class Act Group; Gold Star Wives of America;
Korean War Veterans Foundation; Legion of Valor (Washington Capital
Region); Military Order of the Purple Heart; Military Order of the
World Wars; National Assn for Uniformed Services; National Gulf War
Resource Center; Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; Naval Reserve
Association; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Reserve Enlisted
Association; Reserve Officers Association; Society of Military Widows;
The Retired Enlisted Association; TREA Senior Citizen League; Tragedy
Assistance Program for Survivors; Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees;
Veterans of Foreign Wars; Vietnam Veterans of America; and Women in
Search of Equity.
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.
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 benefits of the Reserve components and their
families. The improvements in health care, pay system, family support,
mobilization and demobilization problems have been historic. It has
been a very successful few years. But there are still many serious
problems to be addressed:
MGIB-SR ENHANCEMENTS
The current Montgomery G.I. Bill dates back to President Franklin
Roosevelt signing the ``Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944''. The
G.I. Bill seeks to fulfill six purposes for the reserve forces: (1) to
provide educational assistance program to assist in the readjustment of
members of the Armed Forces to civilian life; (2) to extend the
benefits of a higher education to qualifying men and women who might
not otherwise be able to afford such an education; (3) to provide for
vocational readjustment and to restore lost educational opportunities
to those service men and women; (4) to promote and assist the All-
Volunteer Force program and the Total Force Concept of the Armed Forces
and to aid in the recruitment and retention of highly qualified
personnel for both the active and reserve components of the Armed
Forces; (5) to give special emphasis to providing educational
assistance benefits to aid in the retention of personnel in the Armed
Forces; and (6) to enhance our Nation's competitiveness through the
development of a more highly educated and productive work force.
Approximately 7.8 percent of the enlisted Reservists have a
Bachelors degree or higher. This makes the Montgomery G.I. Bill for
Selective Reserves (MGIB-SR) an important recruiting and retention
tool. With massive troop rotations the Reserve forces can expect to
have retention shortfalls, unless the government provides incentives
such as those that would counter the negative effects of having placed
a college education in abeyance. Education is not only a quality of
life issue or a recruiting/retention issue it is also a readiness
issue. Education a Reservist receives while either in a university or a
trade school enhances their careers and usefulness to the military. The
ever-growing complexity of weapons systems and support equipment
requires a force with far higher education and aptitude than in
previous years.
The problem with the current MGIB-SR is that the Selected 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 past October 1, the rate fell to 27 percent of the
Chapter 30 benefits. While the allowance has inched up by only 7
percent since its inception, the cost of education has climbed
significantly.
Position: The NMVA requests appropriations funding to raise the
MGIB-SR and lock the rate at 50 percent of the active duty benefit.
BONUSES
Guard and Reserve component members may be eligible for one of
three bonuses, Prior Enlistment Bonus, Reenlistment Bonus and Reserve
Affiliation Bonuses for Prior Service Personnel. These bonuses are used
to keep men and woman in mission critical military occupational
specialties (MOS) that are experiencing falling numbers or are
difficult to fill. During their testimony before this committee the
reserve chiefs addressed the positive impact that bonuses have upon
retention. This point cannot be understated. The operation tempo,
financial stress and civilian competition for these jobs makes bonuses
a necessary tool for the Department of Defense to fill essential
positions. Though the current bonus program is useful there are three
changes that we have identified that need to be made to increase its
effectiveness.
The primary requirement for eligibility and payment of a bonus upon
reenlistment is that the member must have completed less than 14 years
of total military service and not be paid more than one six-year bonus
or two three-year bonuses under this section. This 14-year total
military service restriction and the limitation on the number of
bonuses paid, effectively limits the opportunities for career
reservists to obtain bonuses past 20 years of service and may be a
disincentive for continuing service in the Reserve component beyond 20
years. Increasing the eligibility for reenlistment bonuses to 20 years
of total military service and increasing the number of bonuses that can
be paid under this section could expand the available force pool, as
mid-level enlisted reserve members could take advantage of the new
bonus criteria. Using a 20 year service cutoff instead of a 14 year
period would encourage selected experienced mid-level subject matter
experts to reenlist to established high year of tenure or mandatory
separation dates; should members accept this incentive and reenlist, it
could boost each service's retention effort in critical skill areas. As
each Service uses members of the selected reserve in different
capacities, each Service Secretary may use this new authority as
required as a force management tool.
The law also creates a limit on the amount that can be paid out to
reservists. Currently this cap is at $5,000 per reservists. This amount
in some cases simply isn't enough. Active duty personnel can receive
multiple bonuses in amounts upwards of $20,000. The inequity between
these two amounts is increased even further when taken into
consideration that Guard and Reserve members are not eligible for
reserve bonuses while mobilized, but neither are they eligible for
active duty bonuses. This ``catch 22'' means that two members of the
Armed Forces, one active one reserve, could be working side-by-side in
Iraq in a mission critical area. The active duty personnel can reenlist
and receive a tax-free bonus while the reservist would receive no bonus
at all. This is a glaring wrong that needs to be corrected.
Position: The Alliance would like to see the Reserve Chiefs receive
the funds and the authority to go above the $5,000 limit, an increase
in eligibility from 14 to 20 years and the ability for reservists to
receive bonuses while on active duty orders.
TRICARE FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS
A 2002 General Accounting Office (GAO) report indicated that
possibly 20 percent of the Guard and Reserves do not have adequate
health insurance. This means up to 150,000 enlisted Reservists and
their families could be without health insurance. This has a
potentially devastating effect on the lives of our Reservists. Lack of
continuity of care during mobilization creates a disincentive for
reenlistment. In addition, all military members are expected to
maintain the same health and physical fitness as Active Duty yet they
are required to fund their own medical coverage. Beyond the quality of
life issues lays another grave concern. That is the readiness of our
Reserve Components. With such a large portion of the reserves without
healthcare and physicals that are only required once every five years
the number of Guard and Reserve that are unfit for deployment at any
given time is uncertain. At this moment the government is paying and
training servicemen and women that when called into action could not
go.
The fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act authorized
a one-year program to extend premium-based TRICARE coverage to Selected
Reserve members (and certain members of the Individual Ready Reserve
(IRR) subject to presidential recall) that are not eligible for
employer-sponsored health coverage. When it finally takes effect, the
temporary TRICARE program will provide health care to many of our Guard
and Reserves. The Department of Defense has announced that this program
will begin but has not set a start date. When it is finally implemented
DOD has only $400 billion to draw on to pay for the start-up and to
then cover eligible reservists and their families.
Position: The Alliance urges the Congress to provide the money to
make this current temporary program permanent and to extend it to allow
all Selected Reserve members and certain IRR members access to premium-
based TRICARE coverage when they are not on Active Duty. In addition,
these members should have the option of having the government pay some
share of any employer-provided health coverage during periods of recall
to active service.
BAH VS. BAH II
Under the current pay system there are two Basic Allowances for
Housing (BAH) rates, one for active duty and one for reservists that
are mobilized for 139 days or less. When reservists reach the 140-day
line they start to receive full BAH, reservists that are called for
training and other assignments that last less than this artificial
barrier lose money. The assumptions that were made when this system was
placed into effect in 1983 are no longer valid. Reservists often travel
away from home for assignments. Since some of these are short
assignments it is not practical for reservists to uproot their
families, consequently at times reservists are keeping two residences.
In the Department of Defense Report to Congress ``Reserve Personnel
Compensation Program Review'' the department stated that to completely
eliminate the 140-day threshold, it would cost $162 million annually.
This report acknowledges that as a matter of equity the 140-day
threshold should be eliminated. The department's suggestion to reduce
the threshold for payment of BAH, rather than BAH II, to no more than
30 days is a cost saving option, but it does not address the fact that
any time based standard for receiving the allowance is artificial in
nature and saves money at a cost to the individual servicemen and
woman.
Position: The NMVA requests that the funds and language be included
that would eliminate this artificial and unreasonable difference in the
BAH that reservists are paid.
REDUCE RETIREMENT AGE ELIGIBILITY FOR RESERVISTS
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.
Position: The National Military and Veterans Alliance 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.
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. 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. Thank you very much.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. How would you justify making TRICARE
permanent for reservists?
Mr. Benge. Sir, earlier it was pointed out that it would be
the same as for active duty, and that would be true, but for
reservists, the physical standards are also the same for active
duty. So I would justify it not only as a retention tool, as a
benefit, but also as a readiness issue to ensure that our
reservists are physically ready to be mobilized.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. To follow on that, how long would you do
that? You can stay in the Reserve until you are 60, can you
not?
Mr. Benge. Yes, sir. I would have to look at the numbers to
see what would be affordable. Ideally you would want it
indefinitely. Right now gray area retirees are not eligible for
TRICARE. They are not eligible until 65.
Senator Stevens. We can attest to the fact that as you get
older, you need more medical care.
Mr. Benge. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. But as you get older, you are not going to
be called up. So I think we would like to understand this. How
long do you think this should go on? Just think about it and
give us a statement, will you?
Mr. Benge. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Martin B. Foil, a member of the Board
of Directors of the National Brain Injury Research, Treatment,
& Training Foundation. Good morning, sir.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN B. FOIL, JR., MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, NATIONAL BRAIN INJURY RESEARCH,
TREATMENT, & TRAINING FOUNDATION (NBIRTT)
Mr. Foil. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, it is
good to be back. It is always a pleasure to come and testify on
behalf of the defense and veterans head injury program (DVHIP)
which provides state-of-the-art medical care and rehab to
active duty military personnel.
As of March 31, DVHIP has treated over 350 troops injured
in the global war on terrorism. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is
a leading combat concern in modern warfare. Previously
accounting for up to 25 percent of combat casualties, today we
think the incidence rate is between 40 and 70 percent.
It is higher for several reasons in hostilities. One, the
use of more effective body armor and improved trauma care has
saved more lives. The higher incidence of blast injuries,
increasing numbers of gunshot wounds to the face, and the
medical personnel are more aware of the significance of TBI and
are more likely to identify it.
Chairman Stevens, as you so eloquently stated on the Senate
floor last Wednesday, our combat medics regularly perform
miracles by providing lifesaving care during the critical
golden hour. The combat medics are performing miracles, but so
are the doctors and rehab specialist in the DVHIP.
As the front-page article in the Washington Post reported
last week, what most soldiers sustaining brain injury tell
their doctors is they want to go back to their unit. Sergeant
Colin Rich was shot in the head in Afghanistan in December
2002. He is one, who with the care of DVHIP, was able to do
just that. Within 1 year, he returned to active duty, including
a stint in Iraq. He spoke at the Brain Injury Awareness Day on
Capitol Hill last October, along with Warrant Officer John Sims
who sustained a closed head injury during the battle of
Baghdad. His Blackhawk helicopter was shot down, but while he
managed to get his men out before the crash, he went down with
the helicopter. In the days after Sims' injury, he was not
expected to live, and yet today he is getting his life back
little by little, having worked today with the Judge Advocate
General (JAG) Corps as part of the cognitive rehab program at
the Virginia NeuroCare (VANC), a core component of DVHIP.
While these are heroic stories, as you know, not everyone
can return to life as before. DVHIP staff are aware of the
danger of premature return to duty and how critical it is to
identify brain injuries when many other injuries like
amputations are so much more obvious.
That is why DVHIP this year is asking for $7 million to
continue treating and screening injured soldiers strategically
placing specialized clinicians in medical treatment facilities
throughout the Nation in order to provide the continuity of
care from battlefield to rehab back to active duty. This
funding is needed to continue training combat medics and
surgeons, general medical officers, and reservists in the best
practices of traumatic brain injury care. So I respectfully
request your support of the $7 million in the DOD
appropriations bill under health affairs for operation and
maintenance for fiscal year 2005.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Inouye. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Martin B. Foil, Jr.
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 (VANC).\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\ VANC 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 $7
million be added to the Department of Defense (DOD) Health Affairs
budget for fiscal year 2005 under Operation and Maintenance for the
Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program (DVHIP).
Traumatic brain injury is a leading combat concern in modern warfare.
Previously accounting for up to 25 percent of combat
casualties, today the incidence of TBI may be as high as 40-70
percent of casualties.
The incidence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is believed to be
greater now than in previous hostilities for a number of reasons: (1)
The use of effective body armor has saved more lives; (2) medical
personnel are more aware of the significance of mild closed TBIs and
concussions and are therefore more likely to identify them; and (3) the
incidence of blast injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan is high.
As a result, the current incidence of TBI sustained in theater is
expected to be higher than in previous conflicts. Major General Kevin
C. Kiley, Commanding General of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center
(WRAMC) and the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command said at the
October 2003 Congressional Brain Injury Task Force Awareness Fair on
Capitol Hill that as many as 40-70 percent of casualties have the
possibility of including TBI.\4\ The incidence of TBI was recently
discussed at a two day conference held by the DVHIP along with the
Joint Readiness Clinical Advisory Board on March 23-24, 2004, and
evidence was presented that 61 percent of at-risk soldiers seen at
WRAMC were assessed to have TBIs. While this does not reflect the
entire population of wounded in action, the high percentage suggests
that brain injury acquired in theater is an increasing problem that
needs to be addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Schlesinger, Robert, ``Brain Injuries Take Toll on U.S.
Soldiers,'' The Boston Globe, October 16, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 first 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. Clinical care and
research is currently undertaken at seven DOD and DVA sites and one
civilian treatment site.\5\ In addition to providing treatment,
rehabilitation and case management at each of the 8 primary DVHIP
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2004 \6\ more than 350 combat casualties from the
Global War on Terrorism have been served by DVHIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The attached article on the complexity of treating brain-
injured soldiers in Iraq, which appeared on the front page of The
Washington Post on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 notes that ``in April, 900
soldiers and Marines have been wounded in Iraq.'' The official number
of troops treated by DVHIP has only been calculated as of March 31,
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional support over the years has helped create the existing
DVHIP infrastructure that has been critical in evaluating and caring
for active duty personnel who are being injured in Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). 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 cared for and promptly discharged back to their
units. DVHIP is working with the appropriate military institutions to
ensure that these individuals will be actively followed to ensure they
receive specialized clinical care and follow-up as needed.
WRAMC and Bethesda Naval Hospital (for Marines) have been the main
destinations of injured personnel sent from Iraq and Afghanistan via
Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. According to data from
the Office of the Surgeon General, approximately 70 percent of those
wounded in action are sent to the general surgery or orthopedic surgery
services at the receiving medical center because of the most severe
injuries of the individual. Because the most common cause of wounded in
action is currently blast injury, DVHIP is working with the Command at
WRAMC to screen all of the incoming wounded who have been injured in
blast, falls or motor vehicle accident. An estimated 61 percent of
those screened at WRAMC were identified as having sustained a traumatic
brain injury.
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:
First Sgt. Colin Robert Rich, A Company, 1st Battalion 504th
Parachute Infantry Regiment, was shot in the head on December 28, 2002
while serving in Afghanistan. Rich received initial acute care at a
hospital in Germany within 15 hours of being shot and arrived at WRAMC
on January 4, 2002 where he was cared for by DVHIP staff before being
discharged home on January 16, 2002. Rich continues to receive follow
up care from DVHIP and spoke before Members of Congress at the October,
2003 Congressional Brain Injury Task Force Awareness Fair. Rich
returned to limited active duty in December of 2003.
Warrant Officer John Sims, U.S. Air pilot and member of the
Maryland Guard was piloting a Black Hawk helicopter in Iraq when his
helicopter went down, and he suffered brain injuries. His wife was
initially told he probably would not survive. After being admitted to
WRAMC, he was cared for at the Richmond VA hospital before being
transferred to Virginia Neurocare, DVHIP's civilian community reentry
treatment site. Although he has made remarkable recovery, his ability
to pilot a plane again is in doubt. Simms also spoke before Members of
Congress at the October 2003 Congressional Brain Injury Task Force
Awareness Fair.
PFC Alan Lewis was driving a Humvee in Baghdad on July 16, 2003 in
Iraq when an explosive device tore off his legs. Lewis was identified
as a potential TBI patient through DVHIP screening and was found to
have sustained a mild TBI. DVHIP clinical staff helped him cope with
memory problems and other neurobehavioral difficulties from his head
injury throughout the rehabilitation process. He has been an articulate
spokesperson for the dedication and resolve of our fighting force and
the potential for recovery after a serious injury.
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.
Improving Medical Care, Training and Diagnostics
Along with the Joint Readiness Clinical Advisory Board (JRCAB) at
Fort Detrick, DVHIP co-sponsored a first-of-its-kind conference
entitled ``Neurotrauma in Theater: Lessons Learned from Iraq and
Afghanistan.'' The conference brought together neurosurgeons,
neurologists, physician assistants, medic, nurses and general medical
officers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Expert opinion from every
branch of the armed forces was shared and debated. In addition to
helping address immediate needs and guide future research for the
safety of the Active Duty, the conference informed a specialty
neurotrauma panel with recommendations going to the Office of the
Surgeon General.
A recurring theme throughout the neurotrauma conference was the
need for training for management of closed head injury. 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. 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.
In anticipation of large numbers of troops returning home in July,
the DVHIP screening process has been developed into a manual in order
to assist physicians at military sites without a DVHIP component. A
DVHIP Web-based patient assessment was also developed for physicians at
distant sites who would like to incorporate this in their clinical
practice.
Another way that DVHIP is assisting military and VA providers in
treating individuals with TBI is by disseminating thousands of copies
of ``Heads Up: Brain Injury in Your Practice Tool Kit,'' a new
physician tool kit to improve clinical diagnosis and management of mild
TBI. The kit was developed by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in collaboration with DVHIP. This past year DVHIP also
teamed up with the Veterans Health Administration to produce an
independent TBI study program as part of the Veterans Health
Initiative. This program offers any military or VA physician Continuing
Medical Education credits for its completion. An online version ensures
that clinicians serving in theater can receive up-to-date training in
TBI care.
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 an archive of military neurotrauma cases and statistics
from military physicians who were deployed to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and
Iraq. These data are still being reviewed and complied into a single
archive that will be available for military use.
Developed 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. These records will
provide the basis for future efforts to follow these individuals to
understand better the longer term implications of these injuries.
Submitted a proposal to determine if an enhanced program of
telephonic nursing will improve the outcome of Active Duty with mild
brain injury. Establishing effectiveness of telephonic nursing will be
critical to treating individuals who are at distance from other care
providers, thus serving soldiers and saving taxpayer money.
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. This
study targets the symptoms of irritability, depression and anxiety
which many soldiers report after TBI.
Published a study on the recovery pattern from concussion from the
West Point boxing study in Neurosurgery (Bleiberg, et al, May, 2004),
an epidemiologic study on TBI in Fort Bragg paratroopers (Ivins et al,
Journal of Trauma, October 2003), and an invited editorial on the
effects of concussion (Warden, Neurology, May 11, 2004).
Developed a free standing website www.dvbic.org to provide
information for clinical providers, patients and family members.
Added TBI specific questions to WRAMC's Post-Deployment
Questionnaire which is administered to all soldiers who were recently
deployed and sent to WRAMC.
Additional funding is needed in fiscal year 2005 to address the
following needs:
Continue to provide clinical care of active duty personnel and
veterans:
--Expand clinical capacity to meet the need to care for an increasing
number of injured military personnel and veterans.
--Increase use of DVHIP resources by medical assets at other military
and veteran sites with large troop/vet concentrations, e.g., by
web-based initiatives, medical staff presentations by DVHIP
personnel, etc.
--Implement TBI outpatient clinics at DVHIP lead centers. As the
needs of the returning veterans after blast injury are expected
to be largely outpatient, the DVHIP will be prepared to meet
those needs.
--Ensure all necessary care has been received by military personnel
and veterans who have sustained brain injuries by using the
DVHIP Registry to identify individuals in need of additional
treatment and support.
Continue military and veteran specific education and training:
--Develop an algorithm for return to duty management to be used by
first responders in the military. These management guidelines
will be based on new data analysis from existing concussion
studies at West Point, Fort Bragg, and Camp Pendleton.
--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.
--Disseminate evidence-based guidelines on pharmacological management
of neurobehavioral consequences of brain injury.
--Expand the content and services of the DVHIP website. Future
website applications will include enhanced educational
materials and the capability to make referrals and gain access
to care.
Military and Veteran Relevant Clinical Research:
--Determine the incidence of brain injury from the most commonly
occurring blast injuries.
--Initiate a VA 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.
--Implement the feasibility study of 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.
--Extend outcomes research through the evaluation of long-term work
and duty status in DVHIP rehabilitation trial participants.
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.
DVHIP family support groups provide a great deal of assistance,
education, and information to families. For example, the family support
program at the Tampa VA also holds bi-annual reunions in which former
patients and families come from around the country.
Conclusion
There is no greater time than today to support injured personnel
sustaining brain injuries. There is nothing more patriotic than caring
for the men and women who serve our country and protect our interests.
Our men and women in uniform are sustaining brain injuries and need
brain injury specific care and state of the art treatment and
rehabilitation. The incidence of TBI is higher in theater than it has
ever been in history, and the numbers of injured personnel present a
challenge to the military medical system. DVHIP continues to be an
important part of the military health care system and needs additional
funding to continue its work.
Please support $7 million for the DVHIP in the fiscal year 2005
Defense Appropriations bill in the DOD Health Affairs budget under
Operation and Maintenance to continue this important program.
[From the Washington Post, April 27, 2004]
The Lasting Wounds of War
ROADSIDE BOMBS HAVE DEVASTATED TROOPS AND DOCTORS WHO TREAT THEM
(By Karl Vick)
BAGHDAD--The soldiers were lifted into the helicopters under a
moonless sky, their bandaged heads grossly swollen by trauma, their
forms silhouetted by the glow from the row of medical monitors laid out
across their bodies, from ankle to neck.
An orange screen atop the feet registered blood pressure and heart
rate. The blue screen at the knees announced the level of postoperative
pressure on the brain. On the stomach, a small gray readout recorded
the level of medicine pumping into the body. And the slender plastic
box atop the chest signaled that a respirator still breathed for the
lungs under it. At the door to the busiest hospital in Iraq, a wiry
doctor bent over the worst-looking case, an Army gunner with coarse
stitches holding his scalp together and a bolt protruding from the top
of his head. Lt. Col. Jeff Poffenbarger checked a number on the blue
screen, announced it dangerously high and quickly pushed a clear liquid
through a syringe into the gunner's bloodstream. The number fell like a
rock.
``We're just preparing for something a brain-injured person should
not do two days out, which is travel to Germany,'' the neurologist
said. He smiled grimly and started toward the UH-60 Black Hawk thwump-
thwumping out on the helipad, waiting to spirit out of Iraq one more of
the hundreds of Americans wounded here this month.
While attention remains riveted on the rising count of Americans
killed in action--more than 100 so far in April--doctors at the main
combat support hospital in Iraq are reeling from a stream of young
soldiers with wounds so devastating that they probably would have been
fatal in any previous war.
More and more in Iraq, combat surgeons say, the wounds involve
severe damage to the head and eyes--injuries that leave soldiers brain
damaged or blind, or both, and the doctors who see them first
struggling against despair.
For months the gravest wounds have been caused by roadside bombs--
improvised explosives that negate the protection of Kevlar helmets by
blowing shrapnel and dirt upward into the face. In addition, firefights
with guerrillas have surged recently, causing a sharp rise in gunshot
wounds to the only vital area not protected by body armor.
The neurosurgeons at the 31st Combat Support Hospital measure the
damage in the number of skulls they remove to get to the injured brain
inside, a procedure known as a craniotomy. ``We've done more in eight
weeks than the previous neurosurgery team did in eight months,''
Poffenbarger said. ``So there's been a change in the intensity level of
the war.''
Numbers tell part of the story. So far in April, more than 900
soldiers and Marines have been wounded in Iraq, more than twice the
number wounded in October, the previous high. With the tally still
climbing, this month's injuries account for about a quarter of the
3,864 U.S. servicemen and women listed as wounded in action since the
March 2003 invasion.
About half the wounded troops have suffered injuries light enough
that they were able to return to duty after treatment, according to the
Pentagon.
The others arrive on stretchers at the hospitals operated by the
31st CSH. ``These injuries,'' said Lt. Col. Stephen M. Smith, executive
officer of the Baghdad facility, ``are horrific.''
By design, the Baghdad hospital sees the worst. Unlike its sister
hospital on a sprawling air base located in Balad, north of the
capital, the staff of 300 in Baghdad includes the only ophthalmology
and neurology surgical teams in Iraq, so if a victim has damage to the
head, the medevac sets out for the facility here, located in the
heavily fortified coalition headquarters known as the Green Zone.
Once there, doctors scramble. A patient might remain in the combat
hospital for only six hours. The goal is lightning-swift, expert
treatment, followed as quickly as possible by transfer to the military
hospital in Landstuhl, Germany.
While waiting for what one senior officer wearily calls ``the
flippin' helicopters,'' the Baghdad medical staff studies photos of
wounds they used to see once or twice in a military campaign but now
treat every day. And they struggle with the implications of a system
that can move a wounded soldier from a booby-trapped roadside to an
operating room in less than an hour.
``We're saving more people than should be saved, probably,'' Lt.
Col. Robert Carroll said. ``We're saving severely injured people. Legs.
Eyes. Part of the brain.''
Carroll, an eye surgeon from Waynesville, Mo., sat at his desk
during a rare slow night last Wednesday and called up a digital photo
on his laptop computer. The image was of a brain opened for surgery
earlier that day, the skull neatly lifted away, most of the organ
healthy and pink. But a thumb-sized section behind the ear was gray.
``See all that dark stuff? That's dead brain,'' he said. ``That ain't
gonna regenerate. And that's not uncommon. That's really not uncommon.
We do craniotomies on average, lately, of one a day.''
``We can save you,'' the surgeon said. ``You might not be what you
were.''
Accurate statistics are not yet available on recovery from this new
round of battlefield brain injuries, an obstacle that frustrates combat
surgeons. But judging by medical literature and surgeons' experience
with their own patients, ``three or four months from now 50 to 60
percent will be functional and doing things,'' said Maj. Richard
Gullick. ``Functional,'' he said, means ``up and around, but with
pretty significant disabilities,'' including paralysis.
The remaining 40 percent to 50 percent of patients include those
whom the surgeons send to Europe, and on to the United States, with no
prospect of regaining consciousness. The practice, subject to review
after gathering feedback from families, assumes that loved ones will
find value in holding the soldier's hand before confronting the
decision to remove life support.
``I'm actually glad I'm here and not at home, tending to all the
social issues with all these broken soldiers,'' Carroll said.
But the toll on the combat medical staff is itself acute, and
unrelenting.
In a comprehensive Army survey of troop morale across Iraq, taken
in September, the unit with the lowest spirits was the one that ran the
combat hospitals until the 31st arrived in late January. The three
months since then have been substantially more intense. ``We've all
reached our saturation for drama trauma,'' said Maj. Greg Kidwell, head
nurse in the emergency room.
On April 4, the hospital received 36 wounded in four hours. A U.S.
patrol in Baghdad's Sadr City slum was ambushed at dusk, and the battle
for the Shiite Muslim neighborhood lasted most of the night. The event
qualified as a ``mass casualty,'' defined as more casualties than can
be accommodated by the 10 trauma beds in the emergency room.
``I'd never really seen a `mass cal' before April 4,'' said Lt.
Col. John Xenos, an orthopedic surgeon from Fairfax. ``And it just kept
coming and coming. I think that week we had three or four mass cals.''
The ambush heralded a wave of attacks by a Shiite militia across
southern Iraq. The next morning, another front erupted when Marines
cordoned off Fallujah, a restive, largely Sunni city west of Baghdad.
The engagements there led to record casualties.
``Intellectually, you tell yourself you're prepared,'' said
Gullick, from San Antonio. ``You do the reading. You study the slides.
But being here . . .'' His voice trailed off. ``It's just the sheer
volume.''
In part, the surge in casualties reflects more frequent firefights
after a year in which roadside bombings made up the bulk of attacks on
U.S. forces. At the same time, insurgents began planting improvised
explosive devices (IEDs) in what one officer called ``ridiculous
numbers.''
The improvised bombs are extraordinarily destructive. Typically
fashioned from artillery shells, they may be packed with such debris as
broken glass, nails, sometimes even gravel. They're detonated by remote
control as a Humvee or truck passes by, and they explode upward. To
protect against the blasts, the U.S. military has wrapped many of its
vehicles in armor. When Xenos, the orthopedist, treats limbs shredded
by an IED blast, it is usually ``an elbow stuck out of a window, or an
arm.''
Troops wear armor as well, providing protection that Gullick called
``orders of magnitude from what we've had before. But it just shifts
the injury pattern from a lot of abdominal injuries to extremity and
head and face wounds.''
The Army gunner whom Poffenbarger was preparing for the flight to
Germany had his skull pierced by four 155 mm shells, rigged to detonate
one after another in what soldiers call a ``daisy chain.'' The shrapnel
took a fortunate route through his brain, however, and ``when all is
said and done, he should be independent. . . . He'll have speech,
cognition, vision.''
On a nearby stretcher, Staff Sgt. Rene Fernandez struggled to see
from eyes bruised nearly shut. ``We were clearing the area and an IED
went off,'' he said, describing an incident outside the western city of
Ramadi where his unit was patrolling on foot.
The Houston native counted himself lucky, escaping with a
concussion and the temporary damage to his open, friendly face. Waiting
for his own hop to the hospital plane headed north, he said what most
soldiers tell surgeons: What he most wanted was to return to his unit.
Senator Stevens. Tell us a little bit about this foundation
of yours, will you please, Mr. Foil? I noticed you are located
in Charlottesville.
Mr. Foil. Yes. Are you talking about Virginia NeuroCare or
the NBIRTT?
Senator Stevens. NBIRTT.
Mr. Foil. It is a program that Dr. Zitney and I and several
other interested people set up a number of years ago really to
work with people in brain injury around the country, focused
primarily on two issues. One is a better quality of life and a
search for a cure. So we look at both ends of the spectrum: one
over here taking care of the person who has had traumatic brain
injury and helping them to a quality of life that we all aspire
to; and over here, in research looking for a way to cure the
problem.
Senator Stevens. Where are you located?
Mr. Foil. I live in Concord, North Carolina, sir.
Senator Stevens. Where is this foundation located?
Mr. Foil. Well, to be honest with you, where we hang up our
hat.
Senator Stevens. Where you are.
Mr. Foil. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. What about this VANC which you tell us is
in Charlottesville. What is your relationship to that?
Mr. Foil. That is Virginia NeuroCare. That is a facility
run primarily for people with brain injury in Charlottesville
and that is run by Dr. Zitney. I have nothing to do with that.
Senator Stevens. Do you do anything with military people?
Mr. Foil. Oh, absolutely. These people we referred to here
in the book, both of those were at Virginia NeuroCare. The one
who was shot in the head has been returned to active duty. He
is now in North Carolina. And the helicopter pilot is still
there working with the JAG Corps to rehabilitate himself fully
to go back to active duty.
I do not know how many we have got there, but there is a
number. He has got about 10 or 15 patients from the military.
We have a lot more opportunities to take people than we have
got the ability to handle them.
Senator Stevens. Well, that is what Senator Inouye and I
worry about. The demand is up.
Mr. Foil. The demand is very high and the facilities are
very low. I myself, Senator, am building a facility in North
Carolina where we hope to take soldiers as soon as it is
completed, and we hope to have it open by the summer of next
year.
Senator Stevens. Is there a national group behind you?
Mr. Foil. We are trying to take it national, but we do not
have the money to do it yet. It is all not-for-profit. We do
not ask the Government for money. This is just on our own. I
put $5 million of my own money in this.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. We are very
concerned about the area you are in.
Mr. Foil. You have every right to be concerned.
Senator Stevens. The two of us would like to meet with some
of your people soon to see what we might do to help you expand
the availability of this care throughout our country.
Mr. Foil. We appreciate that. We would like to do that. We
have been asked to put a place in Fayetteville. We have been
asked to put a place in Norfolk, Virginia. I think there are
opportunities all over this country to do that and we are
successful, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Well, there is no question about it. Forty
to seventy percent casualties you indicate.
Mr. Foil. Yes, sir, and I think it is closer to 70 percent
than it is to 40 percent.
Senator Stevens. But that is a national thing, and with due
respect, people from Alaska cannot quite make it down your way.
Mr. Foil. We would be happy to put one in Alaska, Senator.
Senator Stevens. We want to see what we can do to get----
Mr. Foil. We would love to have one in Hawaii as well.
Senator Stevens. So why do you not come meet with Senator
Inouye and me and let us see what we can do to help you.
Mr. Foil. Yes, sir. I will be glad to set that up and we
will be back in touch with you. Thank you for your attention.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
presence.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. No questions.
Senator Stevens. The next witness is James Bramson,
Executive Director of the American Dental Association. Good
morning, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF JAMES B. BRAMSON, D.D.S., EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION
Dr. Bramson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye.
I am Dr. Jim Bramson, the Executive Director of the American
Dental Association (ADA). Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today about dental programs that directly relate to the
dental readiness of our servicemen and women.
During World War II, more than 20 percent of the 2 million
selectees did not meet dental requirements. In fact, this was
the number one reason for rejection. Dental disease today
continues to have an impact on military personnel. A 2002 DOD
report stated that 34 percent of military personnel on active
duty required dental care prior to deployment. Army Chief of
Staff General Peter Schoomaker testifying last year stated that
there were ``real problems in dental readiness,'' and he
discussed the rotation of troops and the activation of Army
Guard and Reserve personnel. Having enough dentists to treat
active duty personnel is vital to keeping soldiers healthy and
ready.
An abscessed tooth clearly is one of mankind's most painful
experiences, but for military personnel in a combat zone or on
a fighter plane or in a submarine, an oral infection can only
compromise their ability to complete their missions.
Since the late 1990's, the dental corps has had trouble
recruiting and retaining dental officers. One reason is the
large pay differential between uniform and civilian dentists. A
second reason is graduation student loan debt, which now
averages nearly $110,000 per student. From exit interviews with
dentists, we know they would say they would stay in the
military if offered loan repayment. One Air Force captain said,
if you evaluate my salary, subtract my sizeable student loan
payments, I end up taking home the equivalent of what a staff
sergeant of 8 years makes. And the result is that the military
is operating at about 12 percent below dental manpower levels.
To address this situation, the ADA recommends an additional
$6 million per year for 3 years to allow 66 targeted health
professions scholarship program (HPSP) dental scholarships per
year per service. This funding would be to attract new recruits
and it could also be used for loan repayment.
Military dental research has had a well-established history
with both the Army and the Navy. Their mission is to reduce the
incidence and impact of dental disease on deployed troops. This
research is unique and because of the global war on terrorism,
it is on the cutting edge.
The Army focuses on improving materials to protect the
troops not only from oral disease but also from injury or
hostile fire. Almost one-half of the injuries reported in Iraq
and Afghanistan are head, neck, and eye trauma. Army dental
researchers are developing a lighter, thinner bullet-proof face
shield to replace the current head gear that is hot and heavy.
In Bosnia, the Army found that over 15 percent of the
deployed troops had dental emergencies and that 75 percent of
those emergencies were plaque-related oral disease such as gum
infections. The Army researchers are working on an easy and
cost effective way to help with an anti-plaque chewing gum
which could be included in every meal, ready-to-eat (MRE) or
mess kit.
Navy dental research is focused on the immediate delivery
of dental care in the field. Those researchers have continued
to make progress on the development of a rapid, noninvasive
salivary diagnostic instrument for the detection of diseases
and biological agents.
I have here with me today a hand-held prototype of this
device. So for those of you in the room who suffered through
the painful anthrax swab tests 3 years ago, you waited up to 2
weeks to get your results. This device which analyzes the
antibodies in saliva will make those experiences obsolete. You
put saliva in this little receptacle here, add the reagent, and
wait about 90 seconds for the results.
Now, these are just a few of the examples of the dental
research projects being conducted at the Great Lakes facility.
All of these have a direct relationship to combat medicine. All
are targeted to improve the oral health of deployed personnel,
and they can lead to enormous cost savings.
The ADA strongly recommends that these research activities
be funded at $6 million.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. Our
written statement has additional details, and I would be glad
to answer any questions.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. We have noted
those comments. Most of your requests really affect the
Military Construction Subcommittee, not this subcommittee. We
will call those to their attention. I do not know if you plan
to appear before them or not.
But we clearly share your feeling that these efforts to
reconstruct the damage done to faces, to jaws, et cetera--there
must be really improvement in the facilities. So we will have
to talk to your association after talking to the Military
Construction Subcommittee.
Dr. Bramson. We will be happy to talk to you, Senator.
Senator Stevens. We will do that. We promise we will get
back to you.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. I will join the chairman on that.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James B. Bramson, D.D.S.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am
Dr. James Bramson, Executive Director of the American Dental
Association (ADA), which represents over 149,000 dentists nationwide.
As of September 30, 2003, there were 3,126 dentists in the military
services. Thank you for the opportunity to testify to discuss
appropriations for Department of Defense dental and oral-health related
programs. My primary purpose today is to bring to your attention
programs that directly relate to the dental readiness of our men and
women in uniform and the efforts being made to achieve and maintain
their dental health.
The Public Health Service's first study of the military draft in
World War II determined that more than 20 percent of the two million
selectees did not meet Selective Service dental requirements. At the
time of Pearl Harbor, ``dental defects'' led all physical reasons for
rejection of recruits. Dental disease today continues to have an impact
on military deployment in the Global War On Terrorism. General Peter J.
Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed
Services Committee on November 19, 2003 and stated ``. . . quite
frankly we [have] real problems in dental readiness . . .--'' as he
discussed the rotation of troops and the activation of Army Guard and
Reserve personnel. The DOD's 2002 Survey of Health Related Behaviors
Among Military Personnel reported that 34 percent of military personnel
on active duty required dental care prior to deployment. What isn't
said in the report is whether the dental care was completed prior to
deployment and whether the treatment was of a temporary nature.
An abscessed tooth may be one on mankind's most painful
experiences. While most Americans have been fortunate enough to have
never experienced a toothache, those who have know that there is little
else that one can think about when it happens. Imagine that toothache
in a combat zone, or while flying a fighter, or in a submarine. The ADA
is concerned that too many soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are
being deployed at risk for these problems--not only because of the
unnecessary pain they may have to endure but also the impact of that
pain on their ability to complete their mission.
FUNDING FOR DENTAL READINESS
Since the late 1990s, the dental corps have had difficulty in
recruiting and retaining dental officers. One reason is the pay
differential between uniform and civilian dentists. The Center for
Naval Analysis Health Professions Retention-Accession Study I stated
that: ``. . . the uniformed-civilian pay gap in 2000 dollars was
substantial, averaging $69,000 per year for general dentists and
$113,000 per year for specialists . . .'' A second reason is student
loan debt. Many junior officers carry more than $100,000 (the national
average is $116,000) in loans. Without loan repayment, dentists have a
hard time making monthly payments on an 03's pay. The result is that
all the dental corps are operating below their authorized manpower
levels. The Department of Defense reported that all three services are
below strength by almost 12 percent (September 2003). This figure masks
the fact that over the past few years unfilled dental officer
authorizations are often transferred to other medical officer corps.
This comes at a time when dental care needed by the troops has not
substantially decreased. In fact, with the activation of Guard and
Reserve personnel, the demand has increased. As a result of these
demands there has been a substantial increase in payments, in the
millions of dollars, to private practice dentists paid through the
Military Medical Support Office at Great Lakes Naval Training Center
(primarily for active duty personnel) and the Federal Strategic Health
Alliance Program known as Feds-HEAL (for activated Guard and
Reservists). In fiscal year 2000, the military purchased $13 million of
dental care for active duty personnel. That account is projected to
reach $49 million in fiscal year 2004. While some of this additional
expense is a result of the activation of Guard and Reserve personnel, a
significant portion of these expenses is a direct result of the
reduction of dental officers required to maintain the dental readiness
of the active duty members. The ADA is aware that the issue of
recruiting and retention special pays and bonuses has been studied
within the Department of Defense, but currently nothing is being
developed in response to these previous reports.
The ADA believes it is time to address dental officer
authorizations before the damage to the military dental corps reaches a
crisis level. We, therefore, recommend additional targeted funding for
Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) dental scholarships to
attract new dentist recruits. This additional funding could also be
used for loan repayment to retain current military dentist as allowed
by law.
MILITARY DENTAL RESEARCH
The Army first began formal dental research with the establishment
of the Army Dental School in 1922, which was a precursor to the
establishment of the U.S. Army Institute of Dental Research in 1962.
The Navy Dental Research Facility at Great Lakes was established in
1947, which subsequently became the Naval Dental Research Institute in
1967 (now known as the Naval Institute for Dental and Biomedical
Research). In 1997, both activities were co-located at Great Lakes as a
result of the Base Realignment and Closure activities of 1991. These
research programs share common federal funding and a common goal to
reduce the incidence and impact of dental diseases on deployed troops.
This is unique research that is not duplicated by the National
Institutes of Health or in the civilian community.
The Army focuses on improving materials to protect the troops, not
only from the effects of oral disease but also from injury or hostile
fire. Almost half of the injuries reported in Iraq and Afghanistan are
head, neck and eye trauma. Army researchers are developing a lighter,
thinner anti-ballistic face shield to replace the current headgear that
weighs almost 8 pounds and is hot to wear. This is analogous to the
development of the lighter and more effective body armor currently
being used by our ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Plaque-related oral disease, including trench mouth, account for as
much as 75 percent of the daily dental sick call rate in deployed
troops. Even soldiers who ship out in good oral health can become
vulnerable to these severe gum diseases if stationed in combat areas
where access to good oral hygiene is difficult. An easy and cost
effective way to address these conditions is the development of an
anti-plaque chewing gum, which could be included in every meals ready
to eat (MRE) or mess kit.
For troops stationed in desert combat zones, dehydration is a
serious problem. Often the soldier is not aware that there is a problem
until he or she is debilitated, obviously not a good thing in a hostile
environment. The Army researchers have been working on developing a
sensor to monitor hydration rates that could be bonded to a soldier's
tooth. Health care personnel at a remote site could monitor the sensor
and alert the deployed forces to administer fluids before the situation
becomes critical.
Navy research focuses more on the immediate delivery of dental
care. For instance, keeping the war fighter in the field is a high
priority. Navy researchers are developing dental materials that are
more compact and portable, that can be used by non-dental personnel to
manage a wide variety of urgent dental problems. Last year in Iraq, a
Marine line commander in the field had to have a temporary filling
replaced 3 or 4 times. This required a trip to a field dental clinic
and the services of a dentist, taking this commander away from his
troops. A new dental material being developed by the Navy will allow a
corpsman to replace these temporary fillings on the spot and without
the need for the commander to spend time away from his troops and the
mission. A lesson learned from this situation is that the currently
available dental materials are not strong enough for the field
environment, especially the desert climate. More research is needed to
perfect this far-forward field dental dressing, but once perfected, it
can be used by other agencies like NASA or the Indian Health Service,
which also operate in remote areas.
Naval researchers have continued to make progress on the
development of rapid, hand-held, non-invasive salivary tests for the
detection of military relevant diseases, such as tuberculosis and
dengue fever, as well as for biological warfare agents. A prototype
model of such a hand-held unit developed by the Navy researchers at
Great Lakes is being tested. This unit will be able to test for
numerous chemical and biological agents and provide troops in the field
a positive or negative determination within a matter of minutes. The
implications for Homeland Security are quite obvious.
Last, but not least, the Iraqi war environment has identified an
additional research area: the effects of sand on dental equipment. The
unique composition of the sand in Iraq has caused dental equipment to
break down and fail in the field. Because the sand in Iraq is stickier
and more like talcum powder than grittier American sand, the Iraqi sand
tends to cling to instruments and equipment. Navy researchers are
analyzing the effects of the Iraqi sand on the portable dental
equipment with the goal of developing new mobile delivery systems that
can be used in the desert environment. This research has obvious
implications for medical equipment or any equipment that is easily
fouled by the desert sands.
These are just a few of the dental research projects being
conducted at the Great Lakes facility. All have a direct relationship
to combat medicine, are targeted to improve the oral health of deployed
personnel and can lead to enormous cost savings for forces in the
field. Furthermore, while the Army and the Navy do not duplicate the
research done by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial
Research, many of their findings will have implications within the
civilian community or other Federal Agencies. The ADA strongly
recommends that the funding for the Army and Navy dental research
activities at Great Lakes be funded at $6 million to expedite this
research for the deployed forces.
OTHER MILITARY DENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ISSUES
There are two other matters that the ADA would like to bring to the
Committee's attention and are related to issues discussed during the
Committee's April 28th hearing with the Surgeon Generals. First, we are
concerned about the dental care for our returning troops through the
Veteran's Administration. Following Desert Storm deactivated Reserve
and Guard personnel were authorized a dental benefit upon separation.
Fortunately, both the length of the Gulf War and the need for
activating Reserves and Guard were limited. Approximately $17 million
was spent to provide this dental care. Once again, the Veteran's
Administration is anticipating that a significant number of returning
Reservists and Guard personnel will require and be authorized dental
care upon their release from active duty in the Global War on
Terrorism. And since the Reserve and Guard activations are projected to
remain significant for the foreseeable future, then the demand for
dental care following deactivation will also continue. While the exact
amount of money required for this care is not yet known, the ADA
believes that it will easily exceed the $17 million required following
Desert Storm and for a sustained basis.
The second issue relates to a military construction project for the
dental clinic at Lackland Air Force Base. Some of the soldiers who have
suffered head and neck injuries in Iraq are being treated at Lackland
for facial reconstruction. Oral surgeons there are using the highly
sophisticated computer programs to make 3-D images to recreate
shattered jaws.
The proposed construction will consolidate all dental activities on
Lackland AFB and Kelly AFB to the Dunn Dental Clinic. There are
currently two separate dental treatment activities at Lackland: MacKown
Dental Clinic and Dunn Dental Clinic. The MacKown Clinic is 44 years
old and has long outlived its usefulness. It predates the current Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO),
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and infection
control standards. The MacKown Clinic also houses three of the Air
Force's dental specialty training programs that have outgrown that
facility significantly over the last twenty years. The clinic at Kelly
Air Force Base will be closed as a result of highway construction. The
patients currently seen at Kelly will now be seen at the Dunn Clinic
and there is insufficient capacity to absorb these patients.
The planned addition to the existing Dunn Dental Clinic building
will provide an additional 90 dental treatment rooms on two floors that
meet current ambulatory surgery codes. The proposed facility will also
provide space for a dental laboratory to meet regional dental workload
demands, support the dental resident training, and dental research
currently part of the MacKown facility. The new addition will also
provide necessary classroom space and suitable audio-visual,
teleconference, and distance learning capabilities. The ADA requests
that the Committee appropriate $1.5 million for the design phase of
this construction project.
The ADA thanks the Committee for allowing us to present these
issues related to the dental and oral health of our great American
service men and women.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Captain Robert Hurd,
Congressional Liaison for the United States Naval Sea Cadet
Corps. Good morning.
STATEMENTS OF:
CAPTAIN ROBERT C. HURD, UNITED STATES NAVY (RET.),
CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON, UNITED STATES NAVAL SEA CADET CORPS
PETTY OFFICER 1ST CLASS KYLE DALY, UNITED STATES NAVAL SEA
CADET CORPS
Mr. Hurd. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye. I
would like to thank the committee for the tremendous support of
our program and our 10,000 cadets, one of whom, Petty Officer
1st Class Daly will make our statement this morning.
Senator Stevens. Fine. Nice to have you here, sir.
Mr. Daly. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, good morning. I am
United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps Petty Officer 1st Class
Kyle Daly, leading petty officer of the Hospital Corpsman,
Master Chief, U.S. Navy (HMCM) William Marsh Battalion as well
as a sophomore at a Catholic high school in Hyattsville,
Maryland. It is an honor and a privilege to speak to you today
on behalf of the Naval Sea Cadet Corps.
There are now over 10,000 young men and women, ages 11 to
17, across the United States and its territories proudly
wearing the same uniform I wear before you today. They are
supported by over 2,500 adult volunteer Naval Sea Cadet Corps
officers, instructors, and midshipmen.
The United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps is a
congressionally chartered youth development and education
program supported by the Navy League and sponsored by the Navy
and Coast Guard. The program's main goals are the development
of young men and women, promoting interest and skill in the
areas of seamanship and aviation, while instilling a strong
sense of patriotism, integrity, self-reliance, honor, courage,
and commitment, along with other qualities which I believe will
mold strong moral character and self-discipline in a drug-and
gang-free environment.
After completing recruit training, sea cadets may choose
from an almost infinitely wide variety of 2-week training
courses in their following summers, including training aboard
Navy and Coast Guard vessels. We drill one weekend per month
and complete Navy correspondence courses for advancement, this
being the basis for accelerated promotion if a cadet should
choose to enlist in the Navy or Coast Guard.
Four hundred eighty-two former sea cadets now attend the
U.S. Naval Academy. Between 400 and 600 enlist in the armed
services annually, pre-screened, highly motivated and well-
prepared. Prior sea cadet experience has been proven to be an
excellent indicator of a potentially career success rate both
in and out of the military. Whether or not a cadet chooses a
service career, we all carry forth the values of citizenship,
leadership, and moral courage that I believe will benefit
ourselves and our country.
The major difference between this and other federally
chartered military youth programs is that the sea cadets are
responsible for their own expenses, including uniforms, travel,
insurance, and training costs, which can amount to $400 to $500
a year. The corps, however, is particularly sensitive to its
policy that no young man or woman is denied access to this
program due to their socioeconomic status. Some units are
financed in part by local sponsors.
This support, while greatly appreciated, is not enough to
sustain all cadets. All federally appointed funds over the past
4 years have been used to help offset cadets' out-of-pocket
training costs, as well as to conduct background checks for the
adult volunteers. However, for a variety of reasons, including
inflation, an all-time high cadet enrollment, base closures and
reduced base access due to terrorist alerts, reduced the float
training due to the situation in Iraq. The current amount of
funding support can no longer sustain the program.
The Sea Cadet Corps considers it a matter of urgency that
we respectfully request your consideration and support through
the authorization of appropriations in the full amount of $2
million for the 2005 fiscal year.
I regret that this time precludes our sharing the many
stories that Captain Hurd has shared with members of your
staffs this year, pointing out the many acts of courage,
community service, and successful youth development of my
fellow sea cadets, as well as those who are so gallantly
serving our armed forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the
world. These stories and many more like them are unfortunately
the youth stories that you do not always read about in the
press.
I thank you for this opportunity to speak today. I, as does
the entire Sea Cadet Corps, appreciate your past and continued
support of this fine program. It would be my pleasure to answer
any questions you might have at this point.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. Captain Hurd,
you brought a fine representative of your organization.
Mr. Hurd. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. You remind me of the first time I
testified before Congress. I read the third sentence and said,
``period.''
I had memorized it so well. You know, one of those things.
But we do appreciate what you said. We appreciate who you
represent and congratulate you for your ambition to be part of
the Navy.
Mr. Daly. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Stevens. Captain, thank you. We do not need
anything more than what you produced. We will assist you in
every way we can.
Mr. Daly. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. No. Just congratulations.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain Robert C. Hurd
Request
Funded since fiscal year 2001, continued Congressional
appropriation in the Navy Recruiting Budget (O&M Navy--Title II, Budget
Activity 3) of the un-funded budget requirement is essential for
continuation of the present level of Naval Sea Cadet training as well
as to allow expansion into more communities. Unlike other federally
chartered military youth groups, the Sea Cadets pay for almost all
their own 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, is needed to
increase access by America's youth regardless of economic or social
background and to develop the fine citizens our country needs and
deserves.
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
Vice-Chairman of the Board serves also as the Corps' National
President. A full-time Executive Director and small staff in Arlington,
VA administer NSCC's day-to-day operations. These professionals work
with volunteer field representatives, unit commanding officers, and
local sponsors. They also collaborate with Navy League councils and
other civic, or patriotic organizations, and with local school systems.
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 in military service. For example, limited travel abroad and in
Canada may be available, as well as the opportunity to board 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, 166 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
practical, hands-on and classroom 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 efforts to serve America's youth. The Sea 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 USNSCC
insignia, is authorized and worn. Cadet Corps officers receive no pay
or allowances. Yet, they do deserve some benefits such as limited use
of military facilities and space available air travel in conjunction
with carrying out their 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
programs.
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, Coast Guard, Marine and other service
member instructors.
Cadets receive classroom and hands on practical instruction in
basic military requirements, military drill, water and small boat
safety, core personal values, social amenities, drug/alcohol abuse,
cultural relations, naval history, naval customs and traditions, and
nautical skills. Training may be held onboard ships, small boats or
aircraft, depending upon platform availability, as well as onboard
military bases and stations. In their training, cadets also learn about
and are exposed to a wide variety of civilian and military career
opportunities through field trips and educational tours.
Special presentations by military and civilian officials augment
the local training, as does attendance at special briefings and events
throughout the local area. Cadets are also encouraged, and scheduled,
to participate in civic activities and events to include parades,
social work, and community projects, all part of the ``whole person''
training concept.
For all Naval Sea Cadets the training during the first several
months is at their local training site, and focuses on general
orientation to, and familiarization with, the entire Naval Sea Cadet
program. It also prepares them for their first major away from home
training event, the two weeks recruit training which all Sea Cadets
must successfully complete.
The Navy League Cadet Corps training program teaches younger cadets
the virtues of personal neatness, loyalty, obedience, courtesy,
dependability and a sense of responsibility for shipmates. In
accordance with a Navy orientated syllabus, this education prepares
them for the higher level of training they will receive as Naval Sea
Cadets.
Summer Training
After enrolling, all sea cadets must first attend a two week
recruit training taught at the Navy's Recruit Training Command, at
other Naval Bases or stations, and at regional recruit training sites
using other military host resources. Instructed by Navy or NSCC Recruit
Division Commanders, cadets train to a condensed version of the basic
course that Navy enlistees receive. The curriculum is provided by the
Navy, and taught at all training sites. In 2003 there were 22 Recruit
training classes at 19 locations, including 3 classes conducted over
the winter holiday school break. These 20 plus nationwide regional
sites are required to accommodate the increased demand for quotas and
also to keep cadet and adult travel costs to a minimum. Over 2,600
Naval Sea Cadets attended recruit training in 2003, supported by
another 240 adult volunteers.
Once Sea Cadets have successfully completed recruit training, they
may choose from a wide variety of advanced training opportunities
including basic/advanced airman, ceremonial guard, seamanship, sailing,
amphibious operations, leadership, firefighting and emergency services,
submarine orientation, seal and mine warfare operations, Navy diving,
and training in occupational specialties including health care, legal,
music, master-at-arms and police science, and construction.
The Naval Sea Cadet Corps is proud of the quality and diversity of
training opportunities offered to its' Cadet Corps. For 2003
approximately 8,000 ``training opportunities'' were formally advertised
for both cadets and adults. Another 900 ``opportunities'' presented
themselves through the dedication, resourcefulness and initiative of
the adult volunteer officers who independently arranged training for
cadets onboard local bases and stations. This locally arranged training
represents some of the best that the NSCC has to offer and includes the
consistently outstanding training offered by the U.S. Coast Guard. The
total cadet and adult opportunity for 2003 stood at about 9,000 quotas,
including all recruit training. Approximately 8,000 NSCC members, with
about 7,000 being cadets, stepped forward and requested orders to take
advantage of these training opportunities. Cadets faced a myriad of
challenging and rewarding training experiences designed to instill
leadership and develop self-reliance. It also enabled them to become
familiar with the full spectrum of Navy and Coast Guard career fields.
This ever-increasing participation once again reflects the
popularity of the NSCC and the positive results of federal funding for
2001 through 2003. The NSCC continues to experience increased recruit
and advanced training attendance of well over 2,000 cadets per year
over those years in which federal funding was not available. The events
of 9/11 and the resulting global war against terrorism did preclude
berthing availability at many bases and stations; however, the NSCC
continued to grow as other military hosts offered their resources in
support of the NSCC. 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 entire year. One result of this training is that approximately
10 percent of the Midshipman Brigade at the U.S Naval Academy report
having been prior Naval Sea Cadets, most citing summer training as a
key factor in their decision to attend the USNA.
Training highlights for 2003
The 2003 training focus was on providing every cadet the
opportunity to perform either recruit or advanced training during the
year. To that end, emphasis was placed on maintaining all new training
opportunities developed over the last several years since federal
funding was approved for the NSCC. This proved to be a significant
challenge with reduced available berthing at DOD bases as a result of
recalled reservists and deployment of forces in the war on terrorism.
Regardless, we were successful in most of our plans. Included among
these were classes in sailing and legal (JAG) training, expanded SEAL
orientation opportunity, SCUBA classes, more seamanship training
onboard the NSCC training vessels on the Great Lakes, and additional
honor guard training opportunities. Other highlights included:
--Expanded recruit training opportunity by increasing recruit
training evolutions from 15 in 2002 to 22 in 2003.
--Kept cadet training cost to $30 for 1 week and $60 for 2 weeks plus
transportation; only a $5 and $10 increase over 2002, all
during a period of escalating costs and increasing enrollment
while the grant was maintained at $1 million.
--Expanded use of Army and State National Guard facilities to
accommodate demand for quotas for recruit training.
--Maintained expanded recruit training and advanced training
opportunity higher than any prior year.
--Improved adult professional development and education through much
needed updates of the NSCC Officer Professional Development
courses.
--Added first class ever with Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal/Mobile
Diving Salvage Units in Norfolk, Virginia.
--Nearly doubled the number of MAA classes and doubled the number of
cadets taking this training.
--Maintained expanded YP training on the Great Lakes.
--Maintained placement of 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.
--Continued the popular, merit based, International Exchange program
although reduced for Asian countries due to the SARS concern.
--Graduated over 290 cadets from the NSCC Petty Officer Leadership
Academies, (POLA).
--Maintained placement of Cadets onboard USN ships under local orders
as operating schedules and opportunity permitted.
--As has been the case in 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 Program (IEP)
The NSCC continued in 2003, for the second year, its' redesigned
and highly competitive, merit based, and very low cost to the cadet,
International Exchange Program. Cadets were placed in Australia, United
Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, and Bermuda to train with fellow cadets
in these host nations. The NSCC and Canada did maintain their
traditional exchanges in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, and the NSCC
hosted visiting cadets in Norfolk and at Fort Lewis, WA for two weeks
of U.S. Navy style training.
Navy League Cadet Training
In 2003, almost 1,350 Navy League Cadets and escorts attended Navy
League Orientation Training at 17 sites nationwide. The diversity in
location and ample quotas allowed for attendance by each and every
League Cadet who wished to attend. Approximately 250 League cadets and
their escorts attended advanced Navy League training where cadets learn
about small boats and small boat safety using the U.S. Coast Guard's
safe boating curriculum. Other advanced Navy League training sites
emphasize leadership training. Both serve the program well in preparing
League cadets for further training in the Naval Sea Cadet Corps, and
particularly for their first ``boot camp.'' The continuing strong
numbers of participants for both Orientation and Advanced training,
support not just the popularity of the NSCC program but also the
positive impact the federal training grant has had in helping cadets
afford the training and helping them take advantage of the increased
opportunities available to them.
Training Grants
Through local sponsor support and the federal grant, almost every
Cadet who desired to attend summer training had the opportunity. This
milestone is a direct result of the strong NLUS council and sponsor
support for NSCC/NLCC cadets 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.
Since the inception of the scholarship program, 176 scholarships
have been awarded to 166 Cadets (includes some renewals) totaling over
$192,900.
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 training
illustrates 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 80 percent of the units
reporting, the survey indicates that 564 known Cadets entered the armed
forces during the reporting year ending December 31, 2002. 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 482 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 taxpayer 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
$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 in fiscal years 2001,
2002, and 2003, and at $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2004 (of the
$2,000,000 requested), these funds 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 funds received, NSCC receives
under $1,000,000 per year from other sources, which includes around
$250,000 in enrollment fees from Cadets and adult volunteers
themselves. For a variety of reasons, at a minimum, this current level
of funding is necessary to sustain this program and the full $2,000,000
would allow for program expansion:
--All-time high in number of enrolled Sea Cadets (and growing) and
general inflation.
--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 and 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 would be
barely sufficient to handle cost increases.
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 2005.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Heather French Henry,
Miss America 2000, for the National Prostate Cancer Coalition.
Being a prostate cancer survivor, I am pleased to see you,
but I do not think you have any risk.
STATEMENT OF HEATHER FRENCH HENRY, MISS AMERICA 2000 ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL PROSTATE CANCER
COALITION
Ms. Henry. No, I do not. Thank goodness.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Inouye, I would like to thank you
for the opportunity to come and speak before you today. Of
course, I am Heather French Henry, former Miss America 2000.
But before I was Miss America, I was the daughter of a disabled
Vietnam veteran, and for years, even before my Miss America
career, had the privilege of working with veterans all across
the country and especially those who had prostate cancer as a
direct result from Agent Orange.
Now, I never thought, after working with all those
veterans, that I would have prostate cancer within my family.
Fortunately, my father has not been diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a veteran, but my husband, former Lieutenant Governor
of Kentucky and an orthopedic surgeon, is a prostate cancer
survivor.
You can imagine. I was 8 months pregnant, about 1\1/2\
weeks away from delivering our second child, when he sat me
down to tell me that he had been diagnosed with prostate
cancer. The ``cancer'' word, the big ``C'' word we call it, in
any family, when it is brought up, is scary let alone to an 8-
month pregnant woman.
Now, fortunately, Stephen and I had some knowledge of
prostate cancer just because he was a physician. However, it is
ironic that as a physician, he was not aware of his extensive
family history of prostate cancer because prostate cancer just
is not widely discussed. It is not like breast cancer which has
become even a table topic at dinner discussion, but prostate
cancer, of course, is not widely discussed among men, let alone
other family members within their family or their friends.
Steve and I had a difficult task. How do you deal with your
husband having prostate cancer who is a public figure? How do
you deal with that in media? Because, of course, as you know,
media speculation is not good on any front when it comes to a
public career. Steve and I decided that we would be very open.
Now, we were having to deal with this personally, as well as
publicly while he was still in office. We decided to be very
open with his prostate cancer, and the press conference that we
held took us 2\1/2\ hours to explain to members of the media
just what prostate cancer was and how it could be treated and
the various forms of treatment and the alternatives that
Stephen had. We wanted to destroy any myth whatsoever about
speculation about his life, his career, any of his future, but
it took us 2\1/2\ hours to do that.
Now, why did it take us 2\1/2\ hours? Gentlemen, I do not
need to tell you that awareness of any issue is much needed,
but without the funding for research--with that funding comes
along the awareness. What we are asking today is that you help
those out there by increasing the funding to $100 million to
the DOD prostate cancer research program.
I am sitting before you today as a wife of a prostate
cancer survivor, but also as a public servant who has had to
deal with this publicly. We choose to do that just to provide
hope for men out there and their families that we were going to
be advocates. Stephen and I have started the Kentucky Prostate
Cancer Coalition within Kentucky. The grassroots support just
is not there for prostate cancer, and most of that has to do
because of the lack of funding for prostate cancer research.
Now, fortunately, Stephen came through his surgery that he
had at Johns Hopkins University Hospital successfully, and I
did not breathe a sigh of relief until his first prostate
specific antigen (PSA) test which came out with excellent
results. But even then, his doctor who did his surgery could
not clearly identify the future of prostate cancer. A gentleman
who does this surgery probably 1,700 times during 1 year says
to me we cannot tell you what the future of prostate cancer is
because there is not enough research and funding out there
because this disease is constantly changing.
That is my fear, is that we are not going to be able to
provide hope for all of the men out there and their families
about the future of prostate cancer, and the younger
generations that, of course, it is hitting. My husband who was
49 when he was diagnosed speculates to have had it when he was
47. Other friends of ours are getting it at 39 and in their
40's. So we are just asking for funding to be able to project
into the future.
As you know, prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed
cancer within men, accounting for 230,000 cases, 30,000 deaths
in 2004. Like Stephen, many of those will be diagnosed in their
40's and 50's. But that is why Stephen and I are here today
with the National Prostate Cancer Coalition (NPCC).
To properly fight the war on prostate cancer for families
like mine, your committee must restore $100 million to the
Department of Defense prostate cancer research program
administered by the congressionally directed medical research
program. Of course, in 2001, it was $100 million, but it had
been bumped down to $85 million. So we are really just asking
to restore that final step needed, of course, to conduct human
clinical trials research. That is so important because without
that extra $15 million, how do we advance into the research and
technology of this?
My husband chose a radical surgery and it is one of several
forms of treatment, which of course was successful. But with
all current primary treatments for the disease, there are side
effects, but without the $100 million, the program is unable to
test new treatments and thus get new products to patients that
may not impair the quality of their lives.
Thanks to your leadership, the congressionally directed
medical research program has become the gold standard for
administering cancer research. The program cannot fight the war
against prostate cancer on its own, and last year the committee
requested that the Defense Department, in consultation with the
Institute of Medicine, evaluate ways for the program to
collaborate with the private sector, which of course is so
needed. Both the NPCC and I and my husband agree. Through
public and private partnerships prostate cancer research can
work collectively and strategically to produce new
preventatives, diagnostics, and treatments to improve the
quality of their life for prostate cancer patients like my
husband.
Prior to your directive, NPCC began discussing methods of
public-private partnerships when it convened, along with the
DOD prostate cancer research program and the National Cancer
Institute, the Prostate Cancer Research Funders Conference in
2000.
The Prostate Cancer Research Funders Conference brings
together representatives of all Government agencies that fund
prostate cancer research, along with their counterparts in the
private sector, which I cannot even tell you how important that
is. Other participants include the Veterans Health
Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and the Food and Drug Administration, Canadian and British
Government agencies, and private foundations and organizations
and representatives from the industry. Members of the
conference have come together to focus on shared objectives and
address commonly recognized barriers within the research.
Through this collaborative approach, we can create a unified
front to finally beat prostate cancer once and for all.
Again, on behalf of my entire family, NPCC, and all of
those prostate cancer patients, I want to thank you for
allowing me to be here today and for your leadership already.
Most importantly in the future, I want to be able to tell my
two little girls that a disease that their daddy had is no
longer a killer of men. So we are not only asking you to
provide this research money for men everywhere, but also for
their wives, their sons, and of course, their daughters. So
thank you for letting me be here today. I want to encourage you
to restore that research funding for a much needed disease.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Questions, Senator?
Senator Inouye. I think we should note that Senator Stevens
is the father of the defense prostate cancer research program.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Ms. Henry. Thank you. Appreciate it.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Heather French Henry
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to share my thoughts. My name is Heather French
Henry, and I was crowned Miss America in 2000. I am here today on our
behalf of my husband, my children and families all over America who
have been touched by prostate cancer.
I was pregnant with our second child when I found out that my
husband, Stephen, then the Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky, had
prostate cancer. In fact, I was two weeks away from my delivery date
when he sat me down to tell me about his diagnosis. As a young married
couple, the thought of prostate cancer or any form of cancer, was not
even in our wildest imagination. After all, Stephen was the picture of
health for a forty-nine year old man. He was active. He played
basketball. He could even out run me on his worst day!
Ironically, my husband is a physician. One might think that doctors
should be on top of their health status! However, one peculiar night, I
discovered Steve in pain, sitting on the steps holding his hand to his
chest. Usually not one prone to dramatics, I was immediately concerned.
Stephen went to the hospital and began a long stream of physicals over
a period of two weeks. One physical after another showed my husband in
good health until the day he received the results of a prostate-
specific antigen (PSA) test. Only because of a simple unrelated chest
pain did my husband take the initiative to get tested and find out
about his PSA level. Had he not gone to the doctor at all, his
diagnosis may still be unknown. Prostate cancer is a silent killer, and
men must be encouraged to be vigilant in detecting it.
Following the results of his PSA test, we began to wonder if
Stephen's family had a history of the disease. After a call to his
mother, we found out that his father had prostate cancer later in his
life. If a man has one close relative with prostate cancer, his risk of
the disease doubles; with two relatives, the risk increases fivefold.
Therefore, it should have been no surprise that Stephen's chances of
developing the disease were significant--but it was.
Once I found out about my husband's prostate cancer I couldn't help
but think, as an eight-month pregnant woman of 28, ``my husband has
CANCER!'' I felt terrified which was magnified a thousand times by my
pregnant condition. The hardest part was that we had to be silent about
his condition because of the media. If prostate cancer was something
that was widely understood and recognized, such as breast cancer, I
don't feel that we would have had to be so cautious. However, because
of the great misunderstanding and lack of knowledge the media and the
public have about the disease, we had to strategize about how to deal
with this situation, not only personally but publicly.
I certainly was in no condition to deal with all of this, but
prostate cancer doesn't wait for the ``right'' time. It added so much
stress to my already aching mind and body that I feared it might affect
my delivery. Fortunately, it didn't, and we are once again a happy
family.
Two days before he had surgery, Stephen held a press conference for
all of the Kentucky media. It was the longest press conference in which
I had ever participated. It became evident there was a lack of
knowledge that even the press had about the seriousness of prostate
cancer. We spent almost two hours describing prostate cancer, how it
affected us as a family and how it could be treated. So much had to be
explained and we wanted everyone on the same page. The last thing we
wanted was for the press to speculate about Steve's cancer, his job, or
even his life. We held the press conference to create awareness,
educate and add hope to those families out there that may be struggling
with prostate cancer. The next day we left for Johns Hopkins Medical
Center in Baltimore.
Stephen decided after educating himself and seeking the advice of
friends and colleagues that he would choose the most aggressive route
of surgery. Getting mixed views about timelines for surgery and knowing
time was no friend to any cancer, Stephen wanted to act quickly. Three
weeks after our daughter was born Stephen underwent surgery. Coupled
with the fact that I had just given birth and really needed to have the
baby with me, this was an extremely hard time for our family.
I am usually a very strong woman emotionally and spiritually but
not the day of Stephen's surgery. When we arrived at the hospital I was
immediately told I could not take my infant daughter into the surgical
wing. So there I was stuck in the lobby of one of the largest hospitals
in the country with a newborn baby, a husband with cancer, and I was
mentally lost. All I could do was sit and cry silently in the lobby
while people walked by adding nods of compassion. I had no idea how the
surgery would go. Reinforcing the lack of public discussion on the
disease, no one could give us a clear story about the most affective
treatments. What if the surgery didn't work? What if the cancer had
spread? What if I was going to lose the love of my life and be left
alone with two children? What if my children had to grow up not knowing
what a wonderful man their father was?
No one knows when his or her time on earth is going to end, and I
was not ready for Steve's name to be called. I eventually called a
friend to fly up to Baltimore to pick up my daughter after Stephen's
surgery was over. But my despair continued.
Even though the doctor seemed hopeful, my heart felt bleak. All
that kept ringing through my head was the doctor describing about how
prostate cancer evolves and changes with time and that he could make no
predictions because more research needed be done to become more
familiar with the nature of prostate cancer. It was nothing short of a
nightmare for me. Ironically, between the two of us, Stephen handled it
much more gracefully than I did. Four days after a successful surgery,
we returned to Kentucky.
I will never forget my husband's reaction to me asking if he would
like a wheel chair for the walk through the airport. His pride was
clearly hurt. Surgery was one thing, but the aftermath post operation
is quite another. Stephen was to keep his catheter in for a few weeks,
and that made the flight home quite memorable. The look on his face
when I asked to tie his shoes was a clear indication that he did not
want people to know or feel sorry for him. This outraged me. It
concerned me that the masses didn't know more about prostate cancer and
that my husband, or any man, could not feel comfortable dealing with
his condition. It was one thing to talk about having prostate cancer
but quite another to show people up front a post-operative face. It was
not an easy flight, nor were the next weeks at home trying to make my
husband rest. Unfortunately, his demeanor at that time reflects the
overall attitude of many men and society: a reluctance to openly
address prostate cancer and the need to be screened.
Life didn't really seem to show a ray of hope to me until his first
post-operative PSA test. His results were excellent! I finally breathed
a sigh of relief. Steve was fortunate. He had caught his prostate
cancer early, but others we know have not been so lucky.
Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men,
accounting for 33 percent of all cancer cases in men. Like Stephen,
approximately 230,000 men will learn they have prostate cancer in 2004.
Many of those diagnosed will be in their 40s and 50s. Roughly 30,000
will die from the disease. As we have seen, those with a family history
of prostate cancer are more susceptible to the disease. Also, veterans
and others exposed to defoliants and African American men remain at
higher risk. Currently, there is no cure for advanced or metastasized
prostate cancer.
I feel that because my husband is a doctor he was able to make wise
decisions about his cancer. However, not everyone who currently has or
will be diagnosed with prostate cancer is a doctor or will even have
access to a doctor.
The reason I am here today sharing my personal story with you is to
encourage you to make an appropriate investment in prostate cancer
research to help find a cure. We hear slogans everyday about ``races
for the cure'' but the eradication of prostate cancer will never see
its day unless it is talked about and taken seriously with proper
funding for research. That's why, my husband and I have partnered with
the National Prostate Cancer Coalition (NPCC). We know that an
investment in research leads to better prevention, detection and
treatment--and that greater understanding and awareness of the disease
leads to hope--hope that the millions of men who will be diagnosed with
prostate cancer have the chance at a long healthy life with their
families.
Among men, prostate cancer is rarely discussed, and when it is,
it's done ``behind closed doors.'' My own husband was not even fully
aware of his family history. Prostate cancer is not something to be
ashamed of; it is a disease that needs to be recognized. Just as breast
cancer has become a common dinner table topic, so should prostate
cancer.
I have worked for many years with Vietnam veterans who have
prostate cancer as a result of Agent Orange exposure but I never
thought I would encounter it in my family. Having long been a champion
of veterans' issues, including the work done through my own foundation,
I have seen the burden this disease places on those who have protected
our freedom. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) estimates that
there are roughly 23.5 million male veterans living in the United
States. That means approximately 3.9 million veterans will be diagnosed
with prostate cancer. The Veterans Health Administration currently
estimates that nearly 5,800 patients in its system are diagnosed with
prostate cancer each year. This nation must do all it can to keep these
men from harm's way, after they have done the same for all Americans.
What I am asking from you today is to take care of the men who served
in uniform, past present and future.
The Department of Defense (DOD) estimates that the direct health
care costs of prostate cancer on the military are expected to be over
$42 million in fiscal year 2004. Nearly 85 percent of the current
1,465,000 serving in America's military are men. That means that about
200,000 servicemen will be diagnosed with prostate cancer--without
additional consideration of service related environmental factors that
may increase risk of the disease. The DOD refers to itself as America's
largest company; it must protect its employees from a killer that will
affect 14 percent of its workforce.
Whether in battle or peacetime, the lives of men all over this
country depend on your decisions. You have the unique opportunity to
provide a brighter future for millions of men and families through
prostate cancer research. With proper funding we can find a way to end
the pain and suffering caused by prostate cancer.
To properly fight the war on prostate cancer for families like
mine, your committee must appropriate $100 million for the DOD
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program's (CDMRP) Prostate
Cancer Research Program (PCRP). As stated in its fiscal year 1997
business plan, PCRP needs at least $100 million to conduct human
clinical trial research. My husband chose to have a radical
prostatectomy, one of several forms of treatment available for prostate
cancer. Yet, as with all current primary treatments for the disease,
there are many side effects. Without $100 million, the program is
unable to test new treatments and thus get new products to patients
that may not impair the quality of their lives. Without such
investment, the pipeline remains closed, meaning that valuable prostate
cancer research remains stuck in laboratories instead of at work in
clinics.
Thanks to your leadership, CDMRP has become the gold standard for
administering cancer research. Prostate cancer advocates and scientists
throughout this nation have long applauded the program and its peer and
consumer driven approach to research. PCRP is a unique program within
the government's prostate cancer research portfolio because it makes
use of public/private partnerships, awards competitive grants for new
ideas, does not duplicate the work of other funders, integrates
scientists and survivors and uses a unique perspective to solve
problems. Its mission and its results are clear. Each year, the program
issues an annual report detailing what it has done with taxpayer
dollars to fight prostate cancer. PCRP's transparency allows people
like us and others affected by prostate cancer to clearly see what our
government is doing to fight the disease.
The PCRP structure is based on a model developed by the National
Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine. Its mission and its
philosophy for awarding research grants reflect that of DOD's Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The DARPA model, performance
through competition and innovation, was praised in President Bush's
fiscal year 2005 budget. This DARPA-esque approach to cancer research
allows PCRP to identify novel research with large potential payoffs and
to focus on innovative methods that do not receive funding elsewhere.
One of the strongest aspects of the program is PCRP's Integration
Panel. The panel is composed of those who know prostate cancer research
and the issues facing it: scientists, researchers, and prostate cancer
survivors, just like Stephen. This peer and consumer driven model
allows the program to select grants based on merit and their
translational benefit while incorporating the views of those who need
research the most, prostate cancer patients. No other publicly funded
cancer research entity effectively brings together all those with a
stake in curing prostate cancer.
This committee requested last year that DOD, in consultation with
the Institute of Medicine, evaluate collaborations with the private
sector (Senate Report 108-87). Both NPCC and I agree. Through public-
private partnerships, prostate cancer researchers can work collectively
and strategically to produce new preventives, diagnostics and
treatments to improve the quality of life for prostate cancer patients
like Stephen. Prior to your directive, NPCC began discussing methods
for public-private partnerships when it convened, along with the
National Cancer Institute and DOD, the Prostate Cancer Research Funders
Conference in 2000.
The Prostate Cancer Research Funders Conference brings together
representatives of all the government agencies that fund prostate
cancer research along with their counterparts in the private sector.
Participants include NIH/NCI, DOD, the Veterans Health Administration,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug
Administration, Canadian and British government agencies, private
foundations/organizations and representatives from industry. Members of
the Conference have come together to focus on shared objectives and
address commonly recognized barriers in research.
As a co-convener of the conference, PCRP plays an important role in
shaping its priorities. Currently, federal agencies participate
voluntarily, but they can opt in or out based on the tenure of
executive leadership. For the conference to be successful, federal
agencies engaged in prostate cancer research should, in our opinion, be
required to participate, and we ask for your leadership to make that
happen. Moreover, Congress must also offer sufficient incentives for
the private sector to participate. Incentives that do not compromise
the autonomy or integrity of PCRP's peer review structure. I firmly
believe that a collaborative, multifaceted approach to prostate cancer
research can bring about better results in a more timely fashion.
Mr. Chairman, we have done remarkable work and are making progress.
Public-private collaboration and new scientific discoveries are moving
us toward a better understanding of how prostate cancer kills, but, for
our work to be worthwhile, it must be translated into tangible goals
and results for patients. The War on Cancer must be funded
appropriately so researchers can get new drugs to the patients who need
them. For this to happen PCRP needs $100 million to fund human clinical
trials research.
On behalf of my entire family, prostate cancer patients everywhere,
and NPCC I thank you for your time. Thanks to your leadership, I will
one day be able to tell my children that a disease their daddy has is
no longer a killer of men.
Senator Stevens. Our next witness is Daniel Puzon, Director
of Legislation, Naval Reserve Association.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN IKE PUZON, UNITED STATES NAVAL
RESERVE (RET.), DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION,
NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Puzon. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, thank you for this
opportunity. On behalf of my 22,000 members and 86,000 naval
reservists, we thank you.
We are obviously in a climate of increased utilization and
sacrifice by our Guard and Reserve, as you have heard today. We
are aware of those sacrifices. Our three main equity issues on
personnel are, as others have said, selective Reserve
Montgomery GI bill improvement, TRICARE for our selected
reservists, and some type of parity or improvements on
retirement. Our most pressing concern is equipment, end
strength, and force structure.
The fact that we have recalled 360,000 Guard and Reserve
members is a true testament of their surge ability and their
need in our service and also to their readiness and also to the
requirement to have a healthy Reserve component in all our
services. They have proved that they are cost effective and
they add ``just in time'' might when our Nation calls.
The performance and efforts of today's military is without
question. We foresee that the reliance on the Guard and Reserve
will continue this way for some time in execution of our
national security strategy and evolving homeland security
strategy. Reserve components again are providing for our Nation
and they have proven they are affordable.
The Guard and Reserve is oftentimes the first bill payer in
any attempt to balance the budget. The recent use of F-18's and
HCS-4 helicopters, coastal warfare, and multiple other Guard
and Reserve units, but most notably in the Navy Reserve units
have been targeted for decommissioning. Again, we embrace
change in the Naval Reserve Association but we do not embrace
the elimination. These people that have served are coming back
from Operation Iraqi Freedom and finding out their unit is
going to be decommissioned. We think that is a travesty for our
Nation and for the naval reservists.
As you know, the Navy is involved from the top down in
relooking at what billets are needed and not needed. What is
not being looked at is how those people that are being
reassigned will be trained. It is going to be hard to be
trained if you are in middle America and you need to go to
Norfolk or San Diego. That has not been addressed and is not
being addressed and is not being funded.
When our Nation called on these service members in the
Naval Reserve, they responded. Now, they are finding out these
units they used to belong to are on the block to be cut. We
think this needs to be looked at.
As you know, reservists and Guardsmen are willing to make
large sacrifices and sacrifices in employment unexpectedly.
Reservists have shown this time and time again. They will
volunteer when asked. They will do anything you ask them to do.
The way the Reserve is used in successful military
operations is essential to what America is doing. What we are
asking is are these initiatives, the road we are going down,
are they the right ones for our national military strategy and
our homeland security strategy. Is it the right direction? Is
it sound defense? We are learning lessons, and we hope that the
Secretary of Defense and the service departments learn those
lessons.
Finally, we would like to urge Congress to continue to
resource the National Guard and Reserve equipment accounts.
That is the only way Guard and Reserve will keep maintaining
front line equipment or any equipment in some cases.
We also think you should address the idea of maintaining
the force level for the Naval Reserve because if you do not, it
will be gone. We are a slippery slope, down to 40,000
reservists in the Naval Reserve. That is again another
travesty.
Finally, we encourage you to consider a commission for the
Guard and Reserve for the 21st century. There are way too many
issues out there that address this country that the Guard and
Reserve can do and will do, and this is the only way to get to
it is through a congressionally mandated commission.
Thank you for your time.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. You make some
great points. We have labored long and hard to ensure that the
total force was there, and it has been there. Guard and Reserve
is part of the total force. You have a very interesting
suggestion for a commission for the 21st century.
Unfortunately, I think that is an Armed Services Committee
problem, but we will work with them. I think it is a good
suggestion. Thank you very much.
Mr. Puzon. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel I. Puzon
Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of our 22,000 members, and in advocacy for the
86,000 active Naval Reservists we are grateful for the opportunity to
submit testimony, and for your efforts in this hearing.
Today, a climate of continued utilization and sacrifice for our
Guardsmen and Reservists has encircled our nation. We are all more
aware of sacrifices of our armed forces in Iraq including our Guardsmen
and Reservists. Our Guard and Reserve personnel are serving 365 days a
year and have suffered in these casualties. These are the times that
bring the issue of parity between the active component personnel and
reserve component personnel to the forefront and into question.
The three main equity personnel issues important to the Naval
Reserve Association members is: (1) Selective Reserve MGIB
improvements, (2) TRICARE for Selected Reservists, and (3) some type of
parity on early retirement.
Our most important issue is end strength and force structure.
We do not have to remind the Congress why you needed to provide for
these Guard and Reserve forces, but it is noted that it is a good thing
you did, or where would we be today--by calling on them to go and serve
in every major conflict that we have experienced in recent memory. As
of today--350,000 Guard and Reserve members recalled since September
11, 2001, is a true testimony of their surge-ability and readiness, and
of the requirement to have a healthy reserve component in all our
services. These are the forces that add ``just in time'' combat might
when our Nation calls. Judged by this metric of combat might, they are
cost-effective and efficient resources.
The performance and efforts of today's military is without question
in the forefront of our national and international news. Without
question our armed forces is at the height of military prominence and
involvement in our national security strategy. We foresee that this
reliance will remain this way, as long as we are in this protracted war
on terrorism, and executing both the National Security Strategy and
evolving Homeland Security Strategy. Truly our Reserve Components are
providing for the defense of our nation and proven that they are
affordable!
Yet, while these affordable Guard and Reserve forces are fighting
the war in Iraq and being used throughout the world in peace keeping
missions, there are some who believe that they add little value; that
resources authorized and appropriated by Congress could be used better
somewhere else. The Guard and Reserve is often time the first payer in
any attempt to balance the budget. In the Navy, dedicated Naval Reserve
equipment that has been used in this recent war (F-18's, HH-60's,
Coastal Warfare small boats) is being eliminated and Reserve units have
been targeted for decommissioning. VFA-203 is scheduled for
decommissioning in June 2004, however, their sister squadron (VFA-201)
recently deployed, fought in OIF, and broke all active component
wartime records. Because they are the Naval Reserve they are being
decommissioned. The fact that the equipment and personnel would be
needed in a larger conflict (Korea, China), or could be utilized in
Homeland Security is of little matter. Some of this is being mislabel
as transformational, and some of it is being engineered to occur as an
outcome under BRAC. For these and other reasons Congress must remain
engaged in maintaining our Reserve and Guard Components.
We respectfully call on Congress to review and question current
Transformation and rebalancing efforts because of the aforementioned
and the following;
--Guard and Reserve service members are responding without question,
or hesitation.
--Guard and Reserve service members' families are responding without
question.
--Guard and Reserve service members' employers are responding without
question.
--Guard and Reserve hardware units that you have appropriated have
responded and are responding without question.
--Guard and Reserve hardware units have performed at and above
standards and actually above any active component standard.
--Naval Reserve members and their families as a whole, view
transformation and active reserve integration acceptable, but
understand that this means they will no longer have real units,
with Required Operating Capabilities, and Programmed Operating
Capabilities justifications. How Reservists will be trained is
a detail that hasn't been answered under current plans.
--Successful transformation of a reserve component is rarely
completed, solely with DOD or service input. Outside assistance
is necessary to achieve the right mix and right balance.
--Current situations and emerging threats, clearly shows that we need
a healthy Naval Reserve force with equipment and with units.
Rarely has there been this massive effort of organizational--
equipment, personnel, cultural, and resource--transformation at the
same time our country is engaged in a global war on terrorism, homeland
security defense, and several protracted wars overseas.
As you know, the Navy is occupied from the top down and ground up
in transformation of the Navy and Fleet response--developing
expeditionary forces, redoing training matrices, procuring new
technologies that will transform Naval war fighting efforts, and now at
the same time, implementing massive change of including the Naval
Reserve service, in active training matrices.
This is all being done, when our nation called upon the service
members of the Naval Reserve--they responded, and now they are finding
out their units are going to no longer exist--because we need
supposedly more efficient, more effective, capabilities based surging
forces. These Naval Reserve Forces cost 50 percent less than any active
duty members or unit. They maintain their readiness--directed and
reported by active components, at an overall higher sustained rate over
time than their active counterpart. The Naval Reserve force knows it
must change, and some instances understands better business practices
much better than any active member. However, they are now--under the
microscope of change, with more to loose than any active force member.
Reservists are willing to sacrifice family and employment to serve
their country, unexpectedly. Reservists 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. Yet, they are being
used again and again.
Rather than confront budget appropriators, the Active Components
have been content to fill their force shortfalls with Reserve manpower,
and this has been arguably good for the country, according to the
Department of the Navy.
If there is a raw nerve among Reservists, it is caused by how
individuals are being utilized, and how often that individual is being
called up. Pride and professionalism is a large factor in the profile
of a Reservist as it is with any individual member of the Armed
Services. They want to be used how they have been trained, and they
want to be used and complement the Active Forces. Recall and proper use
of reservists needs constant monitoring and attention. We agree that
transformation of legacy personnel manpower program is overdue. But,
Congressional involvement in force structure transformation is
mandatory, along with outside independent involvement to ensure our
country does have this affordable and cost efficient capability.
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. This has proven its worth over and over,
and is relevant.
The question we are asking is: ``Are the DOD legislative
initiatives, rebalancing efforts of the Department of Navy--taking us
in the right direction for a sound Military and a strong National
Defense?'' We hope that DOD is learning lessons from the past to avoid
repeating old mistakes in the future, and the Naval Reserve Association
stands ready to assist in turning lessons learned into improved policy.
Leaving nothing to chance however, we strongly urge Congress to
legislate:
--Resources for maintaining a strong Naval Reserve Force through the
NGREA per the attached priority list for the Naval Reserve
Force;
--Appropriations language that maintains end strength and restores
unit structure for the Naval Reserve at fiscal year 2003-04
levels; and
--Establish a Commission on the Transformation of Guard and Reserve
of the 21st Century. The transformation of our military is
dynamic and includes the extended utilization of the Guard and
Reserve Forces. We feel it is time for Congress to take a
thorough look at these issues with a commission in order to
address the many problems that we are experiencing with our
Guard and Reserve Forces. A Congressional commission is
warranted to review these issues properly.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
for this opportunity. Details of specific issues of concern by our
Association follow; we hope you can help address them.
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 strengthening the Reserve and
Guard equipment in order to maintain--highly qualified trained Reserve
and Guard personnel.
Our suggested priority for fiscal year 2005 NGREA:
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pri Equipment Cost No. Remarks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Littoral Surveillance System $19 1 Procure additional LSS.
(LSS)
2 Naval Coastal Warfare Boats 45 28 Procure 28 boats.
3 P-3C AIP Kits 29 2 Achieve commonality.
4 F/A-18 Mod, ECP 560 24 8 Upgrade F/A-18A PGM capability.
5 MH-60S Aircraft 84 4 Replacement for HH-60H Aircraft.
6 F-5 Radar Upgrade 7 6 Upgrade to APG-66 radar.
7 C-40A Transport Aircraft 1,140 2 Replace aging C-9 with C-40A.
8 F/A-18 Advanced Targeting FLIR 168 12 FLIR's for all Reserve F/A-18 Aircraft.
9 P-3C BMUP Kits 467 4 Achieve commonality.
10 FLIR kits (AAS-51Q) for SH-60B 56 4 Procure 4 FLIR (AAS-51-Q) for SH-60B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONNEL
Selective Reserve MGIB improvements
Issue: Currently SelRes MGIB benefits are at 19 percent of active
duty entitlements.
Position: This shows clearly the priority of SelRes service
members. This benefit should be higher and closer to the 48 percent
mandated benefit. We must consider upgrading this benefit for those
members that are responding to our nations call.
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 USC 641(1)(D) allowing them to remain on the RASL for
promotion purposes.
Healthcare
Issue: Healthcare readiness is the number one problem in mobilizing
Reservists. The governments own studies shows that between 20-25
percent of Guardsmen and Reservists are uninsured.
Position: 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. Congress took decisive action in establishing
the temporary Healthcare program for Guard and Reserve Forces during
the fiscal year 2004 NDAA. NRA would like to see a continued effort at
implementing the established TRICARE Health plan for uninsured drilling
Reservists, and establishing this program as a permanent program.
Early Reserve Retirement
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. The Defense Department study on this issue was
non conclusive.
Position: Over the last two decades and recently more has been
asked of Guardsmen and Reservists than ever before. The nature of the
contract has changed; Reserve Component members need 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.
The Naval Reserve Association suggests a cost neutral 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.
At a minimum, the committee should consider the various initiatives
and the cost neutral approach during the debate.
FORCE STRUCTURE
Roles and Missions
Issue: 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 war fighting.
Position: Navy has yet to deliver a Vision of use of and equipping
of the Naval Reserve Force. A Commission on the Transformation of the
Guard and Reserve for the 21st Century is warranted.
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.
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.
Closure of Naval Reserve Activities
Issue: Discussion has emerged, 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.
A. 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.
B. 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.
C. 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.
D. 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.
E. Such a plan would devastate the Naval Reserves; retention would
plummet, training and readiness would suffer.
SUMMARY
NGREA and Commission on Guard and Reserve Forces for the 21st
Century are the most important issues. Congress must maintain parity
for equipment, because the active component will not. If our country is
going to use the Guard and Reserve in the manner we are currently
doing, Congress must provide the resources, the active component is
not. Finally, a congressionally mandated Commission to study these
vital National Security issues is needed to provide guidance to the
balancing and transformation that is occurring.
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 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 affordable resource only
if they are treated right. Navy plans do not provide for these key
points and do not treat the reservist correctly. 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. Next is Dr. Jerome Odom, Provost of the
University of South Carolina.
STATEMENT OF DR. JEROME ODOM, PROVOST, UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTH CAROLINA ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION
OF EPSCoR STATES
Dr. Odom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye. I
appreciate the opportunity to submit the testimony regarding
the Defense Department's basic scientific research program and
the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research, which is better known as DEPSCoR.
I am the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost at the University of South Carolina, and I want to
speak today in support of both the Defense Department's science
and engineering research program and an important component of
that research, the DEPSCoR program. This statement is submitted
on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR States and the 21 States
and Puerto Rico that participate in EPSCoR. EPSCoR stands for
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, and Mr.
Chairman, Alaska is an EPSCoR State, and Senator Inouye, Hawaii
is an EPSCoR State as well.
The coalition wishes to be associated with the statement of
the Coalition for National Security Research in support of
additional funding for defense research and development. The
coalition strongly urges the administration and Congress to
provide a robust and stable fiscal year 2005 investment for
science and technology programs in the Department of Defense.
This subcommittee has long demonstrated its strong support for
the Department's science and technology research which have
produced the innovations and technological breakthroughs that
have contributed to ensuring that our fighting men and women
have the best available systems and weapons to support them in
executing their national defense missions. The bench science
that this subcommittee has wisely supported in our Nation's
universities has produced significant benefits for the people
in the field and on the front lines.
The Coalition of EPSCoR States strongly supports the
Department's budget request for basic research. The DEPSCoR
program is a small but significant part of this larger program.
The coalition recommends that Congress appropriate $25 million
to the Defense Department's budget for the DEPSCoR program.
EPSCoR itself is a research and development program that
was initiated by the National Science Foundation and is now
supported by most Federal agencies that fund research. Through
a merit review process, EPSCoR is improving our Nation's
science and technology capability by funding research
activities of talented researchers at universities and
nonprofit organizations in States that historically have not
received significant Federal research and development funding.
EPSCoR is a catalyst for change and is widely viewed as a model
Federal-State partnership.
The DEPSCoR program helps build national infrastructure for
research and education by funding research activities in
science and engineering fields important to national defense.
The DEPSCoR program also contributes to the States' goals of
developing and enhancing their research capabilities while
simultaneously supporting the research goals of the Department
of Defense. Research proposals are only funded if they provide
the Defense Department with research in areas important to
national defense. The DEPSCoR States have established an
impressive record of research that has directly contributed to
our Nation's security interests.
I would like very much to be able to give you some
examples. They are in the written testimony and all of the
DEPSCoR States have made major contributions to defense
research.
The DEPSCoR program improves the abilities of institutions
of higher education to develop, plan, and execute science and
engineering research that is competitive under DOD's peer
review system and provides technological products that serve
the needs of the Department of Defense. In order to ensure that
the broadest number of States is providing unique and high-
value research to the Department, the DEPSCoR States propose to
augment the current program within the parameters of the
Department's legislative authority.
Currently awards are provided to mission-oriented
individual investigators from universities and other
institutions of higher education. The program, as it is
currently implemented, has not taken into account the
significant benefits that can be derived from individual
investigators pooling their efforts to provide clusters of
research that meet the ever-increasing challenges and needs of
the Department and the services.
I would just like to say to close we would request $10
million for the investigator grants and $15 million for these
clusters for a total of $25 million for DEPSCoR. I sincerely
thank you for your consideration of that request.
Senator Stevens. Well, we are very familiar with your
program and we thank you very much for what you are doing.
Dr. Odom. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Do you have any questions?
Senator Inouye. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. We are familiar with it in our own States.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Odom. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Jerome Odom
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony regarding the Defense Department's
basic scientific research program and the Defense Experimental Program
to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR).
My name is Jerome Odom. I am the Provost of the University of South
Carolina. I am here today to speak in support of both the Defense
Department's science and engineering research program and an important
component of that research, the Defense Department's Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). This statement is
submitted on behalf the Coalition of EPSCoR States and the twenty-one
states and Puerto Rico that participate in EPSCoR.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, Puerto
Rico, and Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coalition wishes to be associated with the statement of the
Coalition for National Security Research in support of additional
funding for Defense research and development. The Coalition strongly
urges the Administration and Congress to provide a robust and stable
fiscal year 2005 investment for the Science and Technology programs of
the Department of Defense (DOD). This Subcommittee has long
demonstrated its strong support for the Department's science and
technology research, which have produced the innovations, and
technological breakthroughs that have contributed to ensuring that our
fighting men and women have the best available systems and weapons to
support them in executing their national defense missions. The bench
science the Subcommittee has wisely supported in our Nation's
universities and laboratories has produced significant benefits for the
people in the field and on the front lines. The Coalition of EPSCoR
States strongly urges you to maintain a stable investment in the
Department's science and technology (S&T) efforts.
The Coalition of EPSCoR States strongly supports the Department's
budget request for basic research. The Defense EPSCoR program is a
small, but significant, part of this larger program. The Coalition
recommends that Congress appropriate $25 million to the Defense
Department's budget for the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (Program Element PE 61114D).
EPSCoR is a research and development program that was initiated by
the National Science Foundation. Through a merit review process, EPSCoR
is improving our Nation's science and technology capability by funding
research activities of talented researchers at universities and non-
profit organizations in states that historically have not received
significant Federal research and development funding. EPSCoR helps
researchers, institutions, and states improve the quality of their
research capabilities in order to compete more effectively for non-
EPSCoR research funds. EPSCoR is a catalyst for change and is widely
viewed as a ``model'' federal-state partnership. EPSCoR seeks to
advance and support the goals of the program through investments in
four major areas: research infrastructure improvement; research cluster
development and investigator-initiated research; education, career
development and workforce training; and outreach and technology
transfer.
The Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Experimental Research
(DEPSCoR) was initially authorized by Section 257 of the fiscal year
1995 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 103-337). The
Defense Department's EPSCoR program helps build national infrastructure
for research and education by funding research activities in science
and engineering fields important to national defense. DEPSCoR's
objectives are to:
Enhance the capabilities of institutions of higher education in
eligible States to develop, plan, and execute science and engineering
research that is competitive under the peer-review systems used for
awarding Federal research assistance; and
Increase the probability of long-term growth in the competitively
awarded financial assistance that universities in eligible States
receive from the Federal Government for science and engineering
research.
The Defense EPSCoR program contributes to the states' goals of
developing and enhancing their research capabilities, while
simultaneously supporting the research goals of the Department of
Defense. DEPSCoR grants are based on recommendations from the EPSCoR
state committees and the Department's own evaluation and ranking.
Research proposals are only funded if they provide the Defense
Department with research in areas important to national defense. The
DEPSCoR states have established an impressive record to research that
has directly contributed to our Nation's security interests. If you
will allow me, I would like to highlight some of DEPSCoR's success.
In my state of South Carolina, researchers from Clemson University
have produced communications protocols to enhance the effectiveness of
radio networks on the battlefield. Researchers are focused on the
development of protocols for mitigating the limitations of radio
devices of widely disparate capabilities that will be required in
future tactical communication networks used by the Army. The new
technique will yield a significant improvement in performance and allow
for more robust radio system operation for the Army. The University of
South Carolina has completed a study to help the Navy revolutionize
data processing methods for battlefield operations through the use of
sophisticated mathematical techniques. Funded by the Navy, the research
project, carried out at the internationally recognized Industrial
Mathematics Institute of the University of South Carolina, develops
state of the art compression methods that can be used in a variety of
military scenarios including: automated target recognition, mission
planning, post battlefield assessment, intelligence and counter
intelligence.
University of Alabama researchers have conducted important work to
reducing gearbox noise in Army helicopters. By reducing the noise
levels, the crew will be more alert and able to communicate more
effectively while in such a vehicle, thus improving safe operation of
the rotorcraft. Additionally, reducing structural vibrations can
decrease fatigue damage in the rotorcraft.
Montana State University has received funding from the Air Force to
conduct research into protecting pilots and sensors from attack from
laser weaponry. This project is of particular interest for protecting
pilots using Night Vision Goggles (NVG), for laser range finders and
target designators.
University of Nevada at Reno investigators are exploring novel
military applications for non-lethal weaponry for use by the Air Force.
This research could be used for ultimately developing ``stunning/
immobilizing'' weapons that do not rely on chemicals and that do not
cause human injury. University of Nevada researchers are working on a
project to mitigate the noise in the drive systems of ships and
submarines. The mitigation of noise and the accompanying vibration will
significantly improve stealth performance of naval vessels.
North Dakota State University obtained funding to develop
mechanisms that allow the Navy's unmanned airborne vehicles (UAVs) to
carry out mission tasks with little external supervision and control.
The development of this technology will lead to individual or teams of
UAVs efficiently carrying out search, surveillance, reconnaissance, and
delivery of weapons missions in the presence of enemy threat and
without risk to the lives of military personnel. University of North
Dakota researchers received Army funding to develop weather models for
improving the availability of weather information worldwide.
Improvements in satellite technology research will lead to a better
forecasting tool that can be utilized by Army personnel to help
maximize their advantage in a battlefield or homeland defense
environment. North Dakota State obtained funding from the Navy to
conduct a project to lengthen the life of ship structures. This
research will lead to significant savings in military spending on
marine fuel, maintenance and replacement of ships.
University of Vermont researchers conducted a study to decompose
chemical warfare agents such as mustard gas in a safe and
environmentally sustainable system. This method is similar to one used
in industry to remove toxic compounds from the smokestacks of coal-
burning plants. This process can decompose nearly 100 percent of half
mustard from a gas sample. The chemical by-products of this process are
environmentally friendly and non-toxic. Similar technologies can be
used to decompose sarin, soman, and VX stimulants.
The Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(DEPSCoR) has been established within DOD to build national
competitiveness for academic research and education by providing
funding in science and engineering fields of vital importance to DOD's
mission. The program improves the abilities of institutions of higher
education to develop, plan and execute science and engineering research
that is competitive under DOD's peer-review system and provides
technological products that serves the needs of the Department of
Defense and the Uniformed Services. In order to ensure that the
broadest number of states is providing unique and high value research
to the Department, the DEPSCoR states propose to augment the current
program within the parameters of the Department's legislative
authority.
Currently, awards are provided to mission-oriented individual
investigators from universities and other institutions of higher
education. The individual investigators conduct extremely important
research that has practical military applications. The program as it is
currently implemented has not taken into account the significant
benefits that can be derived from individual investigators pooling
their efforts to provide ``clusters'' of research that meet the ever
increasing challenges and needs of the Department and the Services. The
current program could also benefit from an approach that maximizes the
number of the 21 DEPSCoR states that receive funding for important
defense-related projects thus ensuring that these states remain engaged
in cutting edge research that enhances national defense.
Working in close consultation with the appropriate officials at the
Department of Defense, DEPSCoR states propose restructuring the program
into two components. The first component would retain the current
program whereby the 21 eligible states (and individual investigators)
are invited, through their NSF EPSCoR Committee, to compete for
research awards in areas identified by the Department and the Services.
The second and new component would award funding to mission-oriented
``centers''. These centers of defense excellence would be mission
oriented interdisciplinary areas to build defense research capacity.
Under this model, a single university or institution of higher learning
would be awarded a DEPSCoR grant and would manage the various
investigators charged with providing interdisciplinary defense
research. In order to ensure the broadest possible participation of
DEPSCoR states, only four individual awards and two center awards could
be active for each state over a three-year period at any one time.
To achieve important defense research objectives of both components
of the program, the DEPSCoR states need the program to be funded at $25
million for fiscal year 2005 with approximately $10 million obligated
to the individual investigator awards and $15 million for the mission-
oriented centers initiative. This twin approach to funding important
research will significantly enhance the Department's ability to tap
into the best ideas that the DEPSCoR states have to offer in support of
the Nation's security needs. We are currently in discussions with the
managers at the Office of Defense Research regarding the proposed
restructuring of the composition of DEPSCoR.
The Defense Department's Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research is a wise and worthwhile investment of scarce
public resources. It will continue to contribute significantly to
efforts to build scientific and engineering research efforts in support
of national defense needs.
Finally, the Coalition of EPSCoR States believes a $25 million
Defense EPSCoR program with the modifications suggested will ensure
that Federal dollars are being used in a cost-effective way and that
the EPSCoR states are contributing to the Nation's Defense efforts.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Senator Stevens. Our last witness is Ms. Fran Visco,
President of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. Good
morning.
STATEMENT OF FRAN VISCO, J.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
BREAST CANCER COALITION
Ms. Visco. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Senator Inouye. I am a 17-year breast cancer survivor and I am
privileged to lead the National Breast Cancer Coalition, a
coalition of more than 600 member organizations from across the
country and 70,000 individuals.
We have submitted written testimony that gives you some of
the successes of the Department of Defense breast cancer
research program, so I am not going to go into that detail. I
am here to thank you for your ongoing support of this program
and to once again assure you that these dollars are being
incredibly well spent. We are here to ask for level funding to
continue the program.
As you know, the overhead for this program is exceedingly
low. It is incredibly flexible and able to respond to changes
in science on an annual basis. It is a program that is
transparent and accountable to the public. The information of
what this program funds and how it works is freely available.
The website for the program lists everything that the program
has funded. Every other year, there is a meeting called the Era
of Hope, which is one of the few times where the Government
actually reports to the taxpayer exactly where every dollar
goes.
The collaboration among the scientific community, the
consumer community, and the United States Army has set a model
for further collaborations. General Martinez Lopez has told us
that so much of what we come up with in the DOD breast cancer
research program and the collaborations he has used as a model
for other biomedical research programs and other programs at
Fort Detrick. The collaborations that have sprung up between
world renowned scientists and the United States Army are
unprecedented as a result of this program.
Most importantly, it truly has the trust and the faith and
the support of the American public. This program is a model, a
model that has been copied by other countries, by other
biomedical research funding programs, by foundations, by so
many others to support innovative breast cancer and other
research.
This program complements the existing traditional funding
streams. This program rewards innovation. It looks at new ideas
and concepts that ultimately become traditional research
proposals that are funded by the National Cancer Institute and
the National Institutes of Health. It identifies individuals
with great vision and promise early in their career and gives
them the funding to allow them to create new technologies and
new approaches to eradicating breast cancer. There is no other
program like the DOD breast cancer program.
Again, we are so grateful for your continued support. Thank
you very much.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
coming to see us and for your visit to our offices.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. I would like to note, Mr. Chairman, that
this is another congressional initiative program that you
began.
Ms. Visco. Yes.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, sir.
Ms. Visco. And we are very grateful to him for that. Thank
you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fran Visco, J.D.
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 (NBCC).
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 12 years 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 $150 million appropriation for fiscal year 2005. The
program was reduced from $175 million to $150 million three 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
level funding of $150 million for fiscal year 2005.
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 breast cancer 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 past 12 years, the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research
Program has established itself as model medical research program,
respected throughout the cancer and broader medical 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 respond quickly to what
is currently happening in the scientific community. It is able to fill
gaps with little red tape. 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
effectiveness.
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 has 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.
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 or 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 invest in world
renowned, outstanding individuals, rather than projects, from any field
of study by providing funding and freedom to pursue highly creative,
potentially breakthrough research that could ultimately accelerate the
eradication of breast cancer. The Era of Hope Scholar is intended to
support the formation of the next generation of leaders in breast
cancer research, by identifying the best and brightest independent
scientists early in their careers and give them the necessary resources
to pursue a highly innovative vision towards ending breast cancer.
Also, Historically Black Colleges and Minority Universities/
Minority Institutions Partnership 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 an
established program 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--$150 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
have been awarded for investigator-initiated projects that involve a
clinical trial within the lifetime of the award. The BCRP expanded its
emphasis on translational research by offering five different types of
awards that support work at the critical juncture between laboratory
research and bedside applications.
The Centers of Excellence mechanism bring together consortia of the
world's most highly qualified individuals and institutions to address a
major overarching question in breast cancer research that could make a
major contribution towards the eradication of breast cancer. These
Centers put to work the expertise of basic, epidemiology and clinical
researchers; as well as consumer advocates to focus on a major question
in breast cancer research. Many of these centers are working on
questions that will translate into direct clinical 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 HER-2/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 HER-2/neu could slow the
growth of the cancer cells that over-expressed the gene. This research,
which led to the development of the drug Herceptin, 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 higher risk of developing 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.
Investigators funded by the DOD have developed a novel imaging
technique that combines two-dimensional and 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 underfunded. It is responsive to the
scientific community and 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 nearly $1.68
billion in appropriations, from which 3,671 awards for fiscal year
1992-2002 were distributed. Approximately 400 awards will be granted
for fiscal year 2003. The areas of focus of the DOD BCRP span a broad
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.
From the program's inception through fiscal year 2002, the BCRP has
funded research at 3,459 institutions in all 50 states and the District
of Columbia. I would like to submit a chart for the record that
demonstrates how the funding has been distributed through fiscal year
2002.
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 more than
6,200 publications in scientific journals, more than 4,200 abstracts
and 140 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 IOM, which originally
recommended the structure for the program, independently re-examined
the program in a report published in 1997. Their findings
overwhelmingly encouraged the continuation of the program and offered
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 recommended
continuing the program and established 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 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 next meeting will be held in June 2005.
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 at http://cdmrp.army.mil/
bcrp/.
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 for 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 1997, our members presented a petition with more than 2.6
million signatures to 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 for.
Once again, NBCC is bringing its message to Congress. Just last
week, many of the women and family members who supported the campaign
to gather the 2.6 million signatures came to NBCCF'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 our efforts to end breast cancer. The overwhelming interest
in, and dedication to eradicate this disease continues to be evident as
people not only are signing petitions, but are willing to come to
Washington, D.C. from across the country to deliver their message about
their commitment.
Since the very beginning of this program in 1992, Congress has
stood in support of this important investment in the fight against
breast cancer. In the years since, 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. You have set in
motion an innovative and highly efficient approach to fighting the
breast cancer epidemic. What you must do now is support this effort by
continuing to fund 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 3 million women in the United States living with
breast cancer.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS
[Clerk's Note.--Subsequent to the hearing, the subcommittee
has received statements from Dennis Duggan of The American
Legion, MSGT (Ret.) Morgan D. Brown, Manager, Legislative
Affairs, Air Force Sergeants Association, and the American
Museum of Natural History which will be inserted in the record
at this point.]
Prepared Statement of The American Legion
Chairman Stevens and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: The
American Legion is grateful for the opportunity to present its views
regarding defense appropriations for fiscal year 2005. 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 to include the active, Reserve and National Guard
forces and their families, as well as quality of life for military
retirees and their dependents. We realize that many of the personnel
decisions come from your colleagues on the Armed Service Committee;
however, your Subcommittee continues to play a significant role in the
Nation's defense.
Since September 2001, the United States has been involved in two
wars--the war against terrorism in Operations Iraqi Freedom and
Enduring Freedom. American fighting men and women are proving that they
are the 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 continues to adhere to the principle that this
Nation's armed forces must be well-manned and equipped, not just 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 warships, and Air
Force fighter wings are eliminated or retired from the force structure,
they cannot be rapidly reconstituted regardless of the threat or
emergency circumstances. Although active duty recruiting has achieved
its goals, the Army's stop-loss policies have obscured retention of the
active and reserve components. Military morale undoubtedly has also
been adversely affected by the extension of tours in Iraq.
The Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2005 totals
$2.4 trillion and authorizes $402 billion for defense or about 19
percent of the budget. The fiscal year 2005 defense budget represents a
seven percent increase in defense spending over the current funding
level. It also represents 3.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product,
more than the 3.5 percent in the fiscal year 2004 budget. Active duty
military manpower end strength is 1.388 million, only slightly changed
from fiscal year 2003. Selected Reserve strength is 863,300 or reduced
by about 25 percent from its strength levels during the Gulf War of 13
years ago.
Mr. Chairman, this budget must advance ongoing efforts to fight the
global war on terrorism, sustain and improve military quality-of-life
and continue to transform the military. A decade of overuse of the
military and its under-funding will necessitate sustained investments.
The American Legion believes that this budget must also address:
increases in the military end strengths of the Services; accelerate
ship production; provide increased funding for the concurrent receipt
of military retirement pay and VA disability compensation for disabled
military retirees; and improve survivors benefit plan (SBP) for the
retired military survivors.
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 active duty force, Reserves and National Guard will continue
to look for talent in an open market place and to compete with the
private sector for the best young people this 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 allowances and subject their families to repeated unaccompanied
deployments and sub-standard housing as well.
With the eventual lifting of the stop-loss policy, there may be a
personnel exodus of active duty and reserve components from the Army.
Retention and recruiting budgets may need to be substantially increased
if we are to keep, and recruit, quality service members.
The President's 2005 defense budget requests $104.8 billion for
military pay and allowances, including a 3.5 percent across-the-board
pay raise. 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. The fiscal year
2004 budget lowered out-of-pocket housing costs 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. The American Legion encourages the Subcommittee to continue the
policy of no out-of-pocket housing costs in future years.
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 Coast Guard
personnel.
American Legion National Commanders have visited American troops in
Europe, the Balkans and South Korea, as well as a number of
installations throughout the United States, including Walter Reed Army
Medical Center and Bethesda National Navy Center. During these visits,
they were able to see first hand the urgent, immediate need to address
real quality-of-life challenges faced by service members and their
families. Commanders' have spoken with families on Womens' and Infants'
Compensation (WIC), where quality-of-life issues for service members,
coupled with combat tours and other heightened operational tempos, play
a key role in recurring recruitment and retention efforts and should
come as no surprise. The operational tempo and lengthy deployments,
other than combat tours, must be reduced or curtailed. 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 end
strengths for the services. Military pay must be on par with the
competitive civilian sector. Activated Reservists must receive the same
equipment, the same pay and timely health care as active duty
personnel. If other benefits, like health care improvements,
commissaries, adequate quarters, quality childcare, and Impact Aid for
education or DOD education are reduced, they will only serve to further
undermine efforts to recruit and retain the brightest and best this
Nation has to offer.
The budget deficit is about $374 billion, the largest in U.S.
history, and it is heading higher perhaps to $500 billion. National
defense spending must not be a casualty of deficit reductions.
INCREASING END STRENGTHS AND BALANCING THE ACTIVE/RESERVE FORCE
STRUCTURE
The personnel system and force structure currently in use by the
United States Armed Forces was created 30 years ago, in the aftermath
of the Vietnam War. By the mid-1980's, the All Volunteer Force (AVF)
became the most professional, highly qualified military the United
States had ever fielded. With 18 Army divisions and 2.1 million on
active duty, we were geared for the Cold War and that preparedness
carried over into the Persian Gulf War. Whenever Reservists were
called-up for the Persian Gulf War or peacekeeping, in the Balkans or
Sinai, they were never kept on duty for more than six months. In fact,
many Reservists volunteered to go. This system began to breakdown after
September 11, 2001 with an overstretched Army which only had ten
divisions which included a mix of infantry, armor, cavalry, air
assault, airborne, mechanized and composite capabilities. The
Quadrennial Defense Review, released one month after the September 11
attacks, did not alter the mix of active duty and Reserve units. Nor
did the plans for the invasion of Iraq. The Defense Department admitted
that rebalancing the way Reserve forces were used was to be a top
priority. DOD also said that it had seen no evidence to support calls
to increase the size of the active Army from its current level of
480,000. The Reserves still account for 97 percent of the military's
civil affairs units, 70 percent of its engineering units, 66 percent of
its military police and 50 percent of its combat forces. Moreover, the
size of the active duty Army has shrunk to 34 percent of the total U.S.
military and is currently proportionally smaller than at any time in
its history. This split in the active and Reserve forces have led to
four major problems, which has been exacerbated by the inability of the
United States to get troop contributions from other nations.
First, the Army is severely overstretched and is actively engaged
with hostile forces in two countries. It has nearly 370,000 soldiers
deployed in 120 countries around the globe. Of its 33 combat brigades,
24 (or 73 percent) are engaged overseas. This leaves the United States
potentially vulnerable in places like the Korean Peninsula, and it
means that many combat units are sent on back-to-back deployments or
have had their overseas tours extended unexpectedly.
Secondly, the failure to increase active forces and reorganize the
military's personnel and force structures resulted in National Guard
and Reserve units being mobilized without reasonable notice nor
equipping. A Maryland National Guard MP battalion, for example, has
been mobilized three times in the last two years.
The third problem created by these mobilizations is that many of
the Reservists have been called up without proper notice and kept on
duty too long and happen to be police officers, firefighters and
paramedics in their civilian lives. When these personnel are called for
military service and kept active for long periods, besides jeopardizing
their employment, it can reduce the ability of their communities to
deal with terrorism.
The fourth problem with the current system is that it has led to a
decline in the overall readiness of the Army. In fiscal year 2003, the
Army had to cancel 49 of its scheduled 182 training exercises. The
first four divisions returning from Iraq in the first five months of
this year will not be combat-ready again for at least six months since
their equipment has worn down, troops have worn down and war-fighting
skills have atrophied while they were doing police work. Through its
stop-loss measures, the Army has prevented 24,000 active duty troops
and some 16,000 reservists from leaving its ranks. The Army Reserve
missed its reenlistment goals for fiscal year 2003.
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb recommends
three major steps to correct these imbalances: First, the balance of
active and Reserves must take place even during a war. Forces needed
for occupation duty, such as military police, civil affairs and
engineers should be permanently transferred to active duty. Secondly,
the size of the Army should be quickly increased by at least two more
divisions or 40,000 spaces. Third, given the threat to the American
homeland, DOD cannot allow homeland security personnel to join the
National Guard and Reserves.
The American Legion supports these recommendations, in particular,
by permanently increasing the end strengths of the United States Army
by two additional divisions or by at least 40,000 personnel. The Army
simply does not have enough division-size units to adequately
accommodate rotation of units in Iraq in a timely manner and without
units becoming non-combat ready when they return home.
Apparently, DOD has resisted making these changes because of the
expenses they would incur. But given the size of the overall defense
budget--$420 billion--the money could be found if Congress and DOD
reordered its priorities.
By 2007, the Army expects to have created a modern Army by moving
to brigade-based organizations, rather than division-based. The Army's
current 33 brigades will expand to as many as 48 brigade units of
action, which will include five Stryker brigades. The National Guard
would have the same common design as the Army. To accomplish these
planned changes, the Army will temporarily add 30,000 spaces to help
form the new organizations. However, The American Legion understands
that about 7,000 service members of the 30,000 would be holdovers from
the stop-loss policy. DOD also anticipates continuing to call Guardsmen
and Reservists to active duty, which indicates a continuing unit and
manpower shortage.
QUALITY-OF-LIFE
The major national security concern continues to be the enhancement
of the quality-of-life issues for active duty service members,
Reservists, National Guardsmen, military retirees, and their families.
During the last congressional session, President Bush and Congress made
marked improvements in an array of quality-of-life issues for military
personnel and their military families. These efforts are visual
enhancements that must be sustained for active duty personnel,
Guardsmen and Reservists.
In previous defense budgets, 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 elimination of the disabled veterans' tax for severely
disabled military retirees. 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 for all disabled retirees needs to
be resolved, as well as the need to improve survivors' benefits by
eliminating the 20 percent offset at age 62.
The American Legion will continue to convey that simple, equitable
justice is one reason to authorize and fund concurrent receipt.
Military retirees are the only Federal employees who continue to have
their retired pay offset 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. The American Legion feels it is time that
retirees receive compensation for these fiscal sacrifices. Likewise,
military survivors have their survivors' benefits reduced from 55
percent to 35 percent when they become social security eligible.
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 force has
operated under a higher operational tempo with longer work hours,
greater dangers, and increased family separations. The very fact that
over 300,000 Guardsmen and Reservists have been mobilized since
September 11, 2001 is first-hand evidence that the United States Army
has needed at least two more active divisions for nearly a decade.
Throughout the draw down 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 contained in past National Defense Authorization Acts. 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 years of pay caps in previous years took its toll and
military pay continues to lag behind the private sector at
about 5.4 percent. With U.S. troops battling terrorism in Iraq
and Afghanistan, The American Legion supports at least a 3.5
percent military pay raise. The American Legion believes the
gap should be erased within three years or less.
--Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).--For those who must live off
base, the payment of 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 by
2005. Please continue to work to keep the gap closed between
BAH and the members' average housing costs during future years.
--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. The American
Legion recommends the system not be privatized or consolidated;
and that DECA manpower levels not be further reduced. The
American Legion would oppose any attempts by DOD to impose
``variable pricing'' in commissaries.
--DOD Domestic Dependents Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS).--
The American Legion is concerned about the possible transfer of
DDESS, which is the target of an ongoing study in DOD. The
American Legion urges the retention and full funding of the
DDESS as they have provided a source of high quality education
for children attending schools on military installations.
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 have a 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. In addition, since
the terrorist attacks on the American homeland on September 11, 2001,
more than 300,000 Guard and Reserve troops have been activated to
support homeland defense and overseas operations in the war on terror.
Soon, 40 percent of the forces in Iraq will consist of activated
reservists.
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. Much was accomplished last year
for the Guard and Reserves. Benefit issues of particular concern in
this area include:
--Review and upgrade the Reserve compensation and retirement system
without creating disproportional incentives that could
undermine active force retention; change the retirement age
from 60 to 55 for Guardsmen and Reservists;
--Continue to restore the tax deductibility of non-reimbursable
expenses directly related to Guard and Reserve training;
--Reduce the operations tempo; increase Army force levels; allocate
adequate recruiting and retention resources;
--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 the Guard and Reserve to accrue for retirement purposes all
points earned annually;
--Make TRICARE permanently available to all drilling Guardsmen and
Reservists and their families;
--Give tax credits for employers who choose to make up the difference
between military pay and Reservists salary when they are
activated;
--Growing concerns are that the Reserve Components, especially the
National Guard, are being overused in contingency and
peacekeeping operations, as these service members 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 has 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.
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 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 service members 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. The American
Legion supports restoration of retired pay (concurrent receipt)
for all disabled military retirees. We would like to thank the
Subcommittee for authorizing concurrent receipt for disabled
retirees rated 50 percent and higher and for including
Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) retirees as well as
disabled retired Reservists who are receiving retired pay for
longevity. The American Legion is also grateful for the
Enhanced Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC), which was
enacted in the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization
Act. Mr. Chairman, we have a long way to go in extending
concurrent receipt to those disabled retirees for longevity
rated 50 percent and less; and including TERA retirees in CRSC
eligibility; and by extending concurrent receipt to those
disabled retirees who were medically retired before reaching 20
years of service. The American Legion has visited Walter Reed
Army Medical Center on numerous occasions to talk with wounded
and injured young soldiers, many with amputated limbs suffered
as a result of combat action in Iraq and Afghanistan. They too
are prohibited from receiving both military retirement pay for
their physical disability and VA disability compensation. This
puts an additional financial strain on these severely disabled
soldiers and their families. The American Legion is extending
its Family Support Network to these soldiers and their families
when they are medically retired from the service. The purposes
of these two compensation elements are fundamentally different.
A veteran's disability compensation is paid to a veteran who is
disabled by injury or disease incurred or aggravated during
active duty 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. Action should be taken this
year to provide full compensation for those military retirees
who served both more than and fewer than 20 years in uniform
and incurred service-connected disabilities. Disabled military
retirees are the only retirees who pay for their own disability
compensation from their retirement pay; and they cannot receive
both military disability retirement pay and VA disability
compensation. It is time to completely cease this inequitable
practice. What better time to authorize and fund concurrent
receipt for all disabled retirees than during this period of
War.
--Social Security Offset 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 of, 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 an improvement
of survivor benefits from 35 percent to 55 percent over a ten-
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
members of the Guard and Reserve are now being used to replace
active duty forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and are projected to
become 40 percent of total forces in those theaters. 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.--Service members, 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
condition and the retiree 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 27,000 military widows/widowers affected by
the offset under current law. Congress should repeal this
unfair law that penalizes these military survivors.
CONCLUSIONS
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
2005 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 for all
disabled retirees 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 least 3.5 percent annually which this
budget does achieve.
--The end strengths of the active armed forces need to be increased
to at least 1.6 million for the Services and the Army needs to
be increased by two more divisions.
--The Quadrennial Defense Review strategy needs to call for enhanced
military capabilities to include force structures, increased
end strengths 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,
health care, benefits and employment rights need to be
continually improved.
--Although the fiscal year 2004 Supplemental Appropriations increased
funding to purchase body armor and armored HMMVV's, we are very
disappointed by numerous news accounts of individuals buying
their own body armor and recommend increased funding.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes The American Legion statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the Air Force Sergeants Association
Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, on behalf of the
135,000 members of the Air Force Sergeants Association, thank you for
this opportunity to offer the views of our members on the military
quality-of-life programs that affect those serving (and who have
served) 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, and our members are grateful. Listed below are
several specific goals for which we hope this committee will
appropriate funds for fiscal year 2005 on behalf of current and past
enlisted members and their families. As always, we are prepared to
present more details and to discuss these issues with your staffs. This
presentation includes many items reflecting the communication we
receive from our members, and it offers an insight into perceived
inequities within the military compensation program.
MILITARY PAY AND COMPENSATION
Enlisted military members receive lower pay and lower allowances
for food and housing. To put it simply, enlisted members are paid the
least in basic pay, and are expected to spend less for their food and
to house their families. Of course, this simply means they will have to
spend more ``out of pocket'' to protect their families. Obviously,
enlisted members want no less than commissioned officers for their
families to live in good neighborhoods and to attend good schools. So,
enlisted members are forced to make this happen by spending more of
their basic pay--because their allowances are inadequate. We urge this
committee to support more equitable compensation/allowance levels for
enlisted members, with emphasis on targeted increases for senior NCOs
to more fairly compensate them for their responsibilities and the
military jobs they do for their nation. Some specific areas that we
hope the committee will examine:
--Provide Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay (HDIP) for military
firefighters. DOD and all services have reached agreement on
this and are ready to support and fund it. The committee can
easily verify this through military legislative liaison
contacts and through service leadership. AFSA believes this pay
is long overdue for these military servicemembers who serve
under incredible risk--even during peacetime. If any military
occupational specialty should receive HDIP, military
firefighters should receive it. It would cost $9.4 million per
year to provide this funding for all services. It is strongly
endorsed by this association and by the associations in the
Military Coalition. We urge the committee to make this happen--
this year.
--Reform military pay to more equitably reflect enlisted
responsibilities in relation to the overall Air Force mission.
Further targeting is warranted.
--Make the recent increases in Family Separation Allowance ($250),
and Imminent Danger Pay ($225) permanent. These levels are
reasonable and more reflective of the financial burdens of
those serving and those left at home.
--Provide Assignment Incentive Pay to those stationed in Korea.
Military and government leaders often speak of the imminent
danger posed by the North Koreans and how the troops stationed
there are at the ``tip of the spear,'' forming the front lines
of our defenses. These brave men and women should receive some
type of special pay or tax advantage. Perhaps the answer is to
mandate an amount of the Assignment Incentive Pay signed into
law during the 107th Congress.
--Establish a standard, minimum reenlistment bonus at the time of
reenlistment for all enlisted members regardless of component,
time-in-service, or AFSC. We often hear from our members that
it is demotivating that subordinates often receive bonuses,
while those who lead them do not. In fact, such bonuses are
generally not offered after the 15th year of service. While we
realize that such bonuses are nothing more than force
manipulation tools, it would be proper to provide some level of
bonus each time a military member commits to put his/her life
on the line for an additional extended period of military
service.
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS
While a number of issues must be addressed in relation to the
Montgomery G.I. Bill, we realize they do not specifically fall under
the jurisdiction of this committee. However, it is imperative that
those (from that era) who did not enroll in the old Veterans
Educational Assistance Plan get an opportunity to enroll in the
Montgomery G.I. Bill. Many are now retiring after devoting a career of
military service, yet they have no transitional education benefit.
Additionally, military members give more than enough to this nation
that they should not have to pay $1,200 into the Montgomery G.I. Bill
in order to use it. Members ought to be able to transfer their G.I.
Bill benefits to their family members--perhaps as a career incentive
(e.g., after serving 12 or 14 years). The 10-year benefit limitation
after separation needs to be repealed; it is unfair to enlisted members
and serves no purpose other than to discourage use of this important
benefit. We ask that you provide the funding necessary to enact these
changes to the MGIB. In addition, we ask this committee to:
--Eliminate any service Tuition Assistance caps. As military members
increase their education levels, they are able to progressively
increase their contribution to the mission. As has often been
said, every dollar this nation spends on education returns many
fold in the contribution the more-educated citizen (military
member) makes to society and the U.S. economy.
--Ensure full funding of the Impact Aid Program. This committee is
forced to address the Impact Aid issue each year. It has had to
do so regardless of the Administration in power. In order to
protect the families (especially the children) of military
members, we ask you to continue your great work in providing
Impact Aid funding.
--Enhance the Selected Reserve Montgomery G.I. Bill (SR-MGIB)
benefit. AFSA asks this committee to provide the funding
necessary to increase the value of the SR-MGIB to ensure it
measures up to 47 percent of the value of the active duty MGIB.
This was the congressional intent when the SR-MGIB began. At
the present time, the SR-MGIB is only worth 29 percent of the
MGIB. We ask you to support increasing the value of the SR-MGIB
and establishing an automatic indexing with the active duty
program. Additionally, we ask you to provide the necessary
funding which would allow Guardsmen and Reservists to use the
SR-MGIB beyond the current 14-year duration of the program.
They should be able to use the program during their time of
service and for a reasonable period after they have completed
their military obligation.
--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 institutions to consider military members
assigned in their state as ``residents,'' for the purposes of
tuition levels.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD AND AIR FORCE RESERVE
The role of the Guard and Reserve (G&R) has increased dramatically.
Our military establishment simply could not execute the War on
Terrorism nor this nation's worldwide military operations without the
direct participation of G&R members. We learned much after 9/11 as
mobilization took place and as G&R members were increasingly deployed.
The following initiatives have been called for by AFSA members. Many of
these are equity issues. AFSA believes that each of the items is the
right thing to do.
--Reduce the earliest G&R retirement age from 60 to 55. It is simply
wrong that these patriots are the only federal retirees that
have to wait until age 60 to fully enjoy retirement benefits.
While we realize that DOD considers this a budgetary burden, it
is the right thing to do. Additionally, it would allow for
greater movement from rank-to-rank since most G&R promotions
are by vacancy. While there are many bills on the table (many
inspired by budgetary considerations rather than doing the
right thing), we urge this committee to fully support S. 1035,
sponsored by Senator Jon Corzine. That bill would provide full
retirement benefits as early as age 55.
--Provide full (not fractioned) payment of flying, hazardous duty,
and other special pays; i.e., eliminate ``1/30'' rules. These
``fractioned'' allowances are wrong. They denigrate the service
and the risk faced by members of the Guard and Reserve. We ask
the committee to fund these important ``risk-based'' allowances
on the same basis for G&R members as they are paid for active
duty members.
--Provide BAH ``Type 1'' to all G&R members TDY or activate,
including those activated or TDY for less than 139 days. Unlike
an active duty member, G&R members typically have civilian
employment and always return to their residence upon completion
of military duty. Their house payment does not go away.
Providing full BAH to deployed G&R members would allow them to
adequately protect their investment in their homes and the
financial wellbeing of their families, if applicable.
--Provide G&R First Sergeants and Command Chief Master Sergeants with
full, special duty assignment pay on the same basis it is paid
to active duty members. Like active duty members, the
extraordinary duties and expenses of these two groups of
leaders does not take place only during duty hours. G&R First
Sergeants and Command Chiefs have duties throughout the month
(whether they are ``officially'' on duty or not). For that
reason, equity would call for this special pay to be paid on
the same basis as it is for active duty enlisted leaders.
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
AFSA applauds this committee for its support of the partial
resolution to the Concurrent Receipt issue included in Section 641 of
the fiscal year 2004 NDAA and the expansion of Combat-Related Special
Compensation under Section 642. Despite the specter of a veto threat
throughout the year and intense political wrangling, in the end the
right thing was done. The principle has now been established in law.
Congress has recognized that retirees who are disabled by their
military service should be allowed to collect the full retirement pay
they earned through long-term honorable service to the nation. They
also ought to receive just compensation for maladies caused by military
service--injuries that will have an impact on their employability and
their quality of life during their remaining days on Earth. Now, AFSA
urges that the effort shift toward restoring military retired pay for
those with disabilities of 40 percent and lower. We ask the committee
to help establish a timetable to address this important issue for those
with VA disability ratings of 40 percent and lower.
MORALE, WELFARE AND RECREATION PROGRAMS
These programs form an essential part of military life. They build
a sense of community, enhance morale, promote fitness, provide support
to family members left behind when the military member is deployed, and
financially support military families. It is extremely important that
this committee support full funding of Child Development Centers. These
facilities are not a luxury, they are absolutely necessary for the
completion of this nation's military mission.
HOUSING AND SHIPMENT PROGRAMS
The process of shipping military personal property has historically
been a nightmare for military service members. They have had to accept
that their personal goods will be lost, stolen, or damaged. In fact,
that is a normal part of nearly every military move. One reason that
military household goods have been treated so shoddily is that carriers
are selected based on ``low bid''--not high quality and/or customer
satisfaction. Also, the claims process to recover the financial loss
caused by loss or damage is so cumbersome that many people don't bother
to file a claim. Those who do file a claim soon learn that they will be
reimbursed only a fraction of the cost of the actual loss or damage. We
recommend this committee appropriate funds to specifically address the
following housing and shipment-related issues.
--Provide a household goods weight allowance for military spouses to
accommodate professional books, papers, and/or equipment needed
to support employment of military spouses. Because the majority
of military spouses now work (especially in enlisted families),
it is appropriate that they be afforded a weight allowance to
accommodate their professional documents, books, and supplies.
This would be in keeping with DOD's recent focus on ``family
readiness.'' This allowance would also support such things as
supplies for family in-home day care, etc.
--Authorize reimbursement for alternate POV storage. If advantageous
to the government, reimburse transportation expenses for
members to take their POVs to a location other than a
commercial storage facility when PCSing (e.g., to leave the
vehicle with a relative). Currently, when a member is sent
overseas to a location where the government will not ship a
POV, the government must pay to store the vehicle and reimburse
the member for mileage accumulated while taking the POV to a
commercial storage facility. Sometimes it would cost the
government less to reimburse a member for driving his/her
vehicle to store it at no cost at a relative's or friend's
home. On top of that, the government would not have to pay the
storage fees! Of course, those who got reimbursed for taking
their vehicle to other than a commercial storage facility would
waive the government storage benefit. In many cases this
approach would save the government money, as well as passing
the common sense test.
--Provide all military members being reassigned to CONUS or OCONUS
locations the option of government-funded shipment or storage
of a second privately owned vehicle. Current demographics,
family employment realities, and average number of family
vehicles justify making this change. This would be seen as a
positive step forward, particularly for enlisted military
members. For them, a privately owned vehicle is a major
investment in their overall financial well-being. Leaving a
vehicle behind is usually not an option since few enlisted
members can afford to store one. As such, a PCS move can have a
significantly onerous financial impact on an enlisted family.
Especially if they are forced to sell their vehicle.
Additionally, because both spouses have to work to support the
family, we are forcing the family to purchase a second vehicle
at the PCS location--often at overseas locations where the
vehicles are significantly overpriced.
SURVIVOR BENEFITS
AFSA appreciates this committee's attention to the needs of those
left behind when a current or past military member passes away. The
spouses of military members also serve their nation, facing the rigors
of that lifestyle, and always being aware that their military spouse
has agreed to the ultimate sacrifice. It is important that we correct
some inequities that military survivors face.
Eliminate the age 62 Survivor Benefit Plan annuity reduction. We
urge you to take action to eliminate the unfair Survivor Benefit Plan
(SBP) ``Widows Tax.'' A widow's SBP annuity is reduced by 36 percent
when she reaches age 62. Before age 62, she receives 55 percent of the
deceased military retiree's base retirement pay; at age 62, it drops to
35 percent of the base retirement pay. This is a financially
devastating blow to many survivors, many of whom are on fixed incomes.
On top of that it is just plain wrong!
When Congress passed SBP in 1972, the intent was for the retiree to
pay 60 percent of program costs, with a 40 percent government subsidy.
However, due to miscalculations and annuitant changes, the government
subsidy now is just 19 percent. The retiree is paying 81 percent of SBP
costs! In 1989 when the subsidy had dropped to just 28 percent,
Congress reduced premiums to readjust the government's fair share. With
the government subsidy only 19 percent, a major readjustment is needed
immediately. One can only imagine the requests that would come from DOD
if the situation were reversed. One very fair way to rectify the
situation would be to raise the modest survivor annuities. Many
military members were misled to believe that the survivor's annuity
would be 55 percent for life. Many are shocked when they find that the
annuity will drop to 35 percent at age 62. Additionally, there is no
such reduction in the federal civilian SBP which is much more highly
subsidized. It is wrong that the most senior military survivors are not
protected in a similar manner.
--Accelerate the fully-paid-up status for SBP and RSFPP participants
who have reached age 70 and have paid into the program 30
years. When Congress passed the paid-up provision five years
ago, it set the effective date at 2008. While that change will
be welcomed by those who reach age 70 around that time, many
more will no so benefit. In fact, many current SBP enrollees
will have to have paid more than 35 years at the time that
their program is considered paid up. AFSA urges this committee
to support changing the paid-up effective date to the date of
enactment of the Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense
Authorization Act.
--Allow Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) widows to remarry
after age 55 without losing their entitlement. Last year
Congress took a great step forward by allowing such widows to
remarry after age 57 without losing their benefit. We ask the
committee support making that ``age 55'' to make DIC consistent
with all other federal programs.
HEALTH CARE
Military health care and readiness are inseparable, and military
members and their families must know that no matter where they are
stationed or where the families live, their health care needs will be
taken care of.
--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 have had many members say that they know of doctors
that will not treat them because the doctor does not respect
nor accept TRICARE. Further questioning usually indicates that
the doctors do not welcome TRICARE patients because they have
to accept significantly less reimbursement for their services.
That begs the question--why should they? We urge this committee
to consider increasing the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge to
higher levels to ensure quality providers stay in the system.
--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.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present some of the
challenges faced by enlisted military members. As you know, they ask
little in return for serving their nation. The items they ask us to
bring to you, such as those above, would provide equity in some cases
and program improvement in others. On behalf of the members of the Air
Force Sergeants Association, we ask you to include consideration of
these items in your deliberations as you formulate your mark-up for the
Defense portion of the fiscal year 2005 Appropriations Act. We would be
happy to provide more information or to answer any questions you might
have on these important matters.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History
About the American Museum of Natural History
The American Museum of Natural History [AMNH] is one of the
nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and public
education. Since its founding in 1869, the Museum has pursued its
mission to ``discover, interpret, and disseminate--through scientific
research and education--knowledge about human cultures, the natural
world, and the universe.'' With nearly four million annual visitors--
approximately half of them children--its audience is one of the largest
and most diverse of any museum in the country. Museum scientists
conduct groundbreaking research in fields ranging from all branches of
zoology, comparative genomics, and bioinformatics to earth, space, and
environmental sciences and biodiversity conservation. Their work forms
the basis for all the Museum's activities that seek to explain complex
issues and help people to understand the events and processes that
created and continue to shape the earth, life and civilization on this
planet, and the universe beyond.
More than 200 Museum scientists, led by 46 curators, conduct
cutting-edge research programs as well as fieldwork and training.
Scientists in five divisions (Anthropology; Earth, Planetary, and Space
Sciences; Invertebrate Zoology; Paleontology; and Vertebrate Zoology)
are using leading technologies to sequence DNA and create new
computational tools to retrace the evolutionary tree, document changes
in the environment, make new discoveries in the fossil record, and
describe human culture in all its variety. The Museum also conducts
undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral training programs in
conjunction with a host of distinguished universities.
The Museum's collections of more than 32 million specimens and
artifacts are a major resource for Museum scientists as well as for
more than 250 national and international visiting scientists each year.
Including endangered and extinct species as well as many of the only
known ``type specimens,'' or examples of species by which all other
finds are compared, the collections provide an irreplaceable record of
life on earth and the critical baseline resources for 21st century
research in life, earth, environmental, and other sciences. The Museum
has also recently expanded its collections to include biological
tissues and isolated DNA maintained in a super-cold tissue facility.
Preserving genetic material and gene products from rare and endangered
organisms that may become extinct before science fully exploits their
potential, this frozen tissue collection is an invaluable research
resource in many fields, including genetics, comparative genomics, and
biodefense.
The Museum interprets the work of its scientists, addresses current
scientific and cultural issues, and promotes public understanding of
science through its renowned permanent and temporary exhibits as well
as its comprehensive education programs. These programs attract more
than 400,000 students and teachers and more than 5,000 teachers for
professional development opportunities. The Museum also takes its
resources beyond its walls through the National Center for Science
Literacy, Education, and Technology, launched in 1997 in partnership
with NASA.
Advancing Department of Defense Science Goals
The Department of Defense (DOD) safeguards the nation's security
and is committed to the research, tools, and technology that will
ensure the capabilities needed to counter 21st century security threats
most effectively and efficiently. With its highest priority winning the
global war on terrorism, DOD supports research development to prepare
for and respond to the full range of terrorist threats, including
bioterrorism. The American Museum, in turn, is home to preeminent
programs in molecular biology, comparative genomics, and computation
that closely tie to DOD's research goals for advancing the nation's
security and defense capabilities, including biodefense and protection
of troops in the field.
Genomic science is critical to the nation's defense interests.
Moreover, studying genomic data in a natural history context makes it
possible to more fully understand the impacts of new discoveries in
genomics and molecular biology. Genomes of the simplest organisms
provide a window into the fundamental mechanics of life, and
understanding their natural properties and their evolution (for
example, the evolution of pathogenicity in bacteria) can help to solve
challenges in biodefense and bring biology and biotechnology to bear in
defense applications.
The American Museum's distinguished molecular research programs are
deeply engaged in genome research aligned with DOD's various research
thrusts, and, as discussed below, its unique expertise in evolutionary
analysis is particularly relevant in these areas. In the Museum's
molecular laboratories, in operation now for eleven years, more than 40
researchers in molecular systematics, conservation genetics, and
developmental biology conduct genetic research on a variety of study
organisms, utilizing state of the art sequencers and other advanced
technologies. The labs also nourish the Museum's distinguished training
programs that serve up to 80 undergraduates, doctoral, and postdoctoral
trainees annually.
Advanced computation is also critically important in understanding
and responding to threats of bioterrorism. The Museum is a leader in
developing vital computational tools, as parallel computing is an
essential enabling technology for phylogenetic (evolutionary) analysis
and intensive, efficient sampling of a wide array of study organisms.
Museum scientists have constructed an in-house 900-CPU computing
facility that is the fastest parallel computing cluster in an
evolutionary biology laboratory and one of the fastest installed in a
non-defense environment. Their pioneering efforts in cluster computing,
algorithm development, and evolutionary theory have been widely
recognized and commended for their broad applicability for biology as a
whole. The bioinformatics tools Museum scientists are creating will not
only help to generate evolutionary scenarios, but also will inform and
make more efficient large genome sequencing efforts. Many of the
parallel algorithms and implementations (especially cluster-based) will
be applicable in other informatics contexts such as annotation and
assembly, breakpoint analysis, and non-genomic areas of evolutionary
biology and other disciplines.
Institute of Comparative Genomics
Building on its strengths in molecular biology, genomics science,
and computation, in 2001 the Museum launched the Institute for
Comparative Genomics. The importance of the comparative approach cannot
be overstated, as investigating genomics with a natural history
perspective enlarges our understanding of the evolutionary
relationships among organisms including threat agents and
pathogenicity, and ultimately, of humans, medicine, and life itself.
Equipped with DNA sequencers in its molecular labs, vast biological
collections, researchers with expertise in the methods of comparative
biology, the computing cluster, and the new frozen tissue collection,
the Institute is positioned to be one of the world's premier research
facilities for mapping the genome across a comprehensive spectrum of
life forms.
The Institute is establishing a distinguished research record in
areas of core concern to DOD. Museum scientists are leading major new
international research projects in assembling the ``tree of life,'' and
have obtained a patent for an innovative approach to analyzing
microarray data, which can be used to support more accurate diagnosis
of pathogens or physiological states that would reduce or interfere
with human performance. Current projects also include: tracing the
evolution of pathogenicity and transfer of disease-causing genes over
time and between species with NIH and DOE support; building a
comprehensive database of all known finished and incomplete genomes of
microbial species; developing computational and phylogenetic techniques
to analyze chromosomal sequence data; developing effective methods of
culturing difficult to culture species as well as new methods for
obtaining embryos for antibody staining; and conducting whole genome
analysis of disease causing microorganisms to understand the
evolutionary changes that take place in a genome to make it more or
less virulent. The methodologies, approaches, and algorithms developed
in all these projects can be extended and applied fruitfully to a
variety of questions involving pathogens that pose a threat to military
and civilian populations, including pathogen identification and
inactivation and host-pathogen interactions.
Federal Partnership
So as to contribute the unique capacities of its Institute of
Comparative Genomics, the Museum proposes a federal partnership with
DOD to advance common goals in areas including the Biological Sciences
program in DARPA's Defense Research Sciences, committed to protecting
our military forces and the public from bio-warfare attacks; and the
Army Research Office's Life Sciences emphasis in Molecular Genetics and
Genomics (Research; Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army account;
Medical Advanced Technology subaccount). The following are examples of
programs we propose to undertake in key areas where the research and
training work of Museum scientists supports DOD's fundamental missions:
--Field identification of vectors of pathogenicity.--Involving DNA
barcoding of insect vectors and their pathogens, this project
promises a major innovation in field technology for identifying
and fighting insect borne diseases. The initiative will lead to
the development of a handheld device that rapidly and
accurately identifies insect vectors of infectious diseases.
Adaptable to any number of biological identification problems,
the specific focus is on insect vectors of malaria, West Nile,
and trypanosomiasis. The project entails developing: a
reference collection of insect vectors, a DNA barcoding method
to type vectors and their pathogens, and the field-based
barcoding tool (most likely using microarray technologies) for
identifying insect vectors and pathogens.
--Utilizing bacterial genomics to understand the evolution of
pathogenesis.--This project uses the HACEK group of bacterial
pathogens as a model system to understand the role of
horizontal gene transfer (HGT) in the evolution of pathogenesis
and may provide important clues relevant to new efforts in
pathogen origin and deactivation.
--Novel computational approaches to understanding pathogenicity.--
Biology presents a number of problems of extreme computation
complexity known as NP-hard problems. One such problem is the
determination of evolutionary trees, the basis for the
understanding of the origination and loss of biological
features, including the origin and loss of pathogenicity. The
Museum proposes to apply a new approach that uses statistical
physics analogues, such as the quantum mechanical process of
particle decay, to model NP-hard problems in evolutionary tree
construction. Through this approach, we hope to aid in the
design of novel algorithmic approaches to long-standing
biological problems, generating new insight into processes such
as the evolution of pathogenicity.
The Museum seeks $5 million for its Institute for Comparative
Genomics to partner with DOD to advance these shared research goals for
combating bioterrorism and to contribute its singular capacities to
research critical to the nation's defense. The Museum intends to
support the initiatives with funds from nonfederal as well as federal
sources and proposes to use the requested $5 million to advance
research and training programs in microbial genomics research and
computation.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Appreciate your being
here and the testimony of all the witnesses this morning.
We are going to reconvene our subcommittee next Wednesday,
May 12, when we will hear from the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The subcommittee is in
recess until that time.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., Wednesday, May 5, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Wednesday,
May 12.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:03 a.m., in room SH-216, Hart
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Cochran, Specter, Domenici,
Bond, McConnell, Shelby, Gregg, Hutchison, Burns, Inouye,
Hollings, Byrd, Leahy, Harkin, Dorgan, Durbin, Reid, and
Feinstein.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENTS OF:
HON. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY
GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF
DR. DAVID S. CHU, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PERSONNEL AND
READINESS)
ACCOMPANIED BY LAWRENCE LANZILLOTTA, COMPTROLLER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning, Secretary Rumsfeld, General
Myers. We welcome you back before our subcommittee at this
important time for our Nation and for the Department of
Defense. We also welcome the acting Comptroller, Larry
Lanzillotta.
The focus of our hearing today is the fiscal year 2005
Defense budget. This is our normally scheduled hearing, where
we ask the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to testify at the end of our hearing cycle and
provide their important perspectives on the budget and answer
questions that have come up in connection with the other
subcommittee hearings.
Last week, we learned a fiscal year 2005 request totaling
$25 billion is forthcoming. We plan to hold a separate hearing
on that request when more details are available. If it comes to
this committee, I urge members to defer their questions
concerning that request until we have it.
Sadly, we also have learned a lot over the past week about
the abuse of Iraqi inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison. These
actions were absolutely appalling and an embarrassment to our
great country, as you have said, Mr. Secretary. Congress must,
and we shall, investigate the matter thoroughly. It is our
view, however, that the primary jurisdiction of this issue lies
with the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate
Intelligence Committee, not the Appropriations Committee. This
committee needs to focus attention on funding required to train
and equip our men and women in uniform throughout the world.
Our military remains engaged in critical missions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other areas around the world. It's imperative
for us to exercise our due diligence in reviewing the $401.7
billion in Defense spending requests that's already before us.
We're committed to ensuring the Defense Department is properly
resourced to win our global war on terrorism. Failure in this
endeavor is not an option for us, as you have stated, Mr.
Secretary.
Mr. Secretary and General Myers, we look forward to this
hearing today about your priorities in the current budget
request, as well as any other operational update you may wish
to provide. I understand you may have a time problem, Mr.
Secretary. Please keep us informed on that.
We will make--your full statements are already a part of
our record.
Each Member, without objection, will be limited to 5
minutes in the opening round of questions. Time permitting, we
will proceed with a second round of questioning.
Before you begin your opening statements, I'll ask my
colleague, my co-chairman from Hawaii, if he has comments.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. And
good morning, Mr. Secretary and General Myers. And I join my
Chairman and welcome you to our Subcommittee.
During our hearings this year, we received testimony from
the military departments, the Guard and Reserves, Missile
Defense Agency, and the Surgeons General. As we have examined
the testimony of these officials, it is very clear that most
are very supportive of your budget request. In our review, we
learned that, at the same time as our forces are fighting
overseas, your Department is engaged in many major and somewhat
controversial changes. The Navy and Marines are looking at
swapping crews overseas to save money and time for deploying
ships, a policy which could impact how many ships we need. The
Army is adding forces by reconstructing brigades, but there's
no agreement to permanently provide the end strength to achieve
this. The Air Force is preparing to introduce the F-22 to its
force structure, which dramatically increases combat
capability. And there are some who still question whether the
system is required. All the services are examining their forces
overseas to alter the global footprint while we prepare for
base closures domestically. And we are now aware that a budget
amendment will be forthcoming to help pay for the rising cost
of war in Iraq when for months we thought we could defer any
increase until next year.
So, Mr. Secretary and General Myers, we know these are very
challenging and critical times for the Defense Department. The
challenges have been heightened by the events coming to light
in recent weeks, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you that it
has been very difficult for all Americans to witness scenes of
torture and human-rights abuses.
Mr. Chairman, I know that many are likely to want to
discuss this today, but we should remember that our primary
jurisdiction is the budget of the Defense Department, not
investigating criminal acts. It is, nonetheless, very important
that the Congress and the administration continue to
investigate these incidents, and I'm certain they will.
Mr. Secretary, General Myers, I know you recognize the
gravity of this matter and the serious impact it is having on
our Nation's prestige and influence. I, for one, am very
concerned about the long-term effect it will have on our
military recruiting and retention. It is equally important that
we realize we're all in it together. I'm one of the few on this
committee that voted against going to war in Iraq. But now that
we are engaged in this policy, we must simply find a way to see
it through to a successful and swift conclusion.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Without objection, we're going to postpone
opening statements of other members and go right to the
Secretary's statement. As I said, it's printed in the record.
Mr. Secretary, we're happy to have you here with us today.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Inouye, members of the committee. I'd like to make a brief
statement, and I certainly thank you for this opportunity to
meet on the President's proposed budget.
First, I want to commend the men and women in uniform and
the civilians in the Department of Defense who support them.
It's important, in times like this, that we publicly indicate
that we value their service, we value their sacrifice. They are
doing a superb job for this country.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS SINCE 2001
When this administration took office 3 years ago, the
President charged us to try to prepare the Department to meet
the new threats that our Nation will face in the 21st century.
To meet that charge, we fashioned a new defense strategy, a new
force-sizing construct. We've issued a new unified command
plan, instituted more realistic budgeting so that the
Department now looks to emergency supplementals for the unknown
cost of fighting wars and not simply to sustain readiness. We
transformed the way the Department prepares its war plans, and
adopted a new lessons-learned approach during Operation Iraqi
Freedom. And we have undertaken a comprehensive review of our
global force structure.
The scope and scale of what has been accomplished is
substantial. Our challenge is to build on these activities even
as we fight the global war on terror. One effect of the global
war on terror has been a significant increase in the
operational tempo and an increased demand on the force. To
manage the demand, we must first be clear about the problems so
that we can work together to fashion appropriate solutions. We
hope the increased demand on the force we're experiencing today
will prove to be a spike driven by the deployment of some
138,000 troops in Iraq.
MANAGING DEMAND ON THE FORCE
For the moment, the increased demand is real, and we have
taken a number of immediate actions. We're working to increase
international military participation in Iraq, and have had good
success. More recently, we've lost two or three countries from
that coalition, which was unfortunate. We've accelerated the
training of Iraqi security forces, and we now have something
like 206,000 strong, heading toward 265,000. And our forces are
working to hunt down those who threaten Iraq's stability and
Iraq's transition to self reliance.
Another way to deal with the increased demand on the force
is to add more people, and we've already done so, a fact that
seems not to be fully recognized. Using the emergency powers
granted by Congress, we have already increased the active duty
force levels by something in the neighborhood of 30,000 to
35,000 above the pre-emergency authorized end strength. We've
done this over the past 2 years. If the war on terror demands
it, we will not hesitate to increase force levels still more
using the same emergency authority. But it should give us pause
that even a temporary increase in our force levels was and
remains necessary.
Think about it. At this moment, we have a pool of about 2.6
million men and women in the Active, Reserve, and Guard,
including the Individual Ready Reserve, yet the deployment of
135,000 out of a pool of 2.6 million has required that we
temporarily increase the size of the force by some 35,000. That
suggests that the real problem is not the size of the force,
per se, but rather the way the force has been organized over
the years and the mix of capabilities at our disposal. And it
suggests that our challenge is considerably more complex than
simply adding more troops.
General Pete Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff, compares
the problem to a barrel of water on which the spigot is placed
near the top of the barrel, and you open the spigot and very
little comes out because all you can access is the top of the
barrel. The answer, at least from the taxpayer's standpoint, it
seems to me, is not to get a bigger barrel or more barrels;
it's to move the spigot down on the barrel so we can access all
of, in this case, the 2.6 million men and women that we should
have access to, and take full advantage of their skills and
their talents and the fact that every one of them is a
volunteer.
We have too few Active and Guard and Reserve forces with
the skill sets that are in high demand, and we have too many
Guard and Reserve with skills that are in too little demand.
Therefore, we urgently need to re-balance the skill sets within
the Reserve components, and also between the Active and the
Reserve components, so that we have enough of the right kinds
of forces available to accomplish the missions. And we need to
focus on transforming the forces for the future, making sure we
continue to increase the capability of the force and, thus, our
ability to do more with those forces. The services are working
to do just that.
In looking at our global force posture, some observers have
focused on the number of things--troops, tanks, ships--that we
might add or remove to one portion of the world or another. I
would submit that that may very well not be the best measure
for today. For example, the Army has put forward a plan that,
by using its emergency powers, we will increase force levels by
roughly 6 percent. But because of the way they will do it,
General Schoomaker estimates that the Army will add, not 6
percent, but up to 30 percent more combat power--that is to
say, go from 33 brigades up to 43 brigades, with a possibility
of going to 48 brigades. Instead of adding more divisions, the
Army is focusing on creating a 21st century modular army made
up of self-contained, more self-sustaining brigades that are
available to work for any division commander. As a result, 75
percent of the Army's brigade structure should always be ready
in the event of a crisis. The Army's plan will increase the
number of active brigades significantly. But because we will be
using emergency powers, we will have the flexibility to reduce
the number of active troops if the security situation permits.
SUPPORTING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM
Before highlighting the 2005 budget request, let me talk
briefly about the funding for the global war on terror. As the
year has unfolded, not surprisingly the security situation and
the requirements in Iraq have changed. As a result, General
Abizaid has requested additional combat capability for the
period ahead, and the President has approved that request. We
regret having to extend those individuals necessary to provide
that capability. They had anticipated serving in Iraq, or in
theater, for up to 365 days, and this extension will extend
their time in Iraq by up to 90 days. We have recently
identified, and are now preparing to deploy, other forces to
replace them.
Because our Nation is at war, we need to provide combat
forces with the resources they need to complete their missions.
While we do not yet know the exact cost of operations in 2005,
we do need to plan for contingencies so that there's no
disruption in the resources for the troops. The cost of
supporting these operations increases the chance that certain
accounts, such as Army operations and maintenance,
particularly, will experience funding shortfalls beyond
February or March 2005.
As Senator Inouye mentioned, the President has, therefore,
asked Congress for a $25 billion contingency reserve fund that
can be used for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq until we can
get a clearer picture of what will be necessary for a fiscal
year 2005 supplemental. This fund would be used primarily for
operation and maintenance requirements, such as personnel
support costs, combat operations, supplies, force protection,
and transportation.
I want to emphasize that this $25 billion proposed reserve
fund would not be all that would be needed in 2005. We are
anticipating submitting a full 2005 supplemental appropriation
request early next year, when we can better estimate the exact
cost.
HIGHLIGHTS OF FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST
Returning now to the 2005 budget request, we have requested
additional funds to strengthen intelligence, including
increases in human intelligence, persistent surveillance, as
well as technical analysis and information-sharing. We have
also strong funding for transformation and other acquisition
needs. The President's budget requests funds for pay and
quality-of-life improvements for the troops. These funds
properly focus on the men serving--men and women serving in the
Armed Forces. In recent years, Congress has, from time to time,
added entitlement-like changes beyond recommendations such as
these that have been, for the most part, concentrated on those
who have already served. We certainly applaud the desire to
honor that service. But I should point out that the effects of
these decisions, cumulatively, are important. They're
increasing substantially the permanent cost of running the
Department of Defense (DOD). By fiscal year 2009, they,
cumulatively, will add over $20 billion a year to the Defense
budget, with only modest effect on recruiting and retaining the
current active force.
I recognize there are legitimate questions and legitimate
differences about the best way to compensate the forces. For
this reason, I'm appointing an Advisory Committee on Military
Compensation to conduct a comprehensive review of military
compensation and benefits, with a view towards simplifying and
improving them. Before making further changes, I hope that you
will allow us to first develop a comprehensive and integrated
set of compensation proposals, which we would submit to you
next year.
SPECIAL LEGISLATION
One of the most important ways in which Congress can
support the global war on terror is to support three special
authorities that we have requested. First is $500 million to
train and equip military and security forces in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and friendly nearby regional nations to enhance
their capability to combat terrorism and to support U.S.
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a great deal cheaper
for the taxpayer if we are able to train and equip forces in
Iraq and Afghanistan than it is to maintain U.S. forces in
those countries.
Second, the Commander's Emergency Response Program, $300
million, to enable military leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan--
U.S. military leaders--to respond to urgent humanitarian relief
and reconstruction needs. This has been a remarkably successful
program, with quick turnaround projects averaging in the
neighborhood of $5,000 to $10,000 each. Commanders not only
help people in their operations area, but they also gain
support in defeating terrorists and building themselves a
better future.
And third is increased drawdown authority--we're requesting
$200 million under the Afghan Freedom Support Act--to provide
additional help for the Afghan National Army. The President's
2005 budget does not request specific authorization for these
three authorities. Therefore, the Department would need to
reprogram funding to use them. This underscores the importance
of Congress increasing the Department's general transfer
authority to $4 billion, which would represent slightly under 1
percent of total DOD funding. Higher general transfer authority
would give us a needed ability to shift funds from less
pressing needs to fund must-pay bills and emerging requirements
as the circumstances on the ground change over time. As we've
seen in the last three years, such requirements have been a
constant feature of our military programs.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, the President has asked Congress $401.7
billion for fiscal year 2005. That is a very, very large amount
of money, the taxpayers' hard-earned money. Such investments
will likely be required for some years, because our Nation is
engaged in a struggle that could very likely go on for a number
of years. Our objective is to ensure that the Armed Forces
remain the best-trained, the best-equipped fighting force in
the world, and that we treat volunteers who make up that force
with the respect equal to their sacrifice and their dedication.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald H. Rumsfeld
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here to
discuss the progress in the global war on terrorism, our transformation
efforts, and to discuss the President's 2005 budget request for the
Department of Defense.
First, I want to commend the courageous men and women in uniform
and the Department civilians who support them. They are remarkable--and
what they have accomplished since our country was attacked 30 months
ago is impressive. In 2\1/2\ years, they have helped to: Overthrow two
terrorist regimes, rescued two nations, and liberated some 50 million
people; capture or kill 46 of the 55 most wanted in Iraq--including
Iraq's deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein; hunt down thousands of
terrorists and regime remnants in Iraq and Afghanistan; capture or kill
close to two-thirds of known senior al-Qaeda operatives; disrupt
terrorist cells on most continents; and likely prevent a number of
planned terrorist attacks.
Our forces are steadfast and determined. We value their service and
sacrifice, and the sacrifice of their families.
With your support, we have the finest Armed Forces on the face of
the Earth.
We have a challenge: to support the troops and to make sure they
have what they will need to defend the nation in the years ahead.
We are working to do that in a number of ways: By giving them the
tools they need to win the global war on terror; by transforming for
the 21st century, so they will have the training and tools they need to
prevail in the next wars our nation may have to fight--wars which could
be notably different from today's challenges; and by working to ensure
that we manage the force properly--so we can continue to attract and
retain the best and brightest, and sustain the quality of the all-
volunteer force.
Each represents a significant challenge in its own right. Yet we
must accomplish all of these critical tasks at once.
When this Administration took office three years ago, the President
charged us with a mission--to challenge the status quo, and prepare the
Department of Defense to meet the new threats our nation will face as
the 21st century unfolds.
We have done a good deal to meet that charge. Consider just some of
what has been accomplished:
--We have fashioned a new defense strategy and a new force sizing
construct.
--We have 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 more on how we might be
threatened, and what portfolio of capabilities we will need to
deter and defend against those new threats.
--We have fashioned a new Unified Command Plan, with a new Northern
Command, that became fully operational last September, to
better defend the homeland; the Joint Forces Command focused on
transformation; and a new Strategic Command responsible for
early warning of, and defense against, missile attack and the
conduct of long-range attacks.
--We have transformed the Special Operations Command, expanding its
capabilities and its missions, 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, supported by other combatant commands.
--We have taken critical steps to attract and retain talent in our
Armed Forces--including targeted pay raises and quality of life
improvements for the troops and their families.
--We have instituted realistic budgeting, so the Department now looks
to emergency supplementals for the unknown costs of fighting
wars, not to sustain readiness.
--We have reorganized the Department to better focus our space
activities.
--Congress has established a new Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence and an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland
Defense.
--We have completed the Nuclear Posture Review, and adopted a new
approach to deterrence that will enhance our security, while
permitting historic deep reductions in offensive nuclear
weapons.
--We have pursued a new approach to developing military capabilities.
Instead of developing a picture of the perfect system, and then
building the system to meet that vision of perfection--however
long it takes or costs--the new approach is to start with the
basics, roll out early models faster, and then add capabilities
to the basic system as they become available.
--We have reorganized and revitalized the missile defense research,
development and testing program--and are on track to begin
deployment of our nation's first rudimentary ballistic missile
defenses later this year.
--We have established new strategic relationships, that would have
been unimaginable just a decade ago, with nations in Central
Asia, the Caucasus, and other critical areas of the world.
--We transformed the way the Department prepares its war plans--
reducing the time it takes to develop those plans, increasing
the frequency with which they are updated, and structuring our
plans to be flexible and adaptable to changes in the security
environment.
--We adopted a new ``Lessons Learned'' approach during Operation
Iraqi Freedom, embedding a team with U.S. Central Command that
not only studied lessons for future military campaigns, but
provided real-time feedback that had an immediate impact on our
success in Iraq.
--We made a number of key program decisions that are already having a
favorable impact on the capability of the force. Among others:
--We are converting 4 Trident nuclear SSBN subs into conventional
SSGN subs capable of delivering special forces and cruise
missiles into denied areas.
--The Army has deployed its first Stryker brigade to Iraq, is
completing conversion of the second, and is replacing the
Crusader with a new family of precision artillery that is
being developed for the Future Combat System.
--We have revitalized the B-1 bomber fleet by reducing its size and
using the savings to modernize the remaining aircraft with
precision weapons and other critical upgrades.
--We have also undertaken a comprehensive review of our global force
posture, so we can transform U.S. global capabilities from a
structure driven by where the wars of the 20th century ended,
to one that positions us to deal with the new threats of the
21st century security environment.
--We have established a new Joint National Training Capability, that
will help us push joint operational concepts throughout the
Department, so our forces train and prepare for war the way
they will fight it--jointly.
--We have worked with our Allies to bring NATO into the 21st
century--standing up a new NATO Response Force that can deploy
in days and weeks instead of months or years, and transforming
the NATO Command Structure--including the creation of a new
NATO command to drive Alliance transformation.
--With the help of Congress last year, we are establishing a new
National Security Personnel System that should help us better
manage our 746,000 civilian employees, and we are using the new
authorities granted us last year to preserve military training
ranges while keeping our commitment to responsible stewardship
of the environment.
The scope and scale of what has been accomplished is remarkable. It
will have an impact on the capability of our Armed Forces for many
years to come.
We will need your continued support as we go into the critical year
ahead.
Our challenge is to build on these successes, and continue the
transformation efforts that are now underway. In 2004, our objectives
are to:
--Successfully prosecute the global war on terror;
--Further strengthen our combined and joint war fighting
capabilities;
--Continue transforming the joint force, making it lighter, more
agile and more easily deployable, and instilling a culture that
rewards innovation and intelligent risk-taking;
--Strengthen our intelligence capabilities, and refocus our
intelligence efforts to support the new defense strategy and
our contingency plans;
--Reverse the existing WMD capabilities of unfriendly states and non-
state actors, and stop the global spread of WMD;
--Improve our management of the force;
--Refocus our overseas presence, further strengthen key alliances,
and improve our security cooperation with nations that are
likely partners in future contingencies;
--Continue improving and refining DOD's role in homeland security and
homeland defense; and
--Further streamline DOD processes, continuing financial management
reform and shortening acquisition cycle times.
So, we have an ambitious agenda. But none of these tasks can be put
off.
Our task is to prepare now for the tomorrow's challenges, even as
we fight today's war on terror.
MANAGING THE FORCE
One effect of the global war on terror has been a significant
increase in operational tempo, which has resulted in an increased
demand on the force. Managing the demand on the force is one of our top
priorities. But to do so, we must be clear about the problem--so we can
work together to fashion the appropriate solutions.
We hope the increased demand on the force we are experiencing today
will prove to be a ``spike,'' driven by the deployment of nearly
135,000 troops in Iraq. We hope and anticipate that that spike will be
temporary. We do not expect to have 135,000 troops permanently deployed
in any one campaign.
But for the moment, the increased demand is real--and we are taking
a number of immediate actions. Among other things:
--We are working to increase international military participation in
Iraq.
--Japan began deploying its Self-Defense Forces to Iraq in January--
the first time Japanese forces have been deployed outside their
country since the end of World War II.
--As more international forces deploy, we have accelerated the
training of Iraqi security forces--now some 200,000 strong--to
hasten the day when the Iraqis themselves will be able to take
responsibility for the security and stability of their country,
and all foreign forces can leave.
--And as we increase Iraq's capability to defend itself, our forces
are dealing aggressively with the threat--hunting down those
who threaten Iraq's stability and transition to self-reliance.
Another way to deal with the increased demand on the force is to
add more people. We have already done so. Using the emergency powers
granted by Congress, we have increased force levels by more than 35,000
above the pre-emergency authorized end strength.
--The Army is up roughly 11,400 above authorized end strength;
--The Navy is up roughly 3,600;
--The Marine Corps is up some 600, and
--The Air Force is up about 19,800.
If the war on terror demands it, we will not hesitate to increase
force levels still more using the emergency authorities. And because of
the emergency powers, we have the flexibility to increase or reduce
force levels in the period ahead, as the security situation permits,
and as the transformation efficiencies bear fruit.
But it should give us pause that even a temporary increase in our
force levels was, and remains, necessary. Think about it: At this
moment we have a force of 2.6 million people, both active and reserve:
1.4 million active forces; 869,000 in the Selected Reserve--that is the
guard and reserve forces in units; and an additional 286,000 in the
Individual Ready Reserves.
Yet, despite these large numbers, the deployment of 135,000 troops
in Iraq has required that we temporarily increase the size of the force
by some 35,000.
That should tell us a good deal about how our forces are organized.
It suggests that the real problem is not the size of the force, per
se, but rather the way the force has been organized over the years, and
the mix of capabilities at our disposal. And it suggests that our
challenge is considerably more complex than simply adding more troops.
General Pete Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff, compares the
problem to a barrel of water, on which the spigot is placed too high
up. When you turn it on, it only draws water off the top, while the
water at the bottom can't be accessed. The answer to that problem is
not a bigger barrel; rather, the answer is to move the spigot down, so
that more of the water is accessible and can be used.
In other words, our challenge today is not simply one of increasing
the size of the force. Rather, we must better manage the force we
have--to make sure we have enough people in the right skill sets and so
that we take full advantage of the skills and talents of everyone who
steps forward and volunteers to serve.
We have too few Guard and Reserve forces with certain skill sets
that are high demand--and too many Guard and Reserve with skills that
are in little demand.
Therefore, we urgently need to rebalance the skill sets within the
reserve component, and between the active and reserve components, so we
have enough of the right kinds of forces available to accomplish our
missions.
And we need to do a far better job of managing the force. That
requires that we focus not just on the number of troops available
today--though that is of course important--but on transforming the
forces for the future, making sure we continue to increase the
capability of the force, and thus our ability to do more with fewer
forces.
And the Services are working to do just that.
MASS VS. CAPABILITY
One thing we have learned in the global war on terror is that, in
the 21st century, what is critical to success in military conflict is
not necessarily mass as much as it is capability.
In Operation Iraqi Freedom, Coalition forces defeated a larger
adversary. They did it not by bringing more troops to the fight, which
we were ready to do, but by overmatching the enemy with superior speed,
power, precision and agility.
To win the wars of the 21st century, the task is to make certain
our forces are arranged in a way to ensure we can defeat any
adversary--and conduct all of the operations necessary to achieve our
strategic objectives.
In looking at our global force posture review, some observers have
focused on the number of troops, tanks, or ships that we might add or
remove in a given part of the world. I would submit that that may well
not be the best measure.
If you have 10 of something--say ships, for the sake of argument--
and you reduce the number by two, you end up with fewer of them. But if
you replace the remaining ships with ships that have double the
capability of those removed, then obviously you have not reduced
capability even though the numbers have been reduced.
The same is true as we look at the overall size of the force. What
is critical is the capability of the Armed Forces to project power
quickly, precisely, and effectively anywhere in the world.
For example, today the Navy is reducing force levels. Yet because
of the way they are arranging themselves, they will have more combat
power available than they did when they had more people.
In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Navy surged more than half the
fleet to the Persian Gulf region for the fight. With the end of major
combat operations, instead of keeping two or three carrier strike
groups forward deployed, as has been traditional Navy practice, they
quickly redeployed all their carrier strike groups to home base. By
doing so, they are resetting their force in a way that will allow them
to surge over 50 percent more combat power on short notice to deal with
future contingencies.
The result? Today, six aircraft carrier strike groups are available
to respond immediately to any crisis that might confront us. That
capability, coupled with the application of new technologies, gives the
Navy growing combat power and greater flexibility to deal with global
crises--all while the Navy is moderately reducing the size of its
active force.
The Army, by contrast, has put forward a plan that, by using
emergency powers, will increase the size of its active force by roughly
6 percent or up to 30,000 troops above authorized end strength. But
because of the way they will do it, General Schoomaker estimates the
Army will be adding not 6 percent, but up to 30 percent more combat
power.
This is possible because, instead of adding more divisions, the
Army is moving away from the Napoleonic division structure designed in
the 19th century, focusing on creating a 21st century ``Modular Army''
made up of self-contained, more self-sustaining brigades that are
available to work for any division commander.
So, for example, in the event of a crisis, the 4th Infantry
Division commander could gather two of his own brigades, and combine
them with available brigades from, say, the 1st Armored Division and
the National Guard, and deploy them together. The result of this
approach is jointness within the service, as well as between the
services. And that jointness--combined with other measures--means that
75 percent of the Army's brigade structure should always be ready in
the event of a crisis.
The Army's plan would increase the number of active brigades
significantly over the next four years. But because we will be using
emergency powers, we will have the flexibility to reduce the number of
troops if the security situation permits--so the Army would not be
faced with the substantial cost of supporting a larger force as the
security situation and the efficiencies permit.
Yet even if the security situation, and progress in transformation,
were to permit the Army eventually to draw down the force, the new way
they are arranging their forces will ensure the United States still has
more ground combat power--more capability.
So we have two different approaches:
--In one case, the Navy is reducing force levels while increasing
capability;
--In the other, the Army is increasing troop levels--but doing so in
a way that will significantly increase its capability;
--And in both cases, the increase in capability of each service will
be significant.
The point is: our focus needs to be on more than just numbers of
troops. It should be on finding ways to better manage the forces we
have, and by increasing the speed, agility, modularity, capability, and
usability of those forces.
DOD INITIATIVES
Today, using authorities and flexibility Congress has provided, DOD
has several dozen initiatives underway to improve management of the
force, and increase its capability.
Among other things:
--We are investing in new information age technologies, precision
weapons, unmanned air and sea vehicles, and other less
manpower-intensive platforms and technologies.
--We are working to increase the jointness of our forces, creating
power that exceeds the sum of individual services.
--We are using new flexibility under the fiscal year 2004 National
Defense Authorization Act to take civilian tasks currently done
by uniformed personnel and convert them into civilian jobs--
freeing military personnel for military tasks.
--This year, we will begin to move 10,000 military personnel out of
civilian tasks and return them to the operational force--
effectively increasing force levels by an additional 10,000
service members in 2004. An additional 10,000 conversions
are planned for 2005.
--We have begun consultations with allies and friends about ways to
transform our global force posture to further increase
capability.
We are already working to rebalance the active and reserve
components. We are taking skills that are now found almost exclusively
in reserve components and moving them into the active force, so that we
are not completely reliant on the Guard and Reserve for those needed
skills. And in both the active and reserve components, we are moving
forces out of low demand specialties, such as heavy artillery, and into
high-demand capabilities such as military police, civil affairs, and
special operations forces.
Already, in 2003, the services have rebalanced some 10,000
positions within and between the active and reserve components. For
example, the Army is already transforming 18 Reserve field artillery
batteries into military police. We intend to expand those efforts this
year, with the Services rebalancing an additional 20,000 positions in
2004, and 20,000 more in 2005--for a total of 50,000 rebalanced
positions by the end of next year.
We are also working to establish a new approach to military force
management called ``Continuum of Service.'' The idea is to create a
bridge between the Active and Reserve Components--allowing both active
and reserve forces greater flexibility to move back and forth between
full-time and part-time status, and facilitating different levels of
participation along that continuum.
Under this approach, a Reservist who normally trains 38 days a year
could volunteer to move to full time service for a period of time--or
some increased level of service between full-time and his normal
reserve commitment, offering options for expanded service that do not
require abandoning civilian life. Similarly, an active service member
could request transfer into the Reserve component for a period of time,
or some status in between, without jeopardizing his or her career and
opportunity for promotion. And it would give military retirees with
needed skills an opportunity to return to the service on a flexible
basis--and create opportunities for others with specialized skills to
serve, so we can take advantage of their experience when the country
needs it.
For example, Coalition forces in Iraq need skilled linguists--so
under the Continuum of Service approach we have recruited 200 Iraqi-
Americans into a special Individual Ready Reserve program, and are
deploying the first program graduates to Iraq.
The ``Continuum of Service'' would allow the Armed Forces to better
take advantage of the high-tech skills many Reservists have developed
by virtue of their private sector experience--while at the same time
creating opportunities for those in the Active force to acquire those
kinds of skills and experiences. It encourages volunteerism, and
improves our capability to manage the military workforce in a flexible
manner, with options that currently exist only in the private sector.
We have also been working to fix the mobilization process. We have
worked hard over the past year to add more refined planning tools to
the process, and make it more respectful of the troops, their families,
and their employers. Among other things:
--We have tried to provide earlier notifications, giving troops as
much notice as possible before they are mobilized, so they can
prepare and arrange their lives before being called up;
--We have worked to ensure that when they are called up, it is for
something important and needed--and not to replace someone in
task that could wait until a contingency is over;
--We have tried to limit tours, and give the troops some certainty
about the maximum length of their mobilization and when they
can expect to resume civilian life. We are doing better, but in
my opinion, the process is still not good enough.
And we are working each day to make the process better, and more
respectful of the brave men and women who make up the Guard and
Reserve.
As you can see, we have a number of initiatives underway that we
are confident will improve the management and treatment of the Guard
and Reserve forces.
The men and women who make up the Guard and Reserve are all
volunteers. They signed up because they love their country, and want to
serve when the country needs them.
A number of you on this Committee have served in the Guard and
Reserve, as have I. Each of us knew when we signed up, it was not to
serve one weekend a month and two weeks active duty. We signed up so
that if war were visited upon our country, we would be ready to leave
our work and family, and become part of the active duty force.
Well, on September 11th, war was visited on our country. Our nation
was attacked--more than 3,000 innocent men, women, and children were
killed in an instant. And at this moment, in caves and underground
bunkers half-a-world away, dangerous adversaries are planning new
attacks--attacks they hope will be even more deadly than the one on
September 11th.
We are a nation at war. If we were not to call up the Guard and
Reserves today, then why would we want to have them at all? Why were we
asking them to sacrifice time with their families every month to train?
And why are the taxpayers paying for postservice benefits, including
healthcare and retirement pay, that add up to between $250,000 and
$500,000 per reservist?
Availability for service is the purpose of the Guard and Reserve.
It is what they signed up for. And I know that a large number of them
have stepped forward and volunteered to be mobilized for service in
Iraq.
Our challenge--our responsibility--is to do everything we can to
see that they are treated respectfully, managed effectively, and that
they have the tools they need to win today's war, and to deter future
wars.
We are working to do just that--to better manage the force, and to
transform the force to make it more capable for the 21st century.
Today, with authority granted by Congress, DOD has the flexibility
to adjust troop levels as the security situation requires.
--We have authority to increase or decrease, as need arises.
--We are using that authority; and
--We are working on a number of new initiatives that will allow us to
better manage and transform the force.
However, we believe that a statutory end strength increase would
take away the current flexibility to manage the force:
--First, if the current increased demand turns out to be a spike and
if we are successful in the transformation and rebalancing
initiatives underway, the Department would face the substantial
cost of supporting a larger force when it may no longer be
needed--pay and benefits, such as lifetime healthcare, for each
service member added, not to mention the additional costs in
equipment, facilities, and force protection.
--Second, if Congress permanently increases the statutory end
strength, instead of using the already available emergency
powers, we would have to take the cost out of our top line.
That would require cuts in other parts of the defense budget--
crowding out investments in the very programs that will allow
us to manage the force and make it more capable.
None of us has a crystal ball to see into the future. You have
given us the authority to adjust the size of the force, and the
flexibility to deal with unknowns. We have been using that authority
over the past two plus years, even as we work to implement
comprehensive measures to better manage the force. I urge Congress to
not lock us into a force size and structure that may or may not be
appropriate in the period ahead.
Instead, help us to support the Armed Services with the
transformational initiatives they now have underway; help us rebalance
the active and reserve force, and give the troops more options to
contribute along an expanded continuum of service; help us add
capability, and transform the force for the future.
2005 BUDGET
The President's 2005 budget requests the funds to do that.
Before highlighting the 2005 request, let me talk briefly about
funding the Global War on Terrorism.
As the year has unfolded, the security situation and requirements
in Iraq have evolved. General Abizaid has requested additional combat
capability for the period ahead, and I have approved his request.
We regret having to extend those individuals necessary to provide
that capability; they had anticipated being in country or in theater
for up to 365 days and this will extend their time there. We are
currently identifying and preparing to deploy other forces to replace
them.
We have been using emergency powers granted by Congress to increase
the overall number of U.S. military forces above statutory end strength
and will continue to use those authorities to adjust force levels as
necessary.
Because our nation is at war, we must provide our warfighters all
the resources they need to conduct operations and complete their
missions. While we do not yet know the exact costs for operations in
2005, we need to plan for contingencies so there is no disruption in
resources for our troops. The costs of supporting these operations
increase the chance that certain accounts, such as Army operations and
maintenance, will experience funding shortfalls beyond February or
March of 2005.
The President has therefore asked Congress for a $25 billion
contingency reserve fund that can be used for operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq until we can get a clearer picture on what will be necessary
for the fiscal year 2005 supplemental. This reserve fund would be used
primarily for operation and maintenance requirements such as personnel
support costs, combat operations, supplies, force protection, and
transportation. Specifics include:
--Fuel for helicopters, tanks, and other vehicles.
--Transportation costs for movement of personnel and equipment in and
out of the theater of operations.
--Equipment maintenance (such as lubricants, repair parts) and
logistics supplies.
--Clothing and individual equipment.
--Operation and maintenance of troop billeting, base camps, dining
facilities, airfields, and other logistics activities.
--Communications, such as leased telecommunications lines.
This $25 billion reserve fund will not be all that is needed for
2005. We are anticipating submitting a full fiscal year 2005
supplemental appropriation request early next year when we can better
estimate exact costs.
Returning now to the 2005 request, the President's first defense
budgets were designed while our defense strategy review was still
taking place. It was last year's budget--the 2004 request--that was the
first to fully reflect the new defense strategies and policies.
One of the key budget reforms we implemented last year is the
establishment of a 2-year budgeting process in the Department of
Defense--so that the hundreds of people who invest time and energy to
rebuild major programs every year can be freed up and not be required
to do so on an annual basis, and can focus more effectively on
implementation.
The 2005 budget before you is, in a real sense, a request for the
second installment of funding for the priorities set out in the
President's 2004 request.
We did not rebuild every program. We made changes to just 5 percent
of the Department's planned 2005 budget, and then only on high-interest
and must-fix issues--and then only when the costs incurred to mitigate
risks could be matched by savings elsewhere in the budget.
The President's 2005 budget requests continued investments to
support the six transformational goals we identified in our 2001
defense review:
--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 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.
In all, in 2005, we have requested $29 billion for investments in
transforming military capabilities that will support each of these
critical objectives.
A critical priority in the President's 2005 budget is the $10.3
billion for missile defense, including: $9.2 billion for the Missile
Defense Agency--an increase of $1.5 billion above the President's 2004
request; and $1 billion for Patriot Advanced Capability-3, the Medium
Extended Air Defense System, and other short and medium range
capabilities.
The budget also includes $239 million in funding for accelerated
development of Cruise Missile Defense, with the goal of fielding an
initial capability in 2008.
The 2005 budget request includes critical funds for Army
Transformation, including: $3.2 billion to support continued
development of the Future Combat Systems--an increase of $1.5 billion
over the 2004 budget; and $1.0 billion to fund continued deployment of
the new Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, such as the one now serving in
Iraq.
We have also requested additional funds to strengthen intelligence,
including increases for DOD human intelligence (HUMINT) capabilities,
persistent surveillance, as well as technical analysis and information
sharing to help us better ``connect the dots.''
To enhance our communications and intelligence activities, we are
requesting:
--$408 million to continue development of the Space Based Radar (SBR)
which will bring potent and transformational capabilities to
joint warfighting--the ability to monitor both fixed and mobile
targets, deep behind enemy lines and over denied areas, in any
kind of weather. SBR is the only system that can provide such
capability.
--$775 million for the Transformational Communications Satellite
(TSAT) which will provide the joint warfighter with
unprecedented communication capability. To give you an idea of
the speed and situational awareness the TSAT will provide,
consider: transmitting a Global Hawk image over a current
Milstar II, as we do today, takes over 12 minutes--with TSAT it
will take less than a second.
--$600 million for the Joint Tactical Radio System, to provide
wireless internet capability to enable information exchange
among joint warfighters.
The budget also requests $700 million for Joint Unmanned Combat Air
Systems (J-UCAS)--a program that consolidates all the various unmanned
combat air vehicle programs, and focuses on developing a common
operating system.
The budget requests $14.1 billion for major tactical aircraft
programs, including: $4.6 billion for the restructured Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) program; $4.7 billion to continue acquisition of the F/A-
22; $3.1 billion to continue procurement of the F/A-18E/F; and $1.7
billion to support development and procurement of 11 V-22 aircraft.
The budget requests funds for Navy fleet transformation, including
$1 billion to continue funding the new CVN-21 aircraft carrier, and
$1.6 billion to continue development of a family of 21st century
surface combatants including the DDX destroyer, the littoral combat
ship, and the CG(X) cruiser.
We have requested $11.1 billion to support procurement of 9 ships
in 2005. Fiscal 2005 begins a period of transition and transformation
for shipbuilding as the last DDG 51 destroyers are built, and the first
DD(X) destroyer and Littoral Combat Ship are procured. This increased
commitment is further shown in the average shipbuilding rate for fiscal
2005-2009 of 9.6 ships per year. This will sustain the current force
level and significantly add to Navy capabilities.
In all, the President has requested $75 billion for procurement in
2005 and $69 billion for Research, Development, Testing and
Evaluation--funds that are vital to our transformation efforts.
Another area critical to transformation is joint training. Last
year, Congress approved funding to establish a new Joint National
Training Capability (JNTC), an important initiative that will
fundamentally change the way our Armed Forces train for 21st century
combat.
We saw the power of joint war fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Our challenge is to bring that kind of joint war fighting experience to
the rest of the forces, through both live and virtual joint training
and exercises. Thanks to the funds authorized in the 2004 budget, the
JNTC's initial operating capability is scheduled to come online in
October of this year. We have requested $191 million to continue and
expand the JNTC in 2005.
With your help, we have put a stop to the past practice of raiding
investment accounts to pay for the immediate operation and maintenance
needs. The 2005 request continues that practice. We have requested full
funding for the military's readiness accounts, providing $140.6 billion
for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) including $43 billion for training
and operations. These funds are critical to transformation--because
they allow us to pay today's urgent bills without robbing the future to
do so.
We have also requested funds to support pay and quality of life
improvements for the troops--including a 3.5 percent military base pay
raise. We have requested funds in the 2005 budget that will also help
the Department keep its commitment to eliminate 90 percent of
inadequate military family housing units by 2007, with complete
elimination projected for 2009. And we have requested funds to complete
the elimination of out-of-pocket housing costs for military personnel
living in private housing. Before 2001, the average service member had
to absorb over 18 percent of these costs. By the end of fiscal year
2005, it will be zero. These investments are important to the troops,
and also to their families, who also serve--and deserve to live in
decent and affordable housing.
These improvements properly focus on the serving men and women of
the armed forces. The recommendations are based on what is believed
necessary to attract, retain, and motivate the fine young Americans who
make up our All-Volunteer Force.
But in recent years, Congress has often added entitlement-like
changes beyond recommendations such as these, concentrated on those who
have already served. I applaud the desire to honor this service, but at
the same time I must point out the fiscal effects of these decisions.
They are increasing substantially the permanent costs of running the
Department of Defense. By fiscal year 2009, they cumulatively add over
$20 billion a year to the defense budget, with only modest effect on
recruiting and retaining the present generation of personnel. Put
another way, against a fixed topline for Defense, these decisions will
affect the Department's future ability to compensate properly those
then serving, and to procure the new systems and capabilities that are
so essential to our continued effectiveness.
I recognize there are legitimate questions, and legitimate
differences of opinion, about the best way to compensate our forces.
For this reason, I am appointing an Advisory Committee on Military
Compensation, to conduct a comprehensive review of military
compensation and benefits, with a view toward simplifying and improving
them. Today, we have too many pay categories that serve overlapping
purposes, or do not provide incentives where they are most needed.
Before making further major changes, I urge you to allow the Department
to first develop a comprehensive and integrated set of compensation
proposals, which we will submit to you next year.
We are also making progress in getting our facilities replacement
and recapitalization rate in proper alignment. When we arrived in 2001,
the Department was replacing its buildings at a totally unacceptable
average of once every 192 years. Today, we have moved the rate down for
the third straight year, though it is still too high--to an average of
107 years. The 2005 budget requests $4.3 billion for facilities
recapitalization, keeping us on track toward reaching our target rate
of 67 years by 2008. And we have funded 95 percent of facilities
maintenance requirements--up from 93 percent in fiscal year 2004.
The budget also supports our continuing efforts to transform the
way DOD does business. With the passage of the National Defense
Authorization Act last year, we now have the needed authority to
establish a new National Security Personnel System, so we can better
manage DOD's civilian personnel. Initial implementation will begin next
year.
Yet, while progress has been made, the Defense Department still
remains bogged down by bureaucratic processes of the industrial age,
not the information age. We are working to change that. To help us do
so, we have requested funds for a Business Management Modernization
Program that will help us overhaul DOD management processes and the
information technology systems that support them.
One of the most important ways in which Congress can support the
global war on terrorism is to support three special authorities we have
requested:
--(1) $500 million to train and equip military and security forces in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and friendly nearby regional nations to
enhance their capability to combat terrorism and support U.S.
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is critical that this
authority include security forces because the terrorism threat
in Iraq is inside its borders. Security forces--not the New
Iraqi Army--play the primary role in confronting this threat.
--(2) The Commanders Emergency Response Program ($300 million) to
enable military leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan to respond to
urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction needs. This has
been a remarkably successful program. With quick turnaround
projects averaging about $7,000 each, commanders not only help
people in their operations area, but also gain their support in
defeating terrorists and building themselves a better future.
--(3) Increased drawdown authority ($200 million) under the
Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, to provide additional help for
the Afghan National Army. During this pivotal year, this
authority is critical for advancing democracy and stability in
Afghanistan.
The President's fiscal year 2005 budget does not request specific
appropriations for these three authorities, and therefore the
Department would need to reprogram funding to use them. This
underscores the importance of Congress increasing the Department's
General Transfer Authority (GTA) to $4 billion--which would still
represent just one percent of total DOD funding. Higher General
Transfer Authority also would give us a greater ability to shift funds
from less pressing needs to fund must-pay bills and emerging
requirements. As we have seen in the past three years, such
requirements have become a constant feature of our military programs.
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, it is critical that we have the ability to
shift funds between priorities.
We also need your continuing support for two initiatives that are
critical to 21st century transformation: the Global Posture Review, and
the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission round scheduled for
2005.
We need BRAC to rationalize our infrastructure with the new defense
strategy, and to eliminate unneeded bases and facilities that are
costing the taxpayers billions of dollars to support.
And we need the global posture review to reposition our forces
around the world--so they are stationed not simply where the wars of
the 20th century ended, but are arranged in a way that will allow them
to deter, and as necessary, defeat potential adversaries that might
threaten our security in the 21st century.
These two efforts are inextricably linked.
It is critical that we move forward with both BRAC and the Global
Posture Review--so we can rationalize our foreign and domestic force
posture. We appreciate Congress' decision to authorize a BRAC round in
2005--and will continue to consult with you as we proceed with the
global posture review.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, the President has asked Congress for a total of
$401.7 billion for fiscal year 2005--an increase over last year's
budget. Let there be no doubt: it is a large amount of the taxpayer's
hard-earned money. Such investments will likely be required for some
years--because our nation is engaged in a struggle that could well go
on for a number of years to come.
Our objective is to ensure that our Armed Forces remain the best
trained, best equipped fighting force in the world--and that we treat
the volunteers who make up the force with respect commensurate with
their service, their sacrifice, and their dedication.
Their task is not easy: they must fight and win a global war on
terror that is different from any our nation as fought before. And they
must do it, while at the same time preparing to fight the wars of 2010
and beyond--wars which may be as different from today's conflict, as
the global war on terror is from the conflicts of the 20th century.
So much is at stake.
Opportunity and prosperity are not possible without the security
and stability that our Armed Forces provide.
The United States can afford whatever is necessary to provide for
the security of our people and stability in the world. We can continue
to live as free people because the industriousness and ingenuity of the
American people have provided the resources to build the most powerful
and capable Armed Forces in human history--and because we have been
blessed with the finest young men and women in uniform--volunteers
all--that the world has known.
They are courageous, they are selfless, and they are determined.
They stand between this nation and our adversaries, those who wish to
visit still further violence on our cities, our homes and our places of
work. The men and women of the Armed Forces are hunting the enemies of
freedom down--capturing or killing them in the far corners of the
world, so they will not kill still more innocent men, women, and
children here at home.
We are grateful to them and proud of them. We stand ready to work
with you to ensure they are treated with the dignity they deserve, and
the respect they earn every day.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be pleased to respond to questions.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS
Senator Stevens. Do you have a statement, General Myers?
General Myers. Mr. Chairman, I do have a short statement.
Senator Stevens. Would you pull that mic a little closer to
you, please?
General Myers. Mr. Chairman, I do have a short statement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, Senator Byrd,
members of the committee. Once again I thank you for your
unwavering support of our Armed Forces, and, more specifically,
our men and women in uniform as they fight this all-important
war on terrorism.
Recently, the world's attention has been focused,
understandably, on the horrendous incidents of detainee abuse
at Abu Ghraib prison. Let me, once more, restate that these
acts are absolutely unacceptable, and I assure you that
commanders at every level are taking prompt and decisive action
to ensure that the accused receive due process and that the
guilty are punished.
One of the United States (U.S.) military's greatest
strengths comes from the fact that we hold our servicemen and
women accountable for their actions. I am confident in our
military justice system, and I'm confident that our commanders
are doing the right things to prevent further compromise of
military standards and American values.
I can also assure you today we are as firm as ever in our
resolve to help create a free, prosperous, and democratic Iraq.
We are dealing deliberately and aggressively with the anti-
coalition forces in Fallujah, as well as Sadr's band of thugs,
to ensure they do not derail the progress that we're making.
The truth is, the majority of the Iraqi people want
democracy in Iraq to succeed, and they're positive about what
the future holds, thanks, in large part, to the efforts of our
servicemen and women. And I know our servicemen and women are
all suffering unfairly with a collective sense of shame over
what happened at Abu Ghraib.
I would like to quote a letter from a soldier in the 1st
Armor Division. He said that every time he eats in the dining
hall, he sees the prison abuse story on TV, and he says, quote,
``Everyone is so angry. It's as if those soldiers hurt us more
than the enemies here in Iraq have. My battalion has caught car
bombers, weapons smugglers, and those laying mines to kill us.
And, every time, we treated them with respect.''
This is the type of soldier who accurately, in my view,
represents the values of our military and our Nation. The
credibility of our troops will be restored day by day as they
interact with the Iraqi people, and I'm confident that our
servicemen and women will continue to prove worthy of the trust
and respect of our Nation and of the world. They are so
tremendously dedicated. They understand their mission very
well. And they understand what a huge difference they are
making. They've seen the enemy unload weapons from ambulances,
use mosques as operating bases, deliberately put children in
the line of fire as human shields, and attack innocent
civilians indiscriminately by firing mortars and grenades at
marketplaces, yet our servicemen and women are going to
extraordinary lengths to conduct the most humane operation they
possibly can. That means at times that we accept greater risk
in order to avoid civilian casualties.
I see the same kind of professionalism and compassion in
Afghanistan, as well. There are now 13 provincial
reconstruction teams working on security and civil affairs for
the Afghan people.
We are making great progress in the war on terrorism with
the help of more than 90 other nations. Despite Spain and three
other countries' decisions to depart Iraq, the coalition
remains very strong.
Recent events in Fallujah, Najaf, and other parts of
central Iraq have resulted in the decision to extend some
20,000 U.S. troops beyond their expected rotation date. We are
now working to backfill these troops. It's not 100 percent
clear what the security environment will be after 30 June and
beyond, but we will continue to support General Abizaid with
the number of forces that he needs.
What is clear is that we have not finished our task of
reviewing all our options for making better use of our
authorized forces. As Secretary Rumsfeld said, we're looking at
the stress on our forces from every possible angle. A cold war
approach to simply counting divisions or ships or fighter wings
will not help us refine our capabilities to meet the national
security environment of the future. All solutions need to be
flexible and, most importantly, transformational.
As the Secretary said, General Schoomaker's review of how
the Army structures their combat units, and Admiral Clark's new
approach to carrier strike group deployments, are two very
visible examples of this transformation.
We don't have time today to list all the significant
transformational issues we're working on, but these initiatives
span from Guard and Reserve mobilization, to our planning
processes, to deployable command and control systems. And with
your support, we will continue to transform our warfighting
capability.
Despite the significant stresses on our Armed Forces today,
readiness remains good. We are keeping a close eye on
recruiting and retention, and we can say that so far it's going
very, very well. We have the trained personnel and resources to
accomplish the military objectives outlined in the Department's
strategic planning guidance.
I support the President's request for a $25 billion
contingency reserve fund to support ongoing operations in the
war on terrorism. This money is vital to ensuring our troops
continue to be trained and resourced for the missions they are
assigned, and to avoid any decrease in readiness or capability
while they're deployed.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We still have a long way to go in this war, beyond the
transfer of sovereignty in Iraq and elections in Afghanistan,
but our troops are making a huge difference every day, and they
know it. We are truly blessed with amazing men and women to do
this very, very important work. I thank all of you for your
continued strong support of our men and women in the Armed
Forces.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of General Richard B. Myers
I am privileged to report to Congress on the state of the United
States Armed Forces.
As they were a year ago, our Nation's Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,
Marines and Coastguardsmen are currently operating within our borders
and around the globe with dedication, courage and professionalism,
alongside our Coalition partners, to accomplish a variety of very
demanding missions. Global terrorism remains a serious threat, and the
stakes in the Global War on Terrorism remain high.
Over the past year, I have told you that with the patience, will,
and commitment of our Nation we would win the War on Terrorism. The
support we have received from the Congress has been superb. From
Congressional visits to deployed personnel, to support for
transformational warfighting programs, to funding for security and
stability operations, to improved pay and benefits for our troops, your
support for our servicemen and women has enabled us to make significant
progress in the War on Terrorism.
In spite of the difficulties in Fallujah and the radical Sadr
militants, we are making progress in Iraq. Saddam Hussein no longer
terrorizes the Iraqi people or his neighbors; he is in custody awaiting
justice. The Iraqi people are on their way to establishing a prosperous
and peaceful future. It won't come easy. Freedom never does, and events
over the last month have been challenging. The list of important
accomplishments in every sector--education, medical care, business,
agriculture, energy, and government, to name a few--is long and
growing. We have made substantial progress in Afghanistan as well. The
Constitutional Loya Jirga is an encouraging example of democracy in
action. In both countries, as in the Horn of Africa and other areas,
United States and Coalition personnel work together to capture or kill
terrorists, while at the same time improving infrastructure and
economic conditions so that peace and freedom can take hold.
Despite the operational demands on our forces, we remain ready to
support the President's National Security Strategy and Secretary of
Defense's draft National Defense Strategy to assure our allies, while
we dissuade, deter and defeat any adversary. The draft National
Military Strategy (NMS), developed in consultation with the Service
Chiefs and Combatant Commanders describes the ways we will conduct
military operations to protect the United States against external
attack and aggression, and how we will prevent conflict and surprise
attack and prevail against adversaries. The strategy requires that we
possess the forces to defend the U.S. homeland and deter forward in
four critical regions. If required, we will swiftly defeat the efforts
of two adversaries in an overlapping timeframe, while having the
ability to ``win decisively'' in one theater. In addition, because we
live in a world marked by uncertainty, our forces must also be prepared
to conduct a limited number of lesser contingencies while maintaining
sufficient force generation capabilities as a hedge against future
challenges.
We appreciate your continued support giving our dedicated personnel
the warfighting systems and quality of life they deserve. Our challenge
for the coming year and beyond is to stay the course in the War on
Terrorism as we continue to transform our Armed Forces to conduct
future joint operations. We cannot afford to let our recent successes
cause us to lose focus or lull us into satisfaction with our current
capabilities. The war is not over, and there is still dangerous work to
do. To meet this challenge, we continue to focus on three priorities:
winning the War on Terrorism, enhancing joint warfighting, and
transforming for the future.
WAR ON TERRORISM
Thirty-two months after the terrorist attacks on September 11,
defeating global terrorism remains our military's number one priority.
We will continue to fight this war on many different fronts, because
terrorism comes in many different forms. The stakes remain high, but
our resolve remains firm.
The more experience we gain in this fight, the more we recognize
that success is dependent on a well-integrated military, interagency
and coalition effort. This means the coordinated commitment of the
military, diplomatic, informational, economic, financial, law
enforcement, and intelligence resources of our Nation--all instruments
of our national power. On the international level, Coalition military
and interagency cooperation has been remarkable. In Iraq, Coalition
forces from over 30 nations are working hard to bring peace and
stability to a country brutalized for 3 decades. In Afghanistan, 41
nations are working to secure a democratic government and defeat al
Qaida and remnants of the Taliban regime, with NATO assuming an
increasing role in stability and reconstruction efforts.
We have made significant strides coordinating U.S. Government
efforts within the interagency and with our Coalition partners. One of
the ways we have been successful at coordinating interagency efforts is
through venues such as the Strategy Working Group, the Senior
Leadership Review Board and the Regional Combating Terrorism
Strategies. Continued success in this war will depend largely on our
ability to organize for a sustained effort and coordinate seamlessly
among all government agencies. An even more demanding task is
coordinating the efforts of our Coalition partners, now numbering more
than 90 nations. Coalition contributions have been significant, ranging
from combat forces, to intelligence, logistics and medical units. They
have complemented our existing capabilities and eased the requirement
for current U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Coordinating the
efforts of our Coalition partners is critical to combating the
remaining terrorist threat.
The al Qaida network, though damaged, remains resilient, adaptable
and capable of planning and executing more terrorist acts, such as the
attacks in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and most recently in Spain. Al Qaida
continues to receive support and recruit operatives from sympathizers
around the world. Al Qaida will increasingly focus on Iraq as today's
jihad. As the network consolidates its efforts in Iraq, the threats of
attacks will grow. In fact, four al Qaida audiotapes released in 2003
prominently mentioned Iraq, demonstrating Usama Bin Ladin's emphasis on
staging attacks there. Ansar al-Islam also remains a formidable threat
in Iraq, despite damage inflicted by Coalition forces during OIF. Its
key leadership remains at large and continues to plot attacks against
US and Coalition interests.
The ceasefire with anti-Coalition militants in and around Fallujah
is fragile. The Coalition is responding to attacks by militants who
frequently fire upon Coalition forces and hide among the populace, and
who fire from mosques and hospitals. The combatants in this area
apparently are a combination of former regime elements, Islamic
extremists, terrorists, foreigners, and other disenchanted Sunnis who
oppose Coalition efforts to reconstruct Iraq. Delegations of Iraqi
leaders continue efforts to mediate surrender and the turn-in of
weapons.
In the South, Muqtada al-Sadr's armed backers largely have been
forced by Coalition military pressure to coalesce within the city of An
Najaf. They continue to engage Coalition forces with mortars and small
arms, likely from inside or nearby shrines sacred to Shia. Al Sadr
continues to intimidate the citizens of An Najaf, the majority of whom
want to see this situation resolved and the shrines protected. Sadr has
convinced some impressionable Shia youth to fight to legitimize his
influence in Iraq. However, senior Shia intervention may push Sadr to
concede to a political settlement.
Other terrorist groups also pose significant threats to U.S.
interests, and we believe that some of these terrorist groups have
developed contingency plans for terrorist attacks against U.S.
interests abroad. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia continue
to conduct terrorist attacks throughout Colombia. They currently hold
three U.S. hostages captured in early 2003, and directly threaten
efforts to bring peace, stability and an end to the drug trade in
Colombia. Jemaah Islamiyah in Southeast Asia is another terrorist group
that shares al Qaida's goals and methods, adding to the transnational
terrorist threat. The intelligence that led to recent heightened alert
levels during the holidays in December show that the threat of a major
terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland remains very real.
Disturbingly, terrorist groups continue to show interest in
developing and using Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear
(CBRN) weapons in terrorist attacks. Terrorists have attempted to
acquire military-grade materials, and interest in CBRN weapons and
materials by several groups is well documented.
The Coalition's efforts in the War on Terrorism (WOT) represent the
significant first step in curtailing WMD proliferation. Our strategy
for combating WMD calls for the Combatant Commanders to detect, deter,
deny, counter, and if necessary, interdict WMD and its means of
delivery. Combating WMD relies on a continuum of interrelated
activities, employing both defensive and offensive measures, and
confronting the threat through mutually reinforcing approaches of
nonproliferation, counterproliferation, and consequence management.
This multi-tiered and integrated effort will greatly reduce the threat
of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. Following the liberation
of Iraq and the collapse of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, the
countries of Iran, and most recently, Libya have been more forthcoming
about their illegal WMD programs to the international community. This
should also help to apply international pressure on North Korea and its
nuclear declarations.
To counter the potential threat of the proliferation of WMD, the
President's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is the most far-
reaching attempt to expand our efforts to impede and interdict the flow
of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery, and related
materials, between state and non-state actors of proliferation concern.
It is part of a larger effort to counter proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and missile-related technology by interdicting
shipments of these materials by air, land, and sea. To date, there are
14 partner nations actively participating in PSI operations and
exercises. Our goal is to expand PSI participation in order to be
postured to respond quickly to assist in the interdiction of the
proliferation trade. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540,
adopted by a vote of 15-0 on April 28, 2004, underscores the
international importance of this issue and enhances the legal basis for
PSI and related efforts to combat proliferation of WMD, related
materials, and their delivery systems.
OIF AND OEF OPERATIONS
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is still center-stage in the WOT,
and doing a magnificent job under difficult circumstances. The Iraqi
Governing Council unanimously approved its Transitional Administrative
Law (TAL) on March 8, providing the framework for elections and
transition to a permanent constitution and an elected, democratic
government in 2005. On June 30, a fully sovereign Iraqi interim
government will take office in Iraq. Iraqis recognized the need for a
security partnership with the Multinational Force (MNF), under unified
MNF command, in the TAL. The TAL provides that ``consistent with Iraq's
status as a sovereign state--the Iraqi Armed Forces will be a principle
partner in the MNF operating in Iraq under unified command'' and that
this arrangement will last ``until the ratification of a permanent
constitution and the election of a new government.'' Furthermore,
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1511 acknowledges the
responsibility and authority of the MNF for the security of Iraq.
Since the end of major combat operations, we have made steady
progress towards meeting our objectives. Essential services are being
restored, and a political transformation is already underway in Iraq.
We continue to train and equip Iraqi security forces. It is important
for the Iraqis to see Iraqi faces on their security forces, with the
Coalition forces remaining in the background. Although a few countries
are withdrawing their troops from Iraq, our Coalition remains strong,
with over 30 other countries directly supporting stability and security
in Iraq.
Today, Coalition forces continue to rout out remnants of the former
regime attempting a desperate last stand. Using intelligence provided
by Iraqi citizens, we are conducting thousands of raids and patrols per
week alongside Iraqi security forces. We have seized massive amounts of
ammunition, and captured or killed 46 of the 55 most wanted former
Iraqi leaders, as well as thousands of other Saddam loyalists,
terrorists and criminals. We have captured or killed all of the top 5,
most notably Saddam Hussein and his sons, Uday and Qusay.
The Iraq Survey Group is continuing its examination of Saddam's WMD
programs by interviewing Iraqi citizens, examining physical evidence,
and analyzing records of the old regime. We know that this process will
take time and patience, and must be able to stand up to world scrutiny.
Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen in Iraq
are now supporting over 203,000 Iraqi security forces. The Iraqi police
continue to expand their training pipelines in Jordan and Iraq,
producing hundreds of trained officers each month. We are well on track
to meet our goal of 31,000 trained Iraqi police by August 2004, and a
fully trained force of 75,000 by June 2005. The Facilities Protective
Service has fewer training requirements and has already reached its
goal of 50,000 members. They have taken over security from Coalition
Forces at most fixed site locations, such as power lines and parts of
the oil infrastructure--key targets for sabotage. Our goal for the
Border Enforcement Force is to have 20,400 members by May 2005. They
will relieve Coalition forces guarding checkpoints along Iraq's border.
U.S. military forces continue to vet former members of the Iraqi
military and other security services for employment in the new Iraqi
security services, but Iraqis are formally in charge of de-
Ba'athification efforts and have established guidelines for that
process. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and
for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan 2004 that Congress
approved last year was instrumental in enabling our planned accelerated
development of these security forces, and we are grateful for that
support.
The New Iraqi Army continues to train additional battalions. Iraq's
Army needs more than just military skills. They must have a deep-rooted
sense of professionalism, focused on protecting all Iraqis while
operating firmly under civilian control. The new army will reflect
Iraq's religious, regional, and ethnic mix, will be apolitical, and
indoctrinated in their role of defense and security. We will spend the
time and resources necessary to ensure the Iraqi Army is a well-trained
and highly capable force.
The linchpin of our security efforts during this transition period
is the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC), currently planned to be a
fully trained force of 40,000 by September 2004. The ICDC is a light
military force, created to deal with the current stability issues in
Iraq. As we have done from the beginning, we continue to reassess the
security environment in Iraq. These security assessments could change
force goals for the various components of Iraqi security forces. ICDC
units' performance in recent counter-insurgency operations was mixed.
In almost every case, the units that performed effectively had
completed the prescribed training programs, were fully equipped, had a
history of close integration with Coalition forces, served under
effective chains of command, and had developed a high level of unit
cohesion from having worked together for some time. The units that
failed to perform well generally lacked several of these
characteristics.
CJTF-7, the Coalition Police Advisory Training Team and the
Coalition Military Advisory Training Teams, are all re-evaluating the
security force training programs in light of the mixed performance over
the last three weeks, and have identified a number of key enablers that
should produce a cadre of trained and capable forces. These include
acceleration of academy training programs, increasing the number of
coalition advisors embedded into units, increasing the involvement of
Iraqi security forces in Coalition operations and introducing former
Iraqi officers as liaison officers to coalition units.
Equipment shortages remain one of the greatest obstacles to
establishing capable security forces, but our recent efforts to
energize the equipment procurement process are beginning to pay off. We
should see the acceleration of equipment deliveries beginning in May.
Because of losses associated with operations in early April, we will
have to establish additional contracts for equipment above those
already in place to get the Iraqi Security Forces up to the 100 percent
equipped mark. If the additional contracts are awarded this month, we
expect most of the forces can cross the 50 percent required equipment
threshold in July, and 100 percent by September.
Fiscal year 2004 supplemental funds provided commanders with one of
the most successful tools in winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi
and Afghan people, the Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP).
These funds provide commanders and the resourceful young troops they
lead with the means to respond to urgent humanitarian and stabilization
and reconstruction needs such as water and sanitation projects,
irrigation and small-scale agriculture assistance, school house repairs
and civic cleanup projects. This program is an invaluable tool for
establishing relationships with the Iraqi and Afghan people, assisting
in economic development, and creating a safer environment.
The United Nations and the international community are also playing
vital roles in the political and economic transformation of Iraq. Over
70 countries and international organizations including the United
States, pledged $33 billion at the Madrid Donors Conference. U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1511 called upon Iraqis, initially through
the Iraqi Governing Council, to determine the course and speed of their
political reformation. In response, the Iraqi Governing Council has
submitted its plan and timetable for selecting a transitional National
Assembly and interim government, drafting a constitution and holding
elections. It is an ambitious schedule, but one that they can
accomplish with our help.
In addition to security and political progress, we continue to help
Iraq rebuild the infrastructure required for economic progress and a
stable democracy. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and Gulf
Region Division-Restore Iraqi Electricity (GRD-RIE) are managing a
comprehensive maintenance and upgrade program designed to improve power
generation, transmission, efficiency and capacity to meet the future
needs of the Iraqi people. Through the coordinated efforts of the Army
Corps of Engineers and the Iraqi Ministry of Electricity, we met the
initial October 2003 goal of 4,400 MW of peak power generation. The
next goal is 6,000 MW of power by June 1, 2004. In order to meet this
goal the CPA developed the Power Increase Plan to offset recent system
failures from severe weather and continuing sabotage and looting. This
plan increases electrical power generation through an increase of
generator rehabilitation and maintenance projects, the increase of new
power generators to the national power grid, increasing electrical
power imports from other nations, and improving system-wide power
transmission and distribution. Other progress continues throughout Iraq
in potable drinking water projects, supplying hospitals with medical
supplies, providing school supplies for Iraqi school children and
rebuilding classrooms. Living conditions are improving everyday in
Iraq, as many of you have seen for yourselves on recent trips to Iraq.
In Afghanistan, our military strategy combines both combat and
stability operations. U.S. and Coalition forces are conducting combat
operations to rid Afghanistan of al Qaida and Taliban remnants, and
stability operations to assist in building Afghan security
institutions, governing bodies, and economic prosperity. In January,
the interim Afghan government held their first Constitutional Loya
Jirga, approving a new constitution for Afghanistan. In September,
Afghanistan will hold its first presidential and parliamentary
elections in over three decades. This is extraordinary progress, by any
measure.
Security and stability operations are being conducted by 13
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) operating throughout
Afghanistan, with at least 5 more PRTs planned for this year. Coalition
and NATO PRT representatives are making great strides improving the
quality of life for the Afghan people by building schools, clinics,
wells, roads and other community infrastructure projects. Reopening the
Kabul-to-Kandahar road was a major success. Our efforts have increased
security and stability in Afghanistan.
In August 2003, NATO assumed responsibility for the International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. In October 2003 the
United Nations Security Council passed a resolution extending ISAF's
mission in Afghanistan for one year, and authorizing ISAF to operate
outside Kabul and its environs. In February 2004, a Canadian officer
assumed command of the NATO ISAF headquarters from the German
commander. NATO's role in Afghanistan is expanding. Germany now leads
the NATO PRT at Konduz. NATO is planning future ISAF expansion across
northern and western Afghanistan.
The Afghan National Army (ANA), now numbering over 8,000 trained
personnel, is at the forefront of efforts to improve security and
stability and establish a strong national identity among the Afghan
people. To date the ANA has performed well, fighting side-by-side with
United States and Coalition forces during recent successful combat
operations to capture or kill Taliban, Hezb-I-Islami-Gulbiddin, and al
Qaida elements. In January 2004 training capacity was increased to
graduate 10,800 ANA trained personnel per year. Most of the funding
provided in the Afghanistan portion of the fiscal year 2004 Emergency
Supplemental has strengthened ANA efforts, including the acceleration
of training and improved retention and recruitment.
Congress has demonstrated its commitment to the future of
Afghanistan, but there is still much more the international community
could and should contribute to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The
Berlin Donor's Conference was a significant success with $4.5 billion
pledged for this fiscal year and $8.2 billion for the next 3 years. The
Afghan government, with the help of the U.S. government, is seeking
more donations for several infrastructure projects such as a new
Ministry of Defense headquarters, a hospital in Kabul, and a military
academy, as well as donations of certain equipment, weapons and
ammunition.
In neighboring Pakistan, working closely with President Musharraf,
we have been able to increase coordination among United States,
Coalition, Afghan and Pakistani forces along the Pakistan-Afghanistan
border. The Pakistani government has taken some initiatives to increase
their military presence on the border, such as manned outposts, regular
patrols and security barriers. From time to time they have aggressively
confronted Taliban and al Qaida supporters in the areas of the Pakistan
Federally Administered Tribal Areas and suffered casualties in the
process. The Tripartite Commission consisting of United States, Afghan
and Pakistan representatives concluded its seventh session in mid-
April. Among the many accomplishments of the Tripartite Commission has
been the establishment of a sub-committee to investigate means to
prevent cross-border conflict. United States/Pakistani military
cooperation continues to improve, and we are helping Pakistan identify
equipment requirements for their counter-terrorism efforts.
Operations in the Horn of Africa remain an essential part of the
WOT. The Joint Task Force Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti is
conducting counter-terrorist and civil affairs operations in Eastern
Africa. Although these operations have impacted al Qaida's influence in
the region, a continued military presence is essential to stop the
movement of transnational terrorists and demonstrating to the region
our resolve to wage the WOT in Africa.
In support of OEF--Philippines, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) used
congressionally approved funds this past year to continue counter-
terrorism training for the Armed Forces of the Philippines. A small
contingent of U.S. military personnel remains in the southern
Philippines managing these efforts and other humanitarian assistance
projects.
OTHER OVERSEAS OPERATIONS
U.S. European Command (EUCOM), in accordance with SECDEF guidance,
has developed a concept for the reduction of U.S. forces supporting
U.S. Stability Forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. USEUCOM is closely
monitoring the stability of the Province of Kosovo, given recent
violence, to determine required U.S. force levels to support the U.S.
Kosovo Force. Any force reductions will be done in concert with the
North Atlantic Council's Periodic Mission Review recommendation for the
Balkans.
When EUCOM concludes the Georgia Train and Equip Program in May
2004, they will meet their objective of improving Georgia's ability to
confront transnational terrorism operating within Georgia. Training is
being provided for two staffs, four battalions and one mechanized/armor
company team. To build on this success and momentum, EUCOM is reviewing
a possible follow-on Georgia Capabilities Enhancement Program to
sustain and improve the Georgian military's newly acquired
capabilities, and demonstrate a continued U.S. commitment to the
Georgian Armed Forces' development.
Maritime Interdiction Operations took on a new global focus last
year, beyond the historical CENTCOM and EUCOM missions, when the
President approved Expanded Maritime Interception Operations to
interdict terrorists and their resources globally. Expanded Maritime
Interception Operations are now significant mission areas for every
deployed battle group, especially along maritime transit lanes and
choke points. Results from these maritime operations, such as in the
Mediterranean Sea, have produced lower insurance premiums in the
shipping industry, considerably less illegal immigration in countries
such as Spain, Italy, and Greece, and a reduction in crime at sea.
Maritime Interdiction Operations are a truly international effort.
German and Spanish led multi-national naval forces patrol the CENTCOM
area of responsibility, and this past year Coalition naval forces have
been responsible for boarding over thirty ships within EUCOM's area of
responsibility.
U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) continues to support counter-
narcotics trafficking and counter-terrorism efforts in the Caribbean
and Central and South America. They are assisting the Colombian
military in its fight against designated terrorist organizations by
providing military advice, training, and equipment with an emphasis on
the pursuit of narco-terrorist leadership, counter-narcotics tactics,
and security for major infrastructure such as the Cano Limon pipeline.
SOUTHCOM supported the formation of the Colombian Army Special
Operations Command and is continuing its efforts to train the Commando
Battalion, and a Ranger-type unit. Training was successfully completed
for the first Colombian Commando Battalion, and training has begun for
the second battalion. The Colombian military has been very successful
over the past year in their fight against narco-terrorism. The Tri-
Border Area between Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay is another focal
point for drug and arms trafficking, money laundering, document fraud
and Islamic terrorist-supported activities in South America. U.S.-
sponsored multilateral exercises are promoting security, improving
effective border control, and denying terrorist groups such as
Hizballah, Hamas and other Middle Eastern terrorist safe havens,
restricting their ability to operate.
SOUTHCOM is also providing nearly 2,000 military personnel to
manage detainee operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We operate in close
coordination with several U.S. agencies. We are constantly reviewing
the status of each detainee, and to date have transferred 128 of the
detainees who were determined to be of no intelligence or law
enforcement value, or no threat to the United States or its interests,
back to their countries of origin for release. 18 detainees have been
transferred back to their country of origin, under an agreement for
continued detention by that country. More await similar agreements to
allow for transfer or continued detention. A number of detainees have
been assessed as high intelligence and or law enforcement value, or
pose a significant threat to U.S. interests. These detainees will
remain for further exploitation. Other cases are being considered for
referral to the Military Commission, although no one has been referred
to date. Information gleaned from detainees, many of whom continue to
make threats against Americans, has already helped prevent further
terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies.
Furthermore, continued detention of those who pose a threat to U.S.
interests prevents those enemy combatants from returning to the
battlefield.
SOUTHCOM is also conducting security and stability operations in
Haiti following the departure of President Aristide, with a
Multinational Interim Force (MIF) of nearly 4,000 personnel. The
presence of the MIF has improved the security and humanitarian
situation in Haiti. The MIF is composed of approximately 2,000 U.S.
military personnel with the remainder from Canada, Chile and France.
Under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1542, adopted unanimously on
April 30, SOUTHCOM and the Multinational Force will transition the
current Haiti operation to a new United Nations Stabilization Mission
in Haiti on or about June 1, 2004. The United Nations has authorized a
force of 6,700 troops and 1,600 police.
In accordance with the Unified Command Plan 2002 Change 2, on
January 1, 2004 U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) reported significant
progress in all of their new mission areas: global strike; missile
defense; DOD information operations; and command, control,
communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance missions. Further, they are on schedule to achieve full
operational capability in each of the newly assigned mission areas this
year. SECDEF has already approved the Information Operations Roadmap,
which has 57 wide-ranging recommendations that aid Combatant Commanders
in planning and executing fully integrated information operations.
As we become more reliant upon information to conduct operations,
the defense of our network is paramount. This requires properly trained
people, common operating standards, and a well-stocked arsenal of
Information Assurance tools. We are working diligently to centralize
network operations and defense, and to formalize information sharing
policy, guidance and procedures. These steps, along with our
cryptographic modernization plan, will safeguard our vital information.
We are formalizing the role of U.S. Special Operations Command
(SOCOM) in the War on Terrorism. In the near future, we will be
recommending a change to the Unified Command Plan assigning SOCOM
specific responsibility to coordinate DOD actions against terrorist
networks. In March, SOCOM's trans-regional psychological operations
program was approved to unify existing programs, streamline approval
authorities and synchronize psychological operations across regional
boundaries in support of the War on Terrorism. These changes will
provide SOCOM and all of DOD improved focus in our global effort to
combat terrorism.
CURRENT HOMELAND DEFENSE OPERATIONS
Last year, U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) reached full
operational capability in their mission to deter, prevent and defeat
threats and aggression aimed at the United States and its territories.
Upon SECDEF approval, NORTHCOM can now deploy Quick Response Forces
(company-sized units) and Rapid Response Forces (battalion-sized
forces) to support time-sensitive missions such as defense of critical
infrastructures or consequence management in support of the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS). To improve interagency collaboration, DOD
has been working with DHS to develop and implement the National
Response Plan, a national-level, all-hazards plan that will integrate
the current family of Federal Domestic Emergency Response Plans into a
single plan.
The Joint Staff has developed a CONPLAN for consequence management
operations, and NORTHCOM and PACOM have developed supporting plans.
NORTHCOM's Joint Task Force Civil Support maintains strong interagency
relationships to integrate command and control of DOD forces with
federal agencies to manage the mitigation of Chemical, Biological,
Radiological and Nuclear and High-Yield Explosive (CBRNE) incidents.
This past summer, DOD, Nevada National Guard and Reserve units, FEMA,
27 other Federal agencies, and Nevada State and local agencies
participated in a consequence management exercise in Nevada called
DETERMINED PROMISE 2003. I was thoroughly impressed by the coordination
and cooperation among active and reserve component forces, and Federal,
State and local authorities. We are conducting similar exercises across
the country.
In regards to anti-terrorism and force protection measures, the
Joint Staff is working to ensure that Combatant Commanders at home and
abroad have the resources to mitigate threats and respond to emergent
requirements through the Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiatives
Fund. My staff is involved in developing and updating anti-terrorism
standards and policies to reflect current worldwide operations and
lessons learned so that we can address any vulnerabilities. We
coordinate with various agencies in the areas of training, planning,
operations and intelligence sharing, all essential for developing sound
anti-terrorism policies.
In an effort to improve the security of U.S. military installations
and personnel around the world, the Joint Staff has created the
Antiterrorism Enterprise Portal, an evolving web-based portal that
aggregates the resources and programs required to support the DOD
Antiterrorism Program. This portal is fast becoming DOD's one-stop
location for antiterrorism/force protection information.
A program that complements this portal capability is the Joint
Protection Enterprise Network (JPEN). Operated by NORTHCOM, this
network provides the means to share unclassified force protection
information rapidly between military installations in the Continental
United States, increasing their situational awareness and security
significantly. Although currently operating only on military
installations, JPEN has the potential to be expanded to share terrorist
information with Federal, State and local agencies as well.
The WOT requires collecting relevant data and turning it into
knowledge that will enable us to detect and preempt the plans of an
elusive, skilled enemy dispersed across the globe. Although many
obstacles remain, we are making significant progress in the area of
information sharing. The Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating
Terrorism (JITF-CT) at DIA is a prime example of effective intelligence
cooperation in the WOT. In the area of counterterrorism, we are making
significant progress toward transparency and full information sharing.
JITF-CT has experts from 12 intelligence and law enforcement
organizations, and JITF-CT personnel are embedded in 15 other
organizations, including some forward deployed personnel.
READINESS FOR FUTURE OPERATIONS
Our Nation's number one military asset remains the brave men and
women serving in our Armed Forces. This past year, they demonstrated to
the world their dedication, perseverance and compassion as they
liberated the Iraqi people and worked to bring peace and prosperity to
the region. The Administration, Congress and DOD have made raising our
military's standard of living a top priority. The 2004 budget provided
an average military pay raise of 4.15 percent and targeted increases of
up to 6.5 percent for some enlisted personnel. The 2005 budget's
proposed reduction of out-of-pocket housing expenses from 3.5 percent
to 0 is a sound investment, as are future pay increases based on the
Employment Cost Index plus .5 percent.
DOD has a focus group that continues to look at programs to enhance
the combat effectiveness and morale of service and family members
associated with OIF and OEF. Areas where we have made significant
progress are Rest and Recuperation Leave, danger area benefits to
include incentive options for extended tours of duty in Iraq and
Afghanistan, exchanges, childcare and communications initiatives.
All Services generally met or exceeded active duty and reserve
component recruiting and retention goals in both fiscal years 2002 and
2003 and are currently on target to meet fiscal year 2004 goals.
However, recruiting and retention of both active and reserve personnel
will continue to require attention and continued investment as we face
the challenges of an improving economy and the high operations tempo
associated with the war. I view all of the Quality of Life issues as
inseparable from overall combat readiness, and we greatly appreciate
Congressional support for all of these initiatives.
The overall readiness of our armed forces--whether forward
deployed, operating in support of contingency operations, or employed
in homeland defense--remains good. Our forces are the world's best
trained and, possess the requisite personnel, equipment, and resources
necessary to accomplish the military objectives outlined in the
Strategic Planning Guidance. Challenges do exist, especially with
regard to ground forces in Iraq. By mid-May, we will have completed the
movement of personnel and equipment to Iraq that rivals any such
military deployment in history. Coincident with this deployment of
forces is a corresponding redeployment back to home bases of our
service personnel after one year of service in Iraq. Some 20,000
personnel, mostly members of two Brigades of the 1st Armored Division,
the 2nd Light Cavalry Regiment and associated Combat Support and Combat
Service Support units, have been retained in theater past 365 days
because of the present security situation in central Iraq. We will
continue to examine force levels and size our combat forces
appropriately as the security situation dictates in both Iraq and
Afghanistan.
We continue to rely heavily on our Reserve and Guard personnel, who
are playing critical roles in Homeland Defense, and serving with
distinction around the world in the War on Terrorism. Some missions
like the ones in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo are almost exclusively
made up of Reserve and Guard units, and they are doing a magnificent
job. We are well aware of the strains on members, their families, and
their employers, and continuously seek better ways to support them.
There are several initiatives underway, collectively by DOD, the
Services, Combatant Commands, and the Joint Staff to reform the
mobilization process and to relieve the stress on the force. USJFCOM,
in conjunction with the Services, is leading the mobilization reform
effort by evaluating policy changes and identifying other solutions to
streamline the mobilization/demobilization process, and preliminary
recommendations are expected in early 2004. Two Operational
Availability sub-studies were conducted last year and identified the
Active Component/Reserve Component Mix and Low Density/High Demand
assets as two areas of immediate concern to relieve stress on the
Reserve Component forces. As an example, the Army has already begun
converting some Reserve Component artillery forces into Military Police
forces to meet one of the expected high demand roles of the foreseeable
future. This, and other ongoing rebalancing efforts will ensure that
active and reserve forces continue to complement each other. The
Services are actively engaged in reviewing how much of a given
capability they need for this new security environment, and which
capabilities belong in each component. Other key DOD areas of concern
are reducing the need for involuntary mobilization of the Reserve
Component early on in rapid response operations, establishing a more
rigorous process for reviewing joint force requirements, and ensuring
efficient use of mobilized Reserve Component personnel. A comprehensive
Rebalancing the Force Report by ASD (RA) will summarize these efforts,
while a study by ASD (HD) will define Reserve Component requirements
for Homeland Defense.
U.S. Armed Forces are capable of achieving all assigned objectives
in the draft National Military Strategy. However, current stresses on
the force remain considerable. The increased demands of the War on
Terrorism, sustaining post-conflict operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and other global commitments are unlikely to change significantly in
the near-term. Moreover, while committed globally, our Armed Forces
must continue to defend the homeland, reconstitute forces returning
from contingency operations, transform to meet future challenges,
strengthen joint and combined warfighting capabilities, and maintain
readiness. Today, given these commitments and requirements, we are
carefully managing the risk in executing an additional major combat
operation.
When units return home from combat operations, they must undergo a
reconstitution process, which generally means a drop in their
readiness. However, this does not necessarily indicate that a unit is
either unavailable for or incapable of executing part or all of their
assigned wartime missions. We have initiated new measures in the
current readiness reporting system to identify Service and combatant
command requirements, determine the scope of required reset actions,
and develop appropriate solutions to mitigate shortfalls and manage
risk. Our workload remains high, but we remain prepared to accomplish
those missions assigned to us.
Army units returning from OIF I/OEF require focused maintenance
efforts to return them to pre-hostility readiness levels, while
continuing to meet Combatant Commanders' maintenance requirements. The
Army's goal is to return OIF I/OEF active duty units to pre-deployment
readiness within 6 months and reserves within 1 year after return to
home station. However, some critical aviation systems may require
additional time in order to complete depot level repairs. Funding was
programmed from the 2004 Supplemental for these organizational and
depot level maintenance requirements. Army Materiel Command is the lead
agency for developing a plan to repair major equipment items from OIF
I/OEF. The Army has developed repair estimates for all OIF I units. The
workload consists of approximately 1,000 aviation systems, 124,400
communications & electronics systems, 5,700 combat/tracked vehicles,
45,700 wheeled vehicles, 1,400 missile systems, 6 Patriot battalions,
and 232,200 various other systems are included in this repair plan. As
OIF II and beyond maintenance requirements are further defined, DOD
will refine estimates and update costs.
Combatant Commanders and the Services identified preferred
munitions as one of their risk areas of concern via periodic readiness
reporting. Supplemental funding, as well as augmented annual budget
requests, has allowed us to meet our requirement for Joint Direct
Attack Munitions and laser-guided bomb kit production. In the near
term, we are focused on improving how we determine our munitions
requirements. Over the long-term, we plan to field improved guided
munitions systems that build on our already superb precision-delivery
capabilities.
Our military training areas are facing competition from population
growth, environmental laws, and civilian demands for land, sea, and
airspace. The Services are proud of their success in protecting the
environment, endangered species and cultural resources. We are grateful
to Congress for their assistance in the fiscal year 2004 Defense
Authorization Act, which precluded designating certain DOD lands as
critical habitat, and preserved valuable Navy training while ensuring
protection of marine mammal species. Having the world's most
sophisticated weapons systems and simulators cannot substitute for our
most important military training activities, air, land and sea maneuver
and live-fire training. Some installations, ranges, and training areas
are losing critical military value because encroachment is impairing
their capability to provide useful readiness and operational support.
We will continue to seek Congressional support that balances
environmental concerns and readiness.
Our Nuclear Readiness continues to evolve. In December 2001, the
Nuclear Posture Review established a New Triad composed of Offensive
Strike capabilities (both nuclear and non-nuclear), Defenses (active
and passive) and Responsive Infrastructure in order to respond to a
wide range of contingencies. DOD is in the midst of a Strategic
Capabilities Assessment to assess the progress in fielding the New
Triad and determine the number and types of forces to meet the Moscow
Treaty commitment of reductions of 1,700 to 2,200 operationally
deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2012.
We continue our efforts to ensure we can operate effectively in a
CBRN environment, since our potential adversaries, both nation states
and terrorists, seek to acquire and develop weapons of mass
destruction, including biological warfare agents. Vaccinations
represent an important countermeasure against biological threats and
provide our military personnel with the best available protective
measures. To date, approximately 695,000 military personnel have been
vaccinated against anthrax and more than 520,000 military personnel
have received smallpox vaccinations. The anthrax and smallpox
vaccination programs are very successful, and it is imperative to
develop effective countermeasures against other biological threats to
protect our warfighters.
While our warfighting team has always included contractors, their
involvement is increasing. The Joint Staff is leading a joint group to
develop overarching DOD policy and procedures for management of
contractor personnel during contingency operations.
We must also reexamine our ability to get to the fight. The
Mobility Requirements Study 2005, completed in 2000, is the current
baseline mobility requirements document. DOD is actively engaged in
conducting a new full-scale mobility study that reflects our current
defense strategy and incorporates lessons learned from OEF and OIF to
further clarify strategic lift requirements. The goal is to complete a
new Mobility Capabilities Study by March 2005, in time to influence
preparation of POM-08 and the Quadrennial Defense Review.
Sustaining our overseas presence, responding to complex
emergencies, prosecuting the global war on terrorism, and conducting
operations far from our shores are only possible if our ships and
aircraft are able to make unencumbered use of the sea and air lines of
communication. Our naval and air forces must be able to take advantage
of the customary, established navigational rights that the Law of the
Sea Convention codifies. We strongly support U.S. accession to the
Convention.
Although C-17 production is not planned to terminate until fiscal
year 2008, portions of C-17 production lines will begin to close in
fiscal year 2006. The Air Force and DOD are studying the benefits and
risks (including financial and war fighting) of continuing or
terminating the C-17 production lines, and plan to complete this
assessment in time to inform the fiscal year 2006 POM.
The significant age of our KC-135 fleet and the importance of air-
refueling capabilities dictate modernization of our aerial-refueling
fleet. Based on the results of ongoing investigations and studies, the
Air Force will recommend a cost-effective strategy for acquiring a
suitable replacement for the KC-135 fleet to meet joint warfighting
requirements to support our National Security Strategy.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be a giant leap over
existing attack/fighter capabilities. JSF is in the third year of an
11-year development program, and we have seen some design challenges.
The current design challenge for all three variants is weight, which
impacts performance requirements, particularly for the Short Takeoff
and Vertical Landing variant. Design teams are working diligently to
solve this issue, and we have moved the first planned production
procurement to the right one year, and added extra money to the
development. The weight issue is within normal parameters of design
fluctuation, and this issue will be worked out through the development
and design process.
Protection of our troops remains a top priority. Interceptor Body
Armor (IBA) was in the initial fielding phase at the start of OIF. The
DOD has been aggressively managing this critical item, and accelerated
fielding and production rates when CENTCOM identified the need due to
the threat situation. IBA consists of an Outer Tactical Vest (OTV) and
a set of Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI). Currently, there is
enough IBA (with SAPI) in theater to meet the CENTCOM military and
civilian requirements, for their entire area of operations, including
Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. We will continue to
work diligently to provide the best protective equipment for our
servicemen and women and DOD civilians.
The Up Armored version of the High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled
Vehicle (HMMVV) has proven to be effective at protecting our soldiers
against mines, improvised explosive devices (IED) and direct fire
weapons. Currently there is a shortfall in Iraq and worldwide. To fill
this shortfall, in the near term, the Joint Staff, the Services and the
Combatant Commanders are conducting an aggressive campaign to
redistribute worldwide inventories of UP Armored HMMVVs to Iraq. In the
longer-term, Congress' Emergency Supplemental and reprogramming have
provided funding to accelerate production of Up Armored HMMVVs to meet
CENTCOM requirements by October 2004.
OIF reaffirmed how critical the deployment and distribution process
is to joint warfare. The Joint Staff is working with DOD and the
Service logistics experts to develop an integrated end-to-end
deployment and distribution process that is responsive to rapid
projection of forces, the delivery and handoff of joint forces, and
worldwide sustainment in support of the Joint Forces Commander.
During the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle, Congress voiced concern
over the Department's overseas basing plans. Since then, our global
posture strategy has matured. We are now in the process of detailed
consultation with our allies and members of Congress. The overseas
portion of the fiscal year 2005 Military Construction budget submission
includes projects at enduring locations. These projects reflect our
Combatant Commanders' most pressing base and infrastructure needs. I
urge Congress to support our Combatant Commanders and fund the overseas
MILCON projects submitted in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. These
projects contribute directly to our readiness and the quality of life
our personnel deserve.
JOINT WARFIGHTING
Protecting the United States, preventing future conflicts, and
prevailing against adversaries require our military to sustain and
extend its qualitative advantage against a very diverse set of threats
and adversary capabilities. Maintaining our qualitative advantage
begins with improving education programs across the Services. We must
also adapt and transform organizations and functions to eliminate gaps
and seams within and between combatant commands, agencies at all levels
of government, and potential coalition partners. Information sharing is
at the forefront of this effort.
Recent operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, and Africa
have demonstrated the impact timely sharing of intelligence has on
planning and executing military operations. Since this is a global war
requiring an international effort, we must also improve coalition
command and control capabilities, and consolidate the numerous networks
that exist today. These disparate networks hinder our ability to plan
in a collaborative environment and exercise timely and effective
command and control with our multinational partners.
We must also review policies and implement technology that
safeguard our vital sensitive information while ensuring critical
operational information is shared with all those who fight beside us.
JFCOM has been tasked to take the lead in identifying specific
multinational information sharing requirements and recommending policy
changes. Our goal is to establish a multinational family of systems
with common standards as part of the Global Information Grid enterprise
services. I view this as a top priority and ask for Congressional
support--information sharing with our allies is critical to winning the
War on Terrorism.
During OIF, our military forces benefited from unprecedented
situational awareness through a common operational picture. In
particular, one new system, Blue Force Tracker, was critical to the
success of our forces as they sped towards Baghdad. Some of the 3rd
Infantry Division, V Corps, and I MEF vehicles were equipped with
transponders that automatically reported their positions as they
maneuvered across the battlefield--greatly improving situational
awareness for our battlefield commanders, and reducing the potential
for blue-on-blue engagements. Despite significant improvements in joint
combat identification, challenges remain to reduce incidents of
friendly fire, and maximize the synergy of combined arms to provide all
front-line tactical units with friendly and threat information during
decisive engagements. To address these challenges, JFCOM has the lead
in the comprehensive effort to improve Joint Battle Management Command
and Control, which includes the integration of Common Operational and
Tactical Pictures, Combat Identification, and Situational Awareness
across the force.
We are taking command and control lessons learned from OIF like the
capability to track Blue Forces, and running them through the Joint
Capabilities Integration and Development System process to help shape
future systems requirements. The objective is to ensure all of the
critical considerations of Doctrine, Organization, Training, Material,
Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF) are
employed in an approach that synchronizes material and non-material
solutions.
We are also improving our military war planning process. The Joint
Staff has developed an Adaptive Planning process--whose key concepts
are agility and speed--to reduce the time to develop and update war
plans, while adding flexibility and adaptability to respond to the
rapid changes in the global strategic security environment. The goal is
to provide the President and SECDEF the best options possible. We have
also been developing a collaborative campaign-planning tool for crisis
action planning and execution. These tools should allow commanders the
ability to assess multiple courses of action, rapidly compressing plan
development time while increasing plan flexibility.
Our warfighting effectiveness is also enhanced by our Joint
Exercise Program, which provides Combatant Commanders with the means to
train battle staffs and forces in joint and combined operations,
evaluate their war plans, and execute security cooperation plans with
our allies and Coalition partners. In order to improve joint training
opportunities, JFCOM is developing a Joint National Training Capability
(JNTC), which will achieve Initial Operational Capability in October
2004. JNTC will combine live and virtual play at multiple locations.
The goal is to provide realistic joint combat training against an
adaptive and credible opposing force, with common ground truths, and
high quality exercise feedback.
Strategic airlift is available to exercises only on an as-available
basis, since it is prioritized for operational needs first. Providing
the personnel and assets to accomplish meaningful joint training during
this period of high OPTEMPO has also been challenging. To balance these
competing requirements, the Combatant Commanders are reviewing their
fiscal year 2004 exercise programs with a view to canceling, downsizing
or postponing exercises. We must continue to balance operational and
exercise requirements against OP/PERSTEMPO and available lift.
Prior to combat operations in Iraq, we established a process for
adapting OIF lessons learned for future operations as rapidly as
possible. JFCOM has the lead role in turning identified operational
level lessons learned into required capabilities through the Joint
Capabilities Integration and Development System. After completing the
OIF Strategic and Operational Lessons Learned reports, we are following
up with a specific report to the Congressional Defense Committees, the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives. OIF
Strategic Lessons Learned require additional commitment at the
national-strategic level, including an improved deployment process,
redistributing specialties between the Active and Reserve Components,
Reserve Component readiness and mobilization, and improving the
planning and transition to post conflict operations.
Planning and transition to post conflict stability operations
require significant adjustments in how we plan, train, organize, and
equip our forces. We can expect future adversaries to attempt to offset
U.S. military strengths through asymmetric means, to include terrorist
insurgency, as combat operations transition to post conflict
operations. The lessons learned process continues during stability
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
considerations and recommendations for goldwater-nichols act
For the past 18 years, joint operations have been improving under
the provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The act strengthened
civilian control of the military and facilitated better military advice
to the President, SECDEF, NSC and Congress. Today, the Armed Forces are
involved in a worldwide fight against terrorism, well beyond anything
envisioned by the framers of Goldwater-Nichols. Now, it is time to
consider new ideas for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
the military instrument of power in today's new security environment.
The WOT and other recent military operations have demonstrated the
need for improved interagency cooperation, integration and execution of
National Security Council decisions. We also need to improve how we
coordinate the efforts of international, regional and non-governmental
organizations. I fully support initiatives to formalize a mechanism
that creates effective lines of authority and provides adequate
resources to execute interagency operations. For example, designating
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the principal military
advisor to the Homeland Security Council would improve homeland defense
and prosecution of the WOT beyond our borders.
As new defense reform initiatives are considered, the Chairman must
retain a dedicated Joint Staff, with expertise across the full range of
military issues, to assist in formulating quality, independent military
advice to the President, the National Security Council, and the
Secretary of Defense.
Joint Officer Management codified in the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols
legislation was based on the threats and force structure evident late
in the Cold War. We are developing a strategic plan to shape joint
officer management based on the type and quantity of officers needed to
perform current and future joint missions, and the education, training,
and experience joint officers require. This strategic approach will
ensure future joint officers meet the needs of joint commanders.
We are already taking some initiatives to improve our Joint
Professional Military Education system, with the goal of educating and
training the right person for the right task at the right time.
Historically, we waited until officers became majors and lieutenant
colonels before we provided them with joint education. We are finding
that the War on Terrorism requires noncommissioned officers and junior
officers from all Services to work in the joint environment more often
than they have before. We are developing courses tailored to the needs
of our younger troops that expose them to joint warfighting far earlier
in their careers. To improve joint officer management and education,
and prepare officers for joint duty earlier in their professional
careers, I request consideration to allow the Service War Colleges to
teach Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Phase Two and the
authority to determine the appropriate length of the Joint Forces Staff
College's JPME Phase II course. We also have pilot programs providing
joint education to Senior Noncommissioned Officers and our Reserve and
Guard component members. Additionally, we are reviewing our joint
general and flag officer training programs to ensure our senior
officers are prepared to command joint task forces and work effectively
with interagency and coalition partners.
Today, the Chairman remains well positioned to assist in providing
strategic direction to the Armed Forces, assess impacts on the long-
term readiness of the force, and evaluate current and potential levels
of risk associated with global military activities. Already, we are in
the process of transforming our internal processes to make them more
responsive in the current dynamic environment. In a similar vein, I
request we also reevaluate and streamline our current reporting
requirements to Congress, many of which seem of questionable utility. I
propose the formulation of a working group composed of members from the
HASC, SASC, HAC, SAC, OSD, OMB and Joint Staff to identify the best
means and frequency of communications to meet Congressional oversight
needs.
TRANSFORMATION OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES
We cannot focus solely on the threats we face today and assume
there are not other, perhaps even more challenging threats on the
horizon. Maintaining our unchallenged military superiority requires
investment to ensure the current readiness of deployed forces while
continuing to transform military capabilities for the future. Our
adversaries will learn new lessons, adapt their capabilities, and seek
to exploit perceived vulnerabilities. Therefore our military must
transform, and must remain ready, even while we are engaged in war.
Before the events of September 11th, transforming the force was
viewed as DOD's greatest near-term challenge. Since then, we have had
to fight battles in the mountains of Afghanistan, in the cities of
Iraq, and around the world for the security of America. Putting
transformation on the back burner and focusing solely on the fight at
hand is simply not an option. We are fighting a war unlike any we have
fought before--it demands new ways of thinking about military force,
new processes to improve strategic agility, and new technologies to
take the fight to the enemy. DOD continues to invest heavily in
transformation, both intellectually and materially.
The draft National Military Strategy adopts an ``in-stride''
approach to transformation that balances transformation, modernization
and recapitalization to maximize our military advantages against future
challengers. In addition to describing how the Joint Force will achieve
military objectives in the near term, the strategy identifies force
employment concepts, attributes and capabilities that provide the
foundation for the force of the future. The goal is full spectrum
dominance--the ability to control any situation or defeat any adversary
across the range of military operations. We must ensure our military
forces possess the capabilities to rapidly conduct globally dispersed,
simultaneous operations; foreclose adversary options; and if required,
generate the desired effects necessary to decisively defeat
adversaries.
We recently published the Joint Operations Concepts document that
describes a suite of concepts of how the joint commander will fight in
2015 and beyond. Joint Operations Concepts provide a framework for
developing capabilities and defining concepts to achieve full spectrum
dominance. Using this document as a foundation, the Joint Staff
completed development of five joint functional concepts to define how
joint warfighting will be conducted across the range of military
operations. These functions include force application, protection,
command and control, battlespace awareness, and logistics. Meanwhile,
the Combatant Commands have been working on four high-level operating
concepts that include strategic deterrence, stability operations,
homeland defense, and major combat operations.
Collectively, functional and operating concepts define how we want
to fight in the future, and will help us transform from the threat-
based force of the Cold War to a capabilities-based force postured to
respond to a wide variety of threats, some of which we cannot
confidently predict today. To aid the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council in determining warfighting needs with a capabilities-based
approach, we are developing joint integrating concepts. These concepts
are far more focused than functional and operating concepts, and define
specific tasks to be conducted. They are designed to bridge the gap
between how we want to fight and the capabilities we need. Examples
include urban operations, global strike operations, and forcible entry
operations. The functional, operating and integrating concepts will
continue to evolve over time. The first round of this very important
concept work should be done within the year.
For each functional concept area we have established a Functional
Capability Board to integrate the views of the Combatant Commands,
Services, Defense Agencies, Joint Staff, and OSD. These boards comprise
functional experts from across DOD who will provide the best advice
possible for our planning, programming, and acquisition processes.
Functional Capability Boards also support a new process called the
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, which replaces
the previous Cold War-era Requirements Generation System. The new
system recognizes that less expensive programs can have a significant
impact on joint operations. Virtually all programs are reviewed through
the JROC process for potential joint impact before they get a green
light, ensuring all Service future systems are born joint.
Based on the recommendations of the Joint Defense Capabilities
Study--the Aldridge Study--we established the Strategic Planning
Council chaired by SECDEF, and composed of the Service Secretaries, the
Joint Chiefs, Principal Under Secretaries and the Combatant Commanders.
The first meeting was held January 28, 2004. To capture and disseminate
this top-down strategic direction, we will produce a new Strategic
Planning Guidance document as the mechanism to provide subordinates
with this strategic guidance. The first Strategic Planning Guidance
document was completed in March 2004.
We are also developing an Enhanced Planning Process that integrates
DOD-wide lessons learned, experimentation, concept development, study
results, capability gap analysis, and technology development into a
collaborative capabilities planning function. The goal is to offer
distinct and viable alternatives to senior leadership rather than a
consensus driven, single point solution, and implement their decisions
into the Joint Programming Guidance document, the first of which will
be issued in May 2004.
These three transformational process initiatives--Functional
Capability Boards, Joint Capabilities Integration and Development
System, and the Enhanced Planning Process--work together improving our
planning and programming agility for future joint capabilities. JFCOM
is working with the Functional Capability Boards to incorporate lessons
learned from OEF and OIF into a list of materiel and non-materiel
recommendations to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to turn
lessons learned into identified capabilities needs as quickly as
possible.
JFCOM is also coordinating with the Services, Combatant Commands,
other U.S. agencies, and coalition partners to ensure experimentation
efforts support the warfighter. One of JFCOM's key experimentation
initiatives is the Standing Joint Force Headquarters, which will
provide Combatant Commanders a rapidly deployable command and control
team, along with supporting information systems and reachback
capabilities, that will enable us to respond to regional conflicts with
smaller and more effective joint operational headquarters. JFCOM is
establishing the prototype Standing Joint Force Headquarters this year,
and in fiscal year 2005 we will field the communications portion known
as the Deployable Joint Command and Control System to CENTCOM and
PACOM. EUCOM and SOUTHCOM receive follow on systems in fiscal year 2006
and fiscal year 2007. The Deployable Joint Command and Control System
will use state-of-the-art information technology to enhance Joint Force
command and control.
Communications systems are a prime target for transformational
ideas. The Joint Tactical Radio System is a software programmable radio
that will provide seamless, real-time, voice, data and video networked
communications for joint forces. It will be scalable allowing
additional capacity (bandwidth and channels) to be added, backwards-
compatible to communicate with legacy systems, able to communicate with
multiple networks, and able to accommodate airborne, maritime and land
based systems. It provides the tactical warfighter with net-centric
capabilities and connectivity to the Global Information Grid, and is
essential to meeting our 21st century joint communications warfighting
requirements.
Transformation also means developing multiple, persistent
surveillance capabilities that will let us ``watch'' situations and
targets by looking, smelling, feeling, and hearing with a variety of
long-dwell sensors from space, air, ground, sea and underwater and
integrating these capabilities into a ``system of systems.'' The
exploitation of Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT), holds
great promise. MASINT collects information from many diverse sources to
detect, characterize and track a target or activity by its distinctive
properties, or ``signatures'' that are very difficult to conceal or
suppress. Last year, DIA created its Directorate for MASINT and
Technical Collection to develop new forms of technical collection and
integrate MASINT into collection strategies and operations.
Another example of the transformational technologies we have just
fielded is the Army's Stryker Brigade, which is centered on a new,
fast, and quiet vehicle that can deliver 11 troops to the fight. This
effort is far more than simply fielding a new vehicle; it is also a new
way to organize a brigade, and link that brigade to a networked command
and control system that shares intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance information. Our Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) are
organized and trained to take advantage of this new technology. The
first Stryker BCT is already proving its worth in Iraq.
To reduce our vulnerability to weapons of mass destruction, we have
made progress on providing missile defenses for our homeland, our
deployed forces, and our friends and allies. In the coming year, we
plan to deploy six ground-based interceptors in Alaska and four in
California to provide an initial capability to defend the United States
from ballistic missile attack. The PATRIOT missile defense system and
the emerging AEGIS-based SM-3 system will provide short and medium
range missile defenses, as well as critical surveillance and tracking
essential to our Ballistic Missile Defense System. Coupled with an
upgraded launch detection capability provided by the Space Based
Infrared (SBIRS) Family of Systems, our ballistic missile defenses will
continue to improve significantly over the next few years.
The Global Positioning System (GPS) offers an excellent example of
a system that transformed modern warfare. GPS delivers worldwide
positioning, navigation and timing data that provide U.S. and allied
forces an all-weather, precision engagement capability. Over the last
decade, the success of combat operations was largely due to GPS-aided
precision-guided munitions. We must continue to modernize GPS, improve
capabilities, protect U.S. and allied access to reliable military
positioning, navigation and timing information, and deny this
information to our adversaries, while minimizing impacts to peaceful
civil users. We are engaged with NATO and the European Union to resolve
our concerns with the proposed Galileo system, a civil satellite system
that puts at risk our programmed military enhancements to GPS. A U.S.
interagency team has made significant headway with some tough technical
issues over the past year, but continued negotiations are essential to
address the remaining technical, and more importantly, the political
issues. Once these issues are resolved, we can confidently move forward
with our vision of space superiority to support future joint and
coalition operations.
As recent military operations have demonstrated, space is a
critical dimension of the battlespace. Lessons learned from OEF and OIF
highlight our increasing reliance on space communication assets and our
demand for bandwidth. Our challenge is meeting future warfighter
requirements in the face of an aging satellite constellation. Despite a
planned 10-fold increase in capability through Advanced EHF and
Wideband Gapfiller Systems, projected capacity may not meet the growing
demand. This shortfall will potentially impact our ability to maintain
a technological advantage over our adversaries. Work on
Transformational Satellite Communications continues, which is designed
to improve communications for mobile systems, particularly those that
provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Our unmanned
aerial vehicles and the Army's Future Combat System place heavy demands
on bandwidth, particularly when real-time video feeds are required. The
frequency spectrum is critical not only to joint warfighting, but to
all federal, state and local agencies to ensure national security and
public safety. Military and civilian technology is rapidly moving to a
wireless medium. As pressures from commercial sources to free up more
federal spectrum mount, we must ensure our long-term spectrum
accessibility for our military forces.
These are just a few examples our ongoing transformation efforts.
We are working hard to integrate old systems with new, in innovative
ways. Interoperating between our own legacy and transformational
systems is a challenge for us, but it is an even greater challenge to
our coalition partners, who must participate in key decisions on how
transformation will enhance combined operations in the future.
Over the past year, NATO has achieved great success in progressing
toward a transformed military organization. The Alliance has developed,
approved, and begun implementing a new, more streamlined command
structure, which will make it viable in the 21st century global
security environment. The catalyst for modernization will be the new
Allied Command Transformation, which will maintain a close partnership
with JFCOM. Also, on the forefront of transformation, NATO has created
the NATO Response Force, a key enabler of NATO's new operational
concept. This expeditionary force is designed to be a multinational,
deployable, and lethal force intended for employment either within or
outside of the European AOR. It will be NATO's first responders, able
to react quickly to a crisis anywhere in the world. In a display of
NATO's new focus, on August 11, 2003, NATO assumed command of ISAF in
Afghanistan, the first out of area mission in the history of the
Alliance. To be an effective joint force in the future, we must ensure
that our allies keep pace with our transformation efforts.
CONCLUSION
Responding to today's dynamic threat environment requires our Armed
Forces to be innovative, agile, and flexible. With Congress' strong
support, our military has made significant progress combating
terrorism, improving our joint warfighting capabilities, and
transforming our military into a 21st Century fighting force. We
appreciate your efforts to help us be responsive to a changing world,
and make that world a safer and better place.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much.
You're right, some of us up here were part of what they
called ``The Greatest Generation.'' We now know that we have
been replaced. This is the finest bunch of men and women I've
ever seen in uniform.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to know, because of a
change in the Secretary's schedule, we moved this hearing up to
9 o'clock. I do apologize. Some of you may not have gotten that
word until late. But we have started off, Senator Inouye and I,
with a couple of minutes. I will have a couple of questions,
then Senator Inouye, then we'll recognize Senator Byrd, then
we're going to go down on each side by the seniority on the
committee. That's, I think, the fairest, under the
circumstances because of the change in the time.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 FISCAL STATUS
So let me ask just one question. Mr. Secretary, I am
concerned about the statements that I have heard of--including,
I think, some of yours, General Myers--that you may be some $4
to $6 billion short in the fiscal year 2004 operating accounts.
Now, if that is the case, you can move money, you can reprogram
it back and forth to meet those shortfalls, I hope, in order to
prevent us from having a supplemental for 2004. Can you give us
an update on your 2004 fiscal status? Do you think that that
kind of money will take you into the 2005 fiscal year, so that
we can concentrate on the 2005 bill, Mr. Secretary? Maybe Larry
could answer that.
SHORTFALL
Secretary Rumsfeld. I'm not familiar with the statement
that General Myers may have made. Do you want to respond?
Mr. Lanzillotta. Yes, Senator. Mr. Chairman, we're in the
process of finishing up our 2004 mid-year review, looking to do
exactly what you asked us to do: to move money in between the
accounts, because we are trying to move the money to where the
bills are right now. Right now, we're in the process. We
haven't quite finished it, but there's no indication of a
requirement for a 2004 supplemental.
What is a problem, or what will be a stress, is general
transfer authority. We have $2.1 billion worth of general
transfer authority, and we have approximately $500 million
left. We need to do our annual omnibus reprogramming just to do
exactly as you mentioned, move the money to the accounts. That
will be as stress-point for us. Is it a problem yet? We haven't
finished. I don't know. I can't give you a number at this time.
Senator Stevens. Any comment, General Myers?
General Myers. Senator Stevens, the comment I made was that
there is a--in 2004, there's approximately a $4 billion
shortfall, which I think is going to be close to what the
shortfall will be. But then I'll defer to the mid-year review
and acting Secretary Lanzillotta on how we might cover those
bills. I didn't make any comment on that. I didn't say we
wouldn't be able to cover them. But I would say that it will
take some authorities that we're going to have to get to
reprogram some of this money, and that there is likely to be
some impact on some parts of our Armed Forces. We just have to
hope it's not in the readiness areas and the training areas,
the ones we worry about. So that review is ongoing, and it
remains to be seen whether we can cover all of that.
Secretary Rumsfeld. From the meetings I've been in, my
impression is that the people who have accounts that are being
overspent are the ones that express the concern, and those that
have accounts that are being underspent are relatively quiet.
And so until the process is completed that the Comptroller's
Office and the Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) office
are engaged in, I think it's awfully hard to know precisely
whether or not there will be a shortfall and even to know
precisely how much money we will need to reprogram.
Senator Stevens. We would be pleased to work with the Armed
Services Committee to see if we need additional ad hoc transfer
authority before the end of this fiscal year. Perhaps we can
work that out on an ad hoc single-year basis to get it done
without trying to handle a supplemental when we're going to be
looking at the reserve account anyway. But I think the reserve
account may come too late. We'll have to see.
Senator Inouye, Co-chairman?
Senator Inouye. I wish to yield to Senator Hollings. He has
an emergency.
Senator Stevens. Senator Hollings, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
Senator Hollings. I thank the chairman, and I thank Senator
Inouye. I've got a friend who passed. I'm going to try to catch
a plane to his funeral--General Harry Cordes, General Myers,
who used to command the Strategic Air Command (SAC).
Unfortunately, Mr. Secretary, you've already, in your
opening statement, responded to my question. And my question
was how in the world we're ever going to get the troops out
unless we get more troops in. And you seem Shinseki-shy. You go
into all kind of rope-a-dope here about you've got to re-
balance the skills, we've got to transform the forces for the
future, we've got to not get a bigger barrel, but move the
spigot, and all that kind of nonsense.
I'll never forget when I visited General Westmoreland in
Vietnam in 1966, and in a country of 16 million he had 535,000
troops in there, and he spent until 2 o'clock in the morning
that first night in Saigon saying how he needed 35,000 more.
Now, in a country of 25 million, you're trying to secure it
with 135,000. And don't put me off with ``about 200,000.''
They're not strong. You've got 200,000, but, as General Abizaid
told Chairman Stevens and myself when we were over there just 1
month ago, that they needed far, far more training. So what
happens is that we all want to try to get the United Nations
(U.N.) and get the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Chairman Stevens and I listened to President Chirac, and he
says, ``We've got to have Western solidarity, we've got to have
solidarity in Iraq,'' and he says, ``When the United Nations
passes a resolution, you'll find French troops side by side
with you in Iraq,'' just like we have in Afghanistan, where
they are working NATO troops now. Now, he cautioned, he said,
about NATO, that the Arab countries weren't part of it, but,
``With a U.N. resolution cover,'' he says, ``you can get
there.'' My understanding is you all haven't even asked for the
NATO troops, on the one hand, and you go into this long
explanation about moving the spigot instead of having a bigger
barrel and everything.
You don't have security. In fact, we've bogged down. We're
building and destroying. We're trying to win the hearts and
minds as we're killing them and torturing them. And at least
General Westmoreland didn't have to ask the Viet Cong general
to take the town, like we have for Fallujah. We have asked the
enemy general to take the town.
We're in a mess there. And we keep hearing from the
Pentagon, ``Sure, the troops are superb.'' But the question is,
Are we superb back here in Washington?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, you've covered a lot of ground
there, and I'd like to try to take a few of the pieces.
IRAQ TROOP LEVELS
With respect to the number of troops, U.S. troops--there
are also coalition troops and, as you point out, there are
Iraqi forces--the number of U.S. troops that we have in that
country is the exact number that General Abizaid requested. Is
it possible he's wrong? Sure, it's possible anyone could be
wrong. But he talks to his field commanders, the division
commanders, every week or two, and asks that question. And
every time I ask him, I say, ``Look, whatever you need, you
will get.'' General Myers' advice is that the number he has
requested is a number that's appropriate.
Now, all I can say is that the division commanders are
telling General Abizaid that's the right number. General
Abizaid is telling General Myers it's the right number. General
Myers is telling Rumsfeld and President Bush it's the right
number. You could be right----
Senator Hollings. Well, isn't it the case that----
Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. But they all don't think
so.
Senator Hollings [continuing]. They're scared to death----
Secretary Rumsfeld. No, they're not. These----
Senator Hollings [continuing]. That they're going to get
disciplined----
Secretary Rumsfeld. Does he look scared to death?
Senator Hollings [continuing]. If they ask for more.
Secretary Rumsfeld. No, sir.
Senator Hollings. They're gone if they ask for more.
IRAQ
Secretary Rumsfeld. Absolutely not. And you know that.
General Myers. In fact, Senator Hollings, let me just say
it's not just General Myers; it's the entire Joint Chiefs of
Staff. This is something we review regularly. We were just on
the video teleconference with General Abizaid the other day,
with the Joint Chiefs, General Abizaid, talking about this very
issue and looking at, you know, the pluses and minuses of more
versus less. And it's still the wisdom of General Abizaid and
his forces that more capability is not--there is no way to
militarily lose in Iraq. There's also no way to militarily win
in Iraq. This process has to be internationalized. The United
Nations has to play the governance role. That's how we're, in
my view, eventually going to win.
General Abizaid thinks that handing more of this over to
Iraqis, not doing the work for them, is what's key, and that's
why yes, is there training that needs to be done for Iraqi
forces? Absolutely. Are we slow in getting that going? You bet.
Until the Department of Defense got the mission, and General
Abizaid got the mission, for training the police and the rest
of the security forces, we were way behind. We're moving that
up very quickly right now. And their performance, while uneven,
is to be expected when the going gets tough, because they
just--some of them haven't been trained properly or equipped
properly. We're trying to fix that as fast as we can. But
that's certainly got to be part of the solution.
But----
Secretary Rumsfeld. I should add that----
General Myers [continuing]. We don't put anything on
General Abizaid's request going to the Secretary, I can tell
you that. And if we have a separate view, as the Joint Chiefs,
we would offer that, as well.
Secretary Rumsfeld. The idea that the four members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, four-star generals, and the division
commanders, General Abizaid and General Myers and General Pace,
are afraid to tell the truth is just plain wrong and
unfortunate to even suggest, in my view.
UNITED NATIONS AND NATO
Next, with respect to the United Nations and NATO, we went
to the United Nations and got a resolution. The Department of
State has been working with the United Nations to try to get
another resolution. We want it, the coalition countries in
there want it, and, you're exactly right, when we get it we
have a crack at getting some additional countries, beyond the
33 countries that are currently there.
Next, you asked that we--said we've not even asked NATO. We
asked NATO the first month of the war--went over to Brussels
and requested NATO assistance. NATO is assisting in the sense
that they have helped with the force generation for the Polish
division that's currently deployed there. I think, out of the
26 NATO countries, something like 17 have forces either in Iraq
or Afghanistan, or both. NATO has the same problem--you might
humor us about the spigot--the problem is that NATO has a worse
spigot problem. They've got about 2.4 million people in
uniform, and they can--they have trouble sustaining 50,000.
We're sustaining--if you take Iraq, Afghanistan, and the entire
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility--about
250,000 to 275,000 forces on a base of 2.6 million. They've got
about 2.4 or 2.5 or 2.6 million, and they're having trouble
sustaining 50,000. So the idea that the United Nations is some
sort of a solution to all this problem, or the idea that NATO
is the solution to all these problems, I think, misunderstands
the force capabilities of those countries.
Once you get a U.N. resolution, however, you do reach
beyond the NATO countries, and that's a big opportunity.
Senator Hollings. Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Please give the SAC General's family our
condolences. We remember him, too.
Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Secretary Rumsfeld, can you tell the
committee how the $25 billion request will be structured, what
appropriation accounts will be receiving increases.
Senator Stevens. Senator, we do not have that request.
Senator Byrd. I understand that. But do you have any idea
how the $25 billion request will be structured, what
appropriation accounts will be receiving increases in your
amendment, and what specific activities and programs will be
funded? Does the Defense Department intend to seek additional
legislative authorities with this request? Do you intend to
request additional flexibility in the use of allocation of
these funds?
Mr. Secretary?
STRUCTURING THE $25 BILLION RESERVE
Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. As I mentioned earlier, the
decisions as to how it ought to be structured and what it ought
to be called is a matter that's being discussed between the
White House, the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Congress. They're trying to work out something that makes sense
from your schedule and the flow of your legislation in both
houses.
The funds would be spent for operational costs and force-
protection costs. And I do not believe, at the moment, that
anyone anticipates that there would be additional authorities.
But it would be for personnel support costs, for combat
operations, supplies, force protection, transportation, those
types of things.
Senator Byrd. What assurances do we have that these funds
will be limited to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan only, and
not be diverted into some kind of dual-use activities that
could be used to prepare for another war?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The request will specify what they're
for. And, as always, the Department will see that the authority
that is provided by the Congress is adhered to. And they're
currently working out reporting procedures with the Congress
that will be, I believe, explicit at that point where the
request comes forward.
Senator Byrd. Well, I'm sure that Congress would want to be
sure that there's some limitations on these monies and that
this will not be a slush fund. I'm also confident that it will
not be limited to $25 billion. It'll probably be twice that
amount, or three times that amount, before it's over. I would
anticipate that.
STOP-LOSS POLICY
Mr. Secretary, America's military forces are stretched thin
throughout the world. Simply put, we have more military
commitments than we have the personnel to cover them without
taking extreme steps. The Army, for example, is dependent on
the stop-loss policy to retain soldiers and meet its
commitments in Iraq and elsewhere. How long has the stop-loss
policy been in effect?
Secretary Rumsfeld. It's my understanding that stop-loss
has been a policy that's been in effect for years and years and
years, and it's been used by all of the services over time, and
it has a good military purpose. Possibly General Myers will
want to comment on it. But at that point where a unit--everyone
in the military, in the Guard, in the Reserve, is a volunteer.
Each one volunteered knowing that they were going to go on
active duty or they were going to go in the Guard and Reserve
and, as needed, they would be called. When a unit is deployed--
it has trained together, it's worked together, it's ready to
go, and suddenly it has to go--there are always some people in
that unit who are due to get out or due to be transferred at
any given moment. And so what the stop-loss does is, it assists
with unit cohesion. And if people are due to be deployed, and
they look at the unit, and they make a judgement at some cutoff
point and say, ``Anyone who was scheduled to get out, can't.''
And, therefore, that's the stop-loss.
Senator Byrd. So how many troops are currently affected by
the stop-loss order?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I can check with Dr. Chu, behind me,
and I'll bet you he knows. About 20,000, he tells me,
throughout the entire force.
Senator Byrd. And when would you expect to lift the stop-
loss order?
General Myers. Let me--as the Secretary said, Senator Byrd,
this is essentially the way we do business when we deploy
units, and it's not just stop-loss, it's also stop-moving, as
the Secretary said, if they were moving to another post, camp,
or station, or to school. And as units continue to deploy,
stop-loss and stop-move will be used in that way.
I would also say that if individuals are stop-loss'd that
were planning on getting out of the service, if they--there is
a process they can go through where they can appeal and say,
``Listen, I had something set up that I've just got to do,''
and I think, for the most part, very few are turned down. Is
that right, Dr. Chu?
Dr. Chu. That's correct.
General Myers. I mean, there's a--the percentage is very,
very high of those appealing on stop-loss if they have
something they just have to do. Their case is looked at, and
their----
Senator Byrd. General Myers----
Secretary Rumsfeld. It also varies--excuse me--it varies
from service to service. For example, at the present time, the
Air Force is not using stop-loss; whereas, the Army and the
Navy are.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, do you have any concern that
once you lift the stop-loss order, you will see a mass exodus
of experienced troops? And do you have any plan to cope with
such a contingency?
Senator Stevens. That would be the Senator's last question,
unfortunately, Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. All right.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator Byrd, I always worry about
things, and that's a fair question. At the moment, the way the
stop-loss works is, it's unlikely that it would lead to a mass
exodus, because it's sequential, and it doesn't affect large
numbers at a specific time point. It may affect, in the total
at the present, 20,000 people. But so far the recruiting and
retention in all of the services is, for all practical
purposes, meeting their targets. So we're not, at the moment,
seeing any adverse effect from the stop-loss, nor do people in
the service, as I understand it, think of it as unusual,
because it's been a policy that's been used for some time.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Cochran, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, you pointed out, in your opening statement,
your interest in restructuring National Guard forces to try to
get the most out of the forces that we have who are available
to our country in this time of need in Iraq and Afghanistan and
elsewhere. I applaud that, and I want to assure you that we'll
be happy to work with you to guarantee that the funds are there
to help you achieve this goal.
I happened to notice, in my briefing papers here, that, in
our State of Mississippi, National Guard and Air National Guard
units have been deployed. We have more than 3,000 troops from
our State that have been deployed since Operation Iraqi Freedom
began. This weekend, we're welcoming home a combat engineer
battalion, and that battalion, over 200 soldiers in the group,
were sent in right after the Tikrit Airport was taken over.
They built a perimeter around that airport, they built
structures for the defense of our forces throughout northern
Iraq. They haven't taken a single casualty. They're coming home
safe and sound. Thirty-two bronze-star medals are being
awarded, have been awarded, to the troops in that group. And it
makes me very proud of those troops in particular, but others
from throughout our State and across the country who have
responded to the call, carried out their missions with a
tremendous amount of professional skill and courage. And we owe
them a great deal. And I know that an effort is going to be
made to ensure that they are treated fairly. We have some that
have just gotten back from Bosnia, for example, who are now
being put on a list for possible deployment to Iraq. We have
others who have been to Guantanamo Bay.
So the National Guard and Reserve forces are really being
stretched, and I worry a little bit about whether or not we
have the incentives and the pay and benefits that are necessary
to guarantee that we can retain and continue to recruit members
of the Guard and Reserve in the future. There's a TRICARE
program, as an example, a health benefit program that Congress
has authorized, but it's not yet been implemented for National
Guard forces. I bring that to your attention because it may be
one example of what we can do to help make sure we're treating
those forces fairly.
What is your response to that general problem that we may
face and what the Department of Defense is doing to address it?
STRESS ON THE GUARD AND RESERVE
Secretary Rumsfeld. The problem you have mentioned is real.
You have units, and we look at their deployments--it may be
Bosnia, it may be Guantanamo, it may be Afghanistan or Iraq--
and then there are individuals that change in units. And so
someone may be coming back, and go to another unit, and end up
being deployed at some point. The planning tools in the Army
are imperfect, and they are being refined and improved. And
we're doing today, I believe, a vastly better job than we did a
year ago in having visibility into the circumstance of
individuals, as well as units.
When I sign a deployment order, I look at each unit and the
number of individuals, and how long since they've been
deployed. You're right, the Guard and Reserve has stepped up
and done a magnificent job. You're right, also, that the Guard
and Reserve have been stressed. But the fact is, it isn't
probably quite right to say the Guard and Reserve have been
stressed. Significant portions have. And other portions have
not, at all, been used. And that goes to the point you made at
the outset, that we've got to find a way to re-balance these
skill sets, both within the Guard and Reserve, and also with
the Active force.
MOBILITY REQUIREMENT STUDY
Senator Cochran. General Myers, one of the units in our
State, an Air National Guard unit, has been the first Guard
unit to have a C-17 fleet assigned for operation in Jackson,
Mississippi, and we're very proud of that honor, and the forces
there are working hard to do the training and maintain the
facilities that are necessary to carry out their
responsibilities. I noticed that a recent Congressional
Research Service report concluded that there is a need for
strategic lift capacity greater than that which we had earlier
expected. Currently, there's a procurement strategy for C-17s
of a total of 180 by 2007, and the Air Force is indicating now
they may have a requirement for more than 200. I wonder if the
aging of the C-17 fleet and the C-5 fleet, are causing you
concerns. Do you believe the budget requests that are before
the committee are sufficient to deal with the needs that we
have for strategic airlift?
General Myers. Senator Cochran, I believe that the request
that you have right now is sufficient for fiscal year 2005.
What we need to do, and what we are doing, is looking at our--
what we call our mobility requirements study. We do these, as
you know, periodically. It looks, not only at airlift, but
other modes of transportation. I think, coming out of that and
getting ready for the 2006 budget, you will probably see the
answer to the question on, Do we need more C-17s beyond what
are currently programmed? And I don't want to prejudice the
outcome of that. But the concerns you raise are serious
concerns, and we need to look at it.
By the way, the C-17 is performing magnificently. You can
remember it was, at one time, a maligned program, almost cut.
And it has been--it's kind of my primary mode of transportation
when I go back and forth to the Middle East, and I've come to
know it very well.
Let me just make a comment on the Reserve component. I
would like to echo what the Secretary says. You know, we're one
Armed Forces. We're the total force. When I go to visit troops,
you can't tell who the reservists are, who the Guard's people
are, or who the Active duty are. Everybody's in there together,
everybody is performing, in my view, magnificently.
We've got to worry as much about Reserve component
recruiting and retention as we do the Active piece, because
we're a total force. We could not be doing this without the
Reserve component, and they've really answered up.
On medical, there are a couple of things that--I know we
need help in medical--that don't break the bank. One is making
sure they get TRICARE benefits prior--earlier than they do now
when they are mobilized. They need that. They also need it
longer on the other end, when they are demobilized. And they
need transportability. Right now, if they have a private
insurance company, they can go to TRICARE. But TRICARE may
require they change providers. And when you have serious
medical problems in a family, that's not the thing to do for a
year or two, to change providers. We could mandate the same
thing we mandate for Medicare; if you take TRICARE, you know,
everybody's got to take it. And so there are some--I think,
some relatively inexpensive, and things we could do today, to
help our Reserve component mightily.
The other thing we ought to do, for sure, is make sure that
our Reserve component folks get annual physicals so we know
what kind of medical shape they're in, because we've discovered
a lot of problems. I mean, this sounds farfetched, but one
person was mobilized, needed a liver transplant. Okay? So we
ought to keep up with this on a yearly basis so we know what
the health of our force is.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Leahy is recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, yesterday in Iraq an American citizen was
brutally murdered by al Qaeda. Not long before that we saw the
dismembered corpses of brutally murdered Americans left hanging
from a bridge by jubilant Iraqis. Each of these brave Americans
were there to rebuild that country, and these despicable acts
illustrate, once again, the depravity, the determination of the
enemy we face.
I think we all agree on that, on this committee and on the
other side. The question is how to stop it. Now, you have said
you're sorry, and the President said he's sorry, everybody's
said they're sorry about the Iraqi prison scandal. It's
actually the first time in this long, protracted and rather
strange policy I've heard any administration official express
regret about any mistake.
So let me tell you a few things I'm sorry about. I'm sorry
that someone in the administration ``gave currency to a
fraud,'' to quote George Will, by putting, in the President's
State of the Union speech, that Iraq was trying to buy uranium
in Africa.
I'm sorry that this administration repeatedly, insistently,
and unrelentingly justified preemptive war by insisting that
Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction, but he
was hell bent on using them against us and our allies.
And I'm sorry about administration officials, led by the
Vice President, repeatedly trying to link Saddam Hussein to 9/
11, when there never was any link. None. They were doing it to
build support for the war.
And I'm sorry that truth-tellers in the administration,
like General Shinseki and Lawrence Lindsey, were hounded out of
their job because they had the temerity to suggest realistic
numbers both for our troop level and for what this war is going
to cost.
I'm sorry there's no real plan, despite a year-long $5
million effort by the State Department, to stop the looting
that greeted our soldiers upon Saddam's fall, that set back
reconstruction efforts by months or years, left the gates open
to ammunition, weapons, and other things that are used against
our brave soldiers today.
I'm sorry that the President taunted Iraqi resistance
fighters to ``bring it on'' while our troops were still in
harm's way.
I'm sorry that some of our closest allies and friends, like
Mexico and Canada, even the countries that you dismissingly
called ``Old Europe,'' were alienated because they disagreed
with our strategy of preemptive war, countries whose diplomatic
and military help we need desperately today.
And I'm sorry that those that tried to find the truth about
allegations of prison abuse in Iraq and in Afghanistan and in
Guantanamo were ignored or brushed off for more than 1 year,
until all of a sudden the press published the lurid
photographs, and then we look at it and we have made apologies
through the whole administration.
Now, last October 13, in your memo entitled ``Global War on
Terrorism,'' you asked--I'm quoting what you said--``Are we
capturing, killing, or dissuading more terrorists every day
than the madrases and radical clerics are recruiting, training,
and deploying against us?'' Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when we
started this war. They are there now.
How do you answer the question you posed last October? Your
question was, again, ``Are we capturing, killing, or dissuading
more terrorists every day than the madrases and radical clerics
are recruiting, training, and deploying against us?'' How would
you answer that today?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, first I'd like to, Senator,
answer a few of the other comments you made.
Senator Leahy. Well, could we answer that one first?
Senator Stevens. Well, he has the full right to answer your
question.
Senator Leahy. I know, but could we answer the question,
the specific question I asked? That's the only question I
asked. Answer that, and then say all you want to say.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I think it's fair that I be allowed to
answer your statement.
Senator Leahy. Well, I asked a question. You don't want to
answer my question?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I'd be happy to answer your question.
Senator Leahy. Please do.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I will.
IRAQ TROOP LEVELS
Let me start this way. The statement that General Shinseki
was hounded out of office is false. He served his entire term.
Everyone who knows anything about the military knows that fact.
Second, he had a different view, which is fair for anybody,
as to how many forces would be appropriate. To my knowledge, he
did not express it--well, I won't even say that. Forget that.
That was a private meeting. But the fact of the matter is,
every general there--on the ground, in the country, and on the
Joint Chiefs currently--believed that we have the right number.
If he disagrees, that's fair. He's a fine, honorable man, and
he can have a difference of opinion. But the fact is that the
number there is what the military believes is appropriate.
General Myers I'd like to comment on the caches that you
say were left unattended.
INVESTIGATING REPORTED ABUSES
And I think your statement that allegations of abuse were
``brushed off'' is unfair and inaccurate. There have been a lot
of fine people----
Senator Leahy. I'll show you the correspondence that I sent
to your office asking about these abuses about 1 month ago that
were never answered.
Secretary Rumsfeld. If there was a letter that wasn't
answered, I apologize. But the fact of the matter is that we
get repeated reports from people, of problems, and they are
checked, and they are worked on, and corrections are made, and
most of the investigation reports indicate----
Senator Leahy. Apparently not in Iraq----
Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. That----
Senator Leahy [continuing]. Or Afghanistan, according to
the front page of papers this morning.
Secretary Rumsfeld. The fact of the matter is that in Iraq
there have been improvements made, and successive
investigations have seen that improvements were made, and they
were not brushed off. But I think saying that the military
chain of command was ``brushing off'' legitimate comments about
procedures being used with the detainees is just simply not
consistent. We're trying to find out precisely what happened,
and we're going to end up with six investigations going on, and
we'll know the extent to which things were or were not brushed
off.
Last, I don't know the answer to your question. I wish I
did. I posed it because it may be a question that's not
answerable except over time. But I do worry about it, which is
why I wrote the memo and why I sent it to General Myers. I
think that the world is facing a very dangerous threat in
international terrorism. They are capable--and, in fact,
already have killed tens of thousands of people in various ways
in different countries over time--3,000 in this country alone,
and attacks in Saudi Arabia, attacks in Turkey, attacks in
Indonesia. And we know these madrasa schools--not all madrases
are bad, but a small fraction of them do, in fact, get funded
for the specific purpose of training people to go out and kill
innocent men, women, and children and to do the kinds of things
you've cited in your opening statement. It is inhuman. It is
against any law of war. And it's a dangerous thing. And I don't
know of any way that one can calculate that. Our folks are
doing the best job they can.
MARK BERG
General Myers. Senator Leahy, let me just--let me talk a
little bit about the gruesome murder of Mark Berg. The best we
know--and I don't know that we know this for sure--but it looks
like the perpetrator, the lead perpetrator, might have been
this fellow, Zarqawi, who, while not al Qaeda, has been al
Qaeda-affiliated for a long, long time. Well before the war in
Iraq, he was in Iraq from time to time. If that's true, then
this is not Iraqis killing Americans, this is a--in fact, he
is, I think, a Jordanian citizen. But he's an extremist, most
of all. And the Zarqawi letter tells us all we need to know
about him. He will do anything to stop the progress in Iraq.
He's the one that suggested, ``We're losing to the coalition.
We have to do something dramatic, and maybe we need to start a
civil war between Sunni and Shia.'' So this act, if it is, in
fact, Zarqawi, as some allege, this is a further validation of
what his tactics are. I just make that point on the Mark Berg
thing.
Senator Leahy. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, we'll be
able to submit other questions----
Senator Stevens. Yes, on appropriations. This is not about
Iraq abuse.
Senator Leahy. We haven't even been given the request yet,
and we're having to----
Senator Stevens. We have the request for----
Senator Leahy. For $25 billion?
Senator Stevens [continuing]. Four hundred and one billion
dollars. That's what we're talking about this morning. We
haven't received the reserve request, that's true, but that's--
you know, I have no cork to put in Senators' mouths or
witnesses' mouths, but my hope----
Senator Leahy. Appreciate that.
Senator Stevens [continuing]. Is to pursue the information
we've gotten so far, on which we still need a lot of
information about the $401 billion.
Senator Domenici is recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I will follow your
admonition. But I wish I had a few moments to tell this
committee what I'm sorry about. I'm sorry about 9/11, when
3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists. I'm sorry that
Saddam Hussein took over this country and killed thousands of
people and established one of the worst regimes ever. And
there's another long list of what we're sorry about, and
they're completely different than what Senator Leahy's sorry
about.
Now, having said that, we are only 42 days away from
turning over this country to the Iraqi leadership, whatever
that is. Mr. Secretary and General, I am very worried about how
prepared the Iraqis are to take over this responsibility, and,
secondly, what we have done to prepare ourselves and them to
work together to make this work.
I can envision that this situation will not work, and that
we won't have an organizational structure that will do anything
other than have Americans fighting and us supplying those
fighters with more and more money. Can you describe, as best
you can, where we are, what we're going to do, and how
confident you are that this turnover is going to be meaningful,
in terms of maintaining the peace and moving ahead with
America's commitment.
TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY IN IRAQ
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you, Senator.
It's a tough question. If you think back to Afghanistan, we
didn't know how that was going to work. We went in, the Taliban
was removed, the al Qaeda were put on the run, and what was
left were a series of warlords with militias, and no government
structure. And, lo and behold, out of the blue came something
called a loya jirga, and out came agreements that a fellow
named Karzai should be selected as interim president. And there
he is. And it's been wobbly, and he's worked his way along, and
he's made arrangements with other people, and, lo and behold,
it's survived. No one in the world could have predicted how
that would go. And now they're scheduled to have elections
later this year, they're scheduled to endorse their
constitution, and it might very well work. I've got confidence
that it will work.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Rumsfeld. But it was an Afghan solution.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. I have been fair, I think,
in my question, and I have been fair with you all, all the
time, but I don't want to hear about Afghanistan. It is
completely different----
Secretary Rumsfeld. It is.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. In my opinion. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq that has people like al Sadr
around, gathering up people, that we have cities that we are
abandoning to a bunch of thugs, and yet, at the same time,
we're saying we're going to form a new government and turn over
power to them. I believe that you have to be better prepared
for this transition than I have heard. And it may be you can't
tell us, but the transition is not something that's going to
work unless you have planned it, and the military has planned
it, and you're working with Iraqis. And, frankly, I think you
ought to tell us.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, I'll do my best. The United
Nations representative, Brahimi, is--been working with us, with
the Coalition Provisional Authority, and with the Iraqi people,
the Iraqi Governing Council, and hundreds of others, Iraqis.
And he has come up with a formula, which is now being tested in
the marketplace there. People are describing it, talking about
it, analyzing it, recommending changes. And it may not be
exactly what he proposed, but it'll be something like that. My
guess is, there'll be a conclave, something like a loya jirga,
where governors and city councils and people like that will
come together, and they'll end up working out something that is
generally acceptable to the bulk of the people--not
permanently, but between June 30, when sovereignty is accepted
by the Iraqi government, whatever it looks like. The current
theory is, there'll be a president, a couple of vice
presidents, there'll be ministries, and they will assume that
responsibility for a period, and the period would be ended
after they have fashioned a constitution, voted on a
constitution by the Iraqi people, and then elected other people
to succeed that interim group.
Will it happen right on time? I think so. I hope so. Will
it be perfect? No. Will it be like Afghanistan? No. You're
right. It'll be an Iraqi solution, just like Afghanistan was an
Afghanistan solution. Is it possible it won't work? Yes. And is
it possible they'll stumble and wobble? Everybody stumbles and
wobbles.
RECONSTRUCTING IRAQ INFRASTRUCTURE
Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary, let me just, for instance,
raise one question. It would appear to me that for this to
work, somebody has to have a plan for serious long-term
improvement of the infrastructure of that country. That's not
going to fall on our shoulders. Somebody has to put it
together. Somebody has to make sure that the monies coming into
that country are used to leverage long-term loans of a lot of
money, or there's no chance that the Iraqis are going to buy
this based on upon ``things will work out years from now.''
They've got to work out from the very beginning. And I wonder
who's working on that kind of infrastructure assurance, or are
we just expecting it to happen?
Senator Stevens. That's the Senator's last question. I'm
sorry.
Senator Domenici. I thank you.
Secretary Rumsfeld. The conviction on the part of the
United States and the coalition countries has been that you
need to make progress on Iraqis taking over governance of their
own country, simultaneously make progress on security, and
simultaneously make progress on essential services, the
infrastructure, that one can't go ahead of the other. You're
not going to get infrastructure to proceed if, in fact,
security isn't sufficient to protect it. You're not going to
get the governance to go forward if there isn't some progress
on infrastructure and essential services. So that understanding
is there.
My personal view is that the critical ones are governance
and security, and that the infrastructure will be something
that will probably lag behind somewhat, and they're going to
have to pay for their improvements in their infrastructure. The
Congress has voted some money, the international community's
given some money. They've got oil revenues. They are going to
have to do that. It's going to take them time. There isn't any
reason that country can't be as prosperous as its neighboring
countries--Kuwait and--but that isn't going to come from us;
that's going to come from them. And these are intelligent
people, they're industrious people, they've got resources,
they've got water, they've got oil revenues, and they're going
to have to do that themselves.
What our task is, is to pass governance to them, have them
accept it. Will they be good at it at first? No. They're not
going to be good at it. They've been living under a
dictatorship. They don't know how--they're not going to be
instantaneously successful in negotiating, compromising,
putting their fate in a piece of paper called the constitution
that'll protect the rights of each religious group in there.
But they'll get it eventually, just like the Afghans are
getting it, it seems to me.
SECURITY FORCES IN IRAQ
With respect to security, it's our job to see, as General
Myers said, that we continue to invest in recruiting and
training and deploying and developing a chain of command so
that the Iraqis are able to take over security for themselves.
People can be quite dismissive of the 206,000 Iraqi security
forces. But 300 have been killed. They've not been killed
because they're sitting in their barracks with their fingers in
their ear; they've been killed because they've been out doing
the job of helping to provide security in that country. And, by
golly, we can help train 'em, we can help equip 'em, and we can
give them more responsibility, and they're going to have to
take it over, because the United States has no intention in
staying there. We're not going to make a career out of that.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
General Myers. Let me just----
Senator Stevens. Senator Myers, did you wish to comment?
General Myers. Yeah, just a--I've got a short comment, Mr.
Chairman, thank you.
Senator Stevens. General Myers. You're not a Senator yet.
General Myers. Thank you. On the security front, first of
all we're going to have 20,000 additional troops in there for
some time to come, as I mentioned in my opening statement. We
delayed some, and we're going to replace them. So we're going
to have in the neighborhood of 135,000 to 136,000 troops there
for the foreseeable future to deal with the security issues we
think we need to deal with, and that's been General Abizaid's
request.
Second, we're going to stand up a brand new headquarters
that'll deal, at the strategic level, with our chief of
mission, with other chiefs of missions, and, most importantly--
most importantly--with Iraqis. We want to go from a coalition
in that country to a partnership with Iraq, and this means
developing the ministry of interior, the ministry of defense,
and have Iraqis part of that whole chain. And we see it as a
mentoring program for a while, but eventually, as the Secretary
says, you've got to take the hand off the bicycle seat and see
how far they get, and if they fall over and bruise themselves
and get cut up, then you wipe 'em off, you dry, you put a Band-
aid on the knee, and off they go again.
We think an awful lot about how we're going to do that on
the security front, and the equip and training of the Iraqi
forces I won't go into again. But there's been a lot of thought
given to that structure that we're going to. We're going to try
to stand up that headquarters as quickly as we can, matter of
fact. We've been working that for a couple of months now.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Harkin, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Let me inquire anybody wish a station-
break? Okay.
You're recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONTROL OF PRIVATE MILITARY CONTRACTORS
Mr. Secretary, on May 7, an Associated Press (AP) story
came out, that said a year before the Iraq invasion, the then
Army Secretary warned his Pentagon bosses that there was
inadequate control of private military contractors. Retired
Army Chief Thomas White said that, ``The recent events show the
Pentagon has a long way to go to fix the problems he identified
in March 2002. In a sign of continued problems with the
tracking of contracts, Pentagon officials, on Thursday,
acknowledged they have yet to identify which army entity
manages the multimillion dollar contract for interrogators like
the one accused in the Iraq prisoner abuse probe. I'm still
reading from the AP release--``Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld also acknowledged his Department hasn't completed
rules to govern the 20,000 or so private security guards
watching over U.S. officials, installations, and private
workers in Iraq.'' Now, that's just 20,000 private security
guards. How many more, we don't know. This article goes on and
says, ``No single Pentagon office tracks how many people--
Americans, Iraqis, or others--are on the Department's payroll
in Iraq.''
I just find this disturbing that we don't know how many
people are on the payroll, or who they are. This says to me, we
might have a bunch of Rambos over there running around, and no
one's got control over them.
In a March 2002 memo, White complained to three Pentagon
Under Secretaries that, quote, ``Credible information on
contract labor does not exist internal to the Army
Department.'' The Army could not get rid of, quote,
``unnecessary, costly, or unsuitable contracted work,'' closed
quotes, without full details of all the contracts, White wrote.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Is this referring to Iraq or
Afghanistan, or what? Or just generally?
Senator Harkin. The article is on Iraq. This is just
basically on Iraq.
Senator Stevens. Senator, did you----
Senator Harkin. But then----
Senator Stevens [continuing]. What source are you quoting?
Senator Harkin. I've quoted from this AP article. It's an
AP article that came out on May 7. That's all I'm quoting.
So my question, again has to do with appropriations. How
much money is going to private contractors? We can't seem to
get an answer to that. In Iraq. How many people are we talking
about under these private contractors? Who screens them? Who
approves their contracts? I guess my bottom line is, Who's
responsible? Who's responsible for all these people?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The Coalition Provisional Authority in
Iraq, headed up by Ambassador Bremer, tracks these people. We
track DOD people that are there, but they've reported to
Congress. The Army, the United States Army, is the executive
agent for contracting for the Coalition Provisional Authority
(CPA). And the CPA's--the Coalition Provisional Authority's
Program Management Office works for the United States Army.
Senator Harkin. So the Army's in charge.
Secretary Rumsfeld. The Army is the----
Senator Harkin. Contracting----
Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. Program Management Office
and executive agent. I would not say that the Army would be the
one making the decisions as to what contracts ought to be let
for what purposes. That would be the Coalition Provisional
Authority. But then they delegate to an existing institution,
the United States Army, to manage the contracting of it. In
some cases, it's been the Corps of Engineers; in some cases,
it's been the Agency for International Development (AID); in
some cases--the way our Government is organized is that those
responsibilities flow down different roads, and that's the way
the executive branch of the Federal Government's organized,
that's the way the Congress is organized. And there is not a
single person, I wouldn't think. Because if--AID reports up in
the Department of State area. Just a second here.
Senator Harkin. Could we know, Mr. Secretary, what's under
your jurisdiction? I mean, what is under--in terms of private
contractors and the jobs that are being done over there----
Secretary Rumsfeld. You bet. We can give you----
Senator Harkin [continuing]. I'd like to----
Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. A complete report of it.
Senator Harkin. Huh?
Secretary Rumsfeld. We could give you a complete report of
who handles what types of contracts. Corps of Engineers handles
a whole series of contracts. And military intelligence, when
they hire contractors, for example--I think you mentioned
this--for the purpose of interrogation or for the purpose of
linguists to do translation, that would be through military
intelligence. It depends on what it is that's needed at any
given time.
Senator Harkin. Well, again, I'm just quoting from the
article, because I don't----
Secretary Rumsfeld. I haven't seen the article, so----
Senator Harkin. It says----
Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. I apologize.
Senator Harkin [continuing]. No single Pentagon office
tracks how many people are on the Department's payroll in Iraq,
the Department of Defense payroll. How many civilians are on
your payroll over there? And I would be greatly----
Secretary Rumsfeld. We could certainly give you----
Senator Harkin [continuing]. Disturbed if this article is
true.
Secretary Rumsfeld. The reference--it wasn't a quote, but
it was a comment about--allegedly indicating something I had
said. I've never heard of that, what you've said the article
said I said. But we'd be happy to tell you how many there are,
and who they are hired by, and for what purposes.
Senator Stevens. Senator----
Senator Harkin. If you could provide for this committee how
much----
Senator Stevens [continuing]. Mr. Lanzillotta wished to
answer that question, I think.
REPORTING ON CONTRACTS
Mr. Lanzillotta. Senator, I may be able to help a bit. We
submit a quarterly report--it's called a 2708 report--that has
a lot of that information in there. As far as contracts go, for
the funding and the number of people, we track that on a weekly
basis. I get that information through CPA. It comes in an
obligation report of how much has been apportioned, how much
has been committed, how much has been obligated. And I see all
the funding documents that go through--on every contract, with
the number of people--that go through there, and I personally
sign off on those.
Senator Harkin. So you can provide to this committee how
much money goes through the Department of Defense to private
contractors, one. You could provide how many civilian people
are working under those contracts in Iraq at this time, and you
can provide also, to this committee, the chain of command who
is responsible for overseeing those contractors. You can
provide all that?
Mr. Lanzillotta. I can--let me clarify your last----
Senator Harkin. Well, I'm just----
Mr. Lanzillotta [continuing]. The chain of command----
Senator Harkin [continuing]. Citing, again, from this
article; I don't know if it's true--no single Pentagon office,
according to this writer, tracks how many people--Americans,
Iraqis, or other civilians--are on the Department's payroll in
Iraq.
Mr. Lanzillotta. If you're asking who let the contract----
Senator Harkin. Who tracks how many people there are there?
Mr. Lanzillotta. I can give you, and we'll provide for the
record, the obligation data, as of this hearing date, the
number of people that we have in the various categories,
working. And I will provide which office did the contract.
[The information follows:]
According to the CENTCOM Combatant Commander, on or about
May 12, 2004 there were approximately 12,900 U.S. contract
employees hired under DOD sponsored prime contracts in the
CENTCOM Area of Responsibility. Approximately 7,050 of these
contractors are deployed in Iraq. Please note that due to the
nature of the contract--DOD contracts for a service to be
performed--it is up to the contractor to provide the
appropriate number of people to perform the work. Therefore,
the numbers that are provided above are estimates of the number
of people that process through military entry points. This
number changes daily.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Let me put it this way also.
Senator Harkin. Fine.
Secretary Rumsfeld. We can provide that data. You keep
going back to the point, which is a fair point, Is there a
single office? And the answer is, no. For one, the way the
Congress is organized and the way the statutes that the
Congress has passed has organized the Department of Defense,
we've got Department of Army, Department of Navy--they do
things there, Air Force does things there. Each of the services
do--the Marines do, and other elements. So the only place that
information gets aggregated, the way the Congress has organized
the Department under Goldwater-Nichols, is through the
Comptroller's shop, where they take all of the things that
happen in the Department and try to pull them up, I think is
the answer to your question.
Senator Harkin. So there's no coordination?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Of course there's coordination. You
didn't ask that. You asked, Is there a single office? The
coordination takes place in the Comptroller's shop.
Mr. Lanzillotta. We coordinate--when a contract comes
through, we coordinate with all affected offices, to include
the general counsel, to ensure that there are no objections and
it is a legitimate contract.
CONTRACTORS
Senator Harkin. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but my
point is that we don't know how many civilian people are
contracted. We don't know how much they're being paid. And it
just seems that there's no real handle on all these civilians
over there. I just don't know. We can't seem to get a handle on
it.
Senator Stevens. Senator, I think that--we had a suggestion
from Mr. Lanzillotta they'll provide us with some information.
I think the problem is that I don't think it's all in one place
at any one time.
General Myers, did you wish to comment?
General Myers. Well, I have numbers, but I think I'll defer
to----
Mr. Lanzillotta. Well, I can----
General Myers [continuing]. Mr. Lanzillotta. But I have the
number of U.S. contractors, the number of--you remember it was
in the 1990s when we started downsizing. We cut our military by
one-third, roughly. And the cry then was, from many people, and
from people in the business sector, How about outsourcing a lot
of your work? So we did that, and you remember that. We saved
money, because we don't need a lot of folks to do dining halls
if we only need to do that during crisis. And so that's the
situation we are in now. We are contracting out a lot because
of previous decisions we made, encouraged, I think, for the
right reasons at the time. And one of the things I've asked one
of our staff entities to do is, let's take a look at
contracting out and see if those decisions we've made in the
last 10, 15 years are still right for this security
environment, because of the contractor issues we're finding on
the battlefield.
But I've got the numbers. I can give you down to the number
of host nation--Iraqi laborers. There's 17,834 that are----
Senator Stevens. General, if we may--Mr. Lanzillotta's
going to provide----
Mr. Lanzillotta. Yeah, I have it----
Senator Stevens [continuing]. That for the record.
General Myers. We'll provide it for the record, but I'm
just saying----
Senator Stevens. We'll review that and then have comments
later----
General Myers [continuing]. That I've got some pretty good
detail here.
Senator Stevens [continuing]. If that's agreeable with the
Senator.
Senator Harkin. That would be fine.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
The Department of Defense (DOD) policy is to rely on the
most effective mix of the Total Force, cost and other factors
considered, including active, reserve, DOD civilian, host
country and contract resources to fulfill peacetime and wartime
missions. One of the reasons contracts are attractive is their
flexibility and agility in meeting government requirements. The
government is also relieved of the cost of maintaining
permanent force structure while maintaining contract oversight
after contract award.
Generally, there are two types of DOD contractors currently
operating in OIF; those supporting DOD military efforts and
those supporting the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)
efforts. There is no single office responsible for contractor
visibility. Instead, each individual government organization
with a requirement that can be satisfied by contract is
responsible for providing a contract statement of work/
objectives; funding; appropriate contract clauses, terms and
conditions; legal review at various stages of the acquisition
process; and contract oversight after award. This process
provides flexibility and an adequate level of review while also
meeting government requirements.
The U.S. citizen contractor personnel for DOD are accounted
for in basically the same manner as military personnel. The
military Services account for U.S. citizen contractor personnel
and report aggregate contractor personnel numbers monthly to
the Joint Staff and Office of the Secretary of Defense using
the Joint Staff Personnel Status Report (JPERSTAT). Per the
JPERSTAT, there are 14,371 DOD U.S. citizen contractor
personnel (as of May 25, 2004) operating in the Central Command
area of responsibility. Approximately 7,386 of these contractor
personnel are operating in Iraq. The JPERSTAT only captures
U.S. citizen contractor personnel that process through DOD
entry points or are assigned to military units in theater. The
JPERSTAT does not capture all contractor personnel in the
theater. It does not capture contractor personnel hired under
non-DOD federal government contracts (e.g., CPA, Central
Intelligence Agency, State Department, United States Agency of
International Development). It also does not capture foreign
national contractor personnel or contractor personnel hired
under sub-contracts since it is the responsibility of each
prime contractor to determine the level and nature of manning
required to meet contract requirements (e.g., the prime
contractor may choose to outsource a portion of the effort
through various tiers of subcontracting relationships with
other U.S. civilians, third country nationals (TCN), or host
country (HC) personnel).
Although the JPERSTAT does not provide visibility of
foreign national or sub-contractor personnel, the Army's
Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract, which
is one of the largest contracts in theater, does offer some
visibility on the magnitude of DOD contractor personnel outside
of the JPERSTAT process. The LOGCAP contract currently has
approximately 1,166 TCN, 2,039 HC, and 20,462 sub-contractor
personnel (includes a combination of TCN, HC and U.S.
personnel).
Contractors in support of the CPA provide reconstruction
and other support in Iraq and protection of CPA facilities and
personnel. Contractors under CPA contracts have no specific
reporting requirement to account for contractor personnel
thereby providing greater flexibility as they organize as
necessary to perform the contract. However, through the process
for obtaining weapons permits, CPA reports that approximately
60 private security companies consisting of about 20,000
personnel are currently providing security in Iraq.
There are also private enterprise personnel operating
outside of the DOD and CPA contract efforts pursuing commerce
opportunities. As the theater evolves from a contingency
operation through stability operations to normal Iraqi
commerce, the role of private enterprise personnel will
increase. Like other mature countries, the accountability and
visibility of these private enterprise U.S. citizen contractor
personnel in the future will reside with the U.S. Department of
State working in coordination with the appropriate Iraqi
ministry through the visa process.
Senator Stevens. I'll now recognize Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, I commend the Secretary and the chairman for your
great work. I think these have been very difficult times. The
leadership that you are providing is absolutely essential to
support our troops and the private contractors who are engaged
in a very important mission, and we are grateful for that.
I will have a lengthy statement for the record that
somebody may wish to read, but I will feel better for having
submitted it, because I have some strong views that I will
include in it.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Christopher S. Bond
Secretary Rumsfeld, General Meyers, Mr. Lanzillotta, thank you for
appearing before the committee this morning. We meet under challenging
circumstances by any measure. Military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan coupled with the nation's ongoing global war on terror
demand our constant attention and focus.
The Abu Ghraib prison investigation that has demanded much
attention recently has only added to the workload unfortunately. I have
read Major General Antonia Taguba's report and concur with statements
made by Major General Taguba; that the abuses at Abu Ghraib represented
a total breakdown in supervision, training, discipline and leadership
and were exacerbated by a shortage of trained personnel. The abuses at
Abu Ghraib that have been documented so vividly are not reflective of
the United States military that American's have come to revere and
respect.
As was viciously portrayed by yesterday's Al Qaeda video showing
the beheading of an American civilian and non-combatant, Nick Berg; our
enemy is the terrorist who targets innocent civilians and the terror
organizations and regimes who support terror as a legitimate political
tool. The beheading of Nick Berg is another wake-up call for all of us.
I am getting this sense, particularly in the wake of the Berg killing,
that we should be careful to manage the prison issue, and not overdo
it. Berg's murder demonstrated the stark contrast between the
wrongdoings at Abu Ghraib and the evil evident in the beheading of a
non-combatant civilian. We are once again reminded of the true nature
of the enemy and why we are fighting them. Unfortunately I fear the
continued political rhetoric here at home will have a detrimental
impact on troop moral. We need to focus our energies on the war on
terror, which we cannot afford to lose.
Recently, I received the United States Department of State's annual
report, Patterns of Global Terrorism for 2003. The report reveals that
the year 2003 saw the lowest annual level of terrorist attacks since
1969 which indicates that much progress has been made in combating
terrorism. Almost 70 percent of the senior al-Qaeda leadership, and
more than 3,400 operatives or associates, have been detained or killed
in over 100 countries. The global war on terror is not over, nor will
it be anytime soon. That is why we must focus our energies on winning
this battle. As was stated so clearly by a DefenseNews article,
Repercussions of Failure, April 19, 2004,
``A successful campaign by insurgents to drive coalition forces
from Iraq would constitute a shattering blow to the U.S.-led global war
on terrorism and jeopardize governments that have cast their lot with
Washington, according to U.S. officials and Arab analysts. `The price
of failure in Iraq would be catastrophic,' one senior U.S. State
Department official said. `Anything that defeats the expression of U.S.
and allied power against terrorism will create the impression of
weakness that terrorists worldwide will exploit.' ''
The Administration has indicated that it will forward a $25 billion
supplemental request for the incremental costs associated with ongoing
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I understand the defense
appropriations subcommittee will hold a separate hearing on the
supplemental. I look forward to reviewing the administration's request,
and will work with Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye in providing
whatever funds and resources are necessary to support our warfighters
and the global war on terror.
The reliance on our National Guard and Reserve forces to prosecute
the war on terror is increasing. I understand Secretary Rumsfeld is
working with Lieutenant General Blum, Chief of the National Guard
Bureau and the Reserve Chiefs, to improve the predictability of
mobilizations for our nation's Reservists while re-balancing the active
duty-reserve force mix so as to improve the overall capabilities of our
military. As a co-chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, along with
my colleague Senator Patrick Leahy, I am committed to working with the
Department of Defense to improve the capabilities of the National Guard
and its ability to support the nation's military strategy. Were it not
for congressional increases in accounts such as the National Guard and
Reserve Equipment Account I am certain that the gap in capabilities
between the active component and the Reserve component would widen.
Additionally I am concerned about the rising cost of modern weapons
systems as exemplified by aviation programs. Unconstrained cost growth
in the F/A-22 has limited the number of platforms available to fully
equip our aviation units under the current congressionally mandated
cost caps. The troubling cost growth in the F-35 so early in the
program threatens to duplicate the lesson of the F/A-22. The Army's
decision to cancel the Comanche light attack helicopter program further
illustrates what awaits a program that is unable to control costs. We
should not be held captive to rising and unconstrained development
costs. This is why I support a competitive industrial base through the
continued production of a limited number of F-15 aircraft so that the
warfighter, and the taxpayer, will have an alternative should the
desires of the U.S. Air Force not be met because of limited resources.
The need to transform the force while executing the global war on
terror is not an enviable task. It has been acknowledged that the
Department of Defense has an inordinate tail to tooth logistical load.
Unless we reverse this, our ability to field an efficient fighting
force will suffer. If segments of the bureaucracy within the Department
of Defense are not responsive to the needs of the warfighter then they
should be replaced, disbanded or its functions transferred to the
civilian sector. In my effort to improve military mail operations and
Voting Assistance Programs I have come to understand how a sluggish and
unresponsive bureaucracy can impact negatively support to our forces.
That is why I recently wrote to Secretary Rumsfeld to ascertain why the
recommendations of the Military Postal Service Task Force to out-source
some, or all, of MPS functions were not carried out.
Secretary Rumsfeld, General Meyers, our forces rely on your
leadership for their welfare and on the Congress for the resources
necessary to sustain a vibrant and effective fighting force. This is a
partnership that must flourish if our forces are to have the optimum
tools necessary to carry out their mission. We have the best fighting
force in the world. Our military forces deserve leaders and policy
makers who will put their welfare ahead of political or personal gain.
REBALANCING ACTIVE AND RESERVES FORCES
Senator Bond. Senator Cochran has already asked about the
OPTEMPO and increasing reliance on the Guard. As co-chairman of
the Guard Caucus, I'm very proud of the what the National Guard
is doing in answering the call to duty.
And I'd like to ask your comments on, How is the review on
re-balancing the forces, adjusting the mission and the force
structure--how is that progressing? And what is necessary from
this committee and this Congress to support our troops--not
just Guard and Reserve, but all of our troops--in seeing that
they can win a war which, once again, yesterday, we were
horribly reminded is a war against the forces that would
destroy civilization, that depend upon and act with pure evil
intent?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, I would characterize broadly
the process of re-balancing the Guard and Reserve and the
Active components with the Reserve components as progressing
quite well. In fact, I've been quite impressed with the speed
that the--particularly the Department of the Army has
demonstrated in addressing it. And, of course, the Army is the
biggest place that this needs to be done. And they've been
addressing it with a good deal of, I thought, excellent work,
and the process is underway. They're doing that, simultaneously
with the task of increasing their combat capability from 33
brigades to 43 brigades, and moving to a more modular approach,
and all of that takes time.
We've overused military police. We have overused certain
civil affairs Reserves and Guard because of the way the total
force was structured. That's being shifted, and it'll take, I'm
going to guess--oh, goodness, it'll probably take 2, 3 years, 4
years, to get it done. David Chu, is that about right?
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir.
Secretary Rumsfeld. But we've got a good start on it.
Senator Bond. One of the things that pundits are raising is
the problems that they see coming down the line with
recruitment and retention. I've heard, anecdotally, some very
good news on those subjects. What do you see, from the
Department level, about recruiting and retention?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Well, I look out there, and it's foggy,
it's blurred. I'm worried. On the other hand, the data we get
is very positive. We are clearly retaining and recruiting the
skill sets we need in the Armed forces. And that is enormously
encouraging. I have no idea how fast that could drop off. And
we have to constantly try to refine our ability to look out
there and to take steps in advance.
For example, when we had to extend some Guard and Reserve
people beyond the 365 days in Iraq to another 90 days because
of the situation on the ground, we didn't want to do it. But
General Abizaid said he needed an additional 20,000 forces. We
said, ``Fair enough. What's the best way to do it?'' And that
was the best way to do it. But we immediately stepped in and
provided some compensation for those individuals, who served
various portions of 3 months.
MAIL SERVICE
Senator Bond. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that. I know you
wouldn't be satisfied if I didn't raise one issue that I
brought to your attention before. It has to go to morale. It is
the question of military mail delivery. We've discussed this on
many occasions. I know you have many other issues of great
importance, like protecting lives, feeding our troops and
providing munitions. But I understand this is a very real
concern to the men and women over there. And having some
personal interest in that, as well, to which I confess, I
wonder if you had looked at outsourcing some of the mail-clerk
functions in working with the U.S. Postal Service to assure the
mail delivery is improved.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I have not looked at that. I know that
the subject of mail delivery is, as you point out, an
enormously important one, and that the services and the Central
Command have all been working on it. I know they've even
particularly looked at it from the standpoint of the
difficulties they had with respect to all the elections that
are taking place this year. And coming over in the car, David
Chu briefed me that they have been working the--Department of
Defense has been working with the Postal Service to try to find
ways to improve that, and believe they've made progress.
General Myers. The reports I've seen, Senator Bond--and
I've seen--I get reports from time to time--shows that it's
getting better. I don't think it's where it needs to be yet,
and we have to continue to find ways to--but, you know, when I
was commander of U.S. forces in Japan, a fairly mature theater,
in the mid-1990s, we still had problems over there because of
just handling procedures, where all the mail would go into
Narita, and then it had to be brought to Yokota, and then it
had to be--and so it was--we were constantly working that
problem. It's obviously a worse situation in Iraq, and we've
got to find ways to work around that. And it's critical to
morale. We understand that.
Secretary Rumsfeld. They also have tried to find locations
where they could put phones and computers for e-mail access,
which is a part of the problem, and that's been working well.
Senator Bond. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. You should revive the V-mail. We used to
get V-mail. It would all go to one place, and then be sent by
telegram, and then they'd package it up on the other end. Isn't
that right, Dan?
Our next----
Senator Leahy. It's called the Internet now, Ted.
Senator Stevens. Senator Durbin.
No, it--e-mail is something different, because they would
take your letter that your mother wrote you, and they'd put it
into a telegram and send it over, and they kept the mother's
letter. It was a different thing.
Senator Durbin.
By the way, you're not that old, anyway.
We're going by seniority, then, Senator Feinstein, you're
first, if you'd wish to yield to her, Senator Durbin.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. That's very generous. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have just one quick question on Abu Ghraib for General
Myers, if I might, because I think it needs to be cleared up.
General Taguba testified yesterday, and let me just quote,
``Failure in leadership from the brigade commander on down,
lack of discipline, no training whatsoever, and no supervision
were the root of the problem.'' My question to you is, What
have you done to remedy this problem? If you could specifically
speak to each of those--lack of discipline, no training, no
supervision.
General Myers. On the discipline issue, quite frankly, what
was done was to replace the unit and put a unit in there that
was a better unit. And I hate to get into more specifics,
because it then starts to prejudice any action you may want to
take against any of the----
Senator Feinstein. I'm not asking you for that. I'm asking
you for the remedy.
General Myers. The remedy was another--the immediate remedy
was another unit, to put another unit in charge. This was, as
the Taguba report--now everybody has read it--this was a unit
that had issues with just adhering to the Army's standards.
Their uniform--they didn't have standardized uniforms, they
were allowed to carry guns in their civilian clothes when they
were off duty, they had things written on their cap, they
didn't particularly want to salute. This was a unit that had
those exact--so the first thing you do is, you replace the
leadership of the unit. They have done that.
Now, the Army Reserve and the Active Army, there are other
investigations and looks going on. General Helmly, the Chief of
the Army Reserve, is looking at other Reserve units to work the
training issues and the discipline issues to make sure
everybody's compliant with Army standards. So that process is
underway. We have not seen that review. We should get a
midcourse report on that here fairly shortly, and we'll be
happy to share that, because that's part of it. And that will
deal with both the training and the discipline part.
And then the last part you said was--you had----
Senator Feinstein. Supervision.
ABUSE
General Myers. Supervision, right. And there are a couple
of things going on in that regard. I think the General Helmly
Report will help. There's also the General Fay look at the role
that military intelligence played in this whole business, and
in detainee affairs. General Fay is looking at that. He's been
in Iraq. He's now in Germany. Part of the issue is that the
folks that he wants to talk to are now scattered. They're no
longer in Iraq. They're either in Germany or they're back in
the United States, or perhaps other places. So it'll take him
some time to go through that. We'll be getting an interim
report from him, as well. I'm sure the Secretary will make that
available if required. But that's what we're doing to remedy
those problems.
Senator Feinstein. And do you personally look at autopsy
reports of detainees who die in custody?
General Myers. No, I do not. What I look at is--I am--I
look at the allegations of abuse, and I look at what is being
done to investigate and correct the situation. I do do that.
Senator Feinstein. Just a suggestion, it might be a good
idea.
General Myers. Well, I do--I see--I mean, I see the
reports. I wouldn't call them autopsy reports. I see the
allegations of abuse. Usually in there is a description of the
abuse. I wouldn't call them autopsy reports, but I see the
words that talk about the type of abuse and the effect it had
on the individual.
Senator Feinstein. Right. I'd like to ask you--because
we've talked about this privately--I'd like to ask you a
question about the heroin--or the opium poppy production in
Afghanistan. And you've been very kind, you've reported back to
me, and I appreciate that. But I want to indicate my very deep
concern about the fact that tens or even hundreds of millions
of dollars have flowed from illegal heroin trade directly into
the hands of terrorist organizations, like al Qaeda. And today
Afghanistan is producing more poppy than ever. About 75 percent
of all of the heroin sold in the world is being produced today
in Afghanistan, $2.3 billion. It's my understanding that an
early harvest has produced as much as a 50 to 100 percent
increase in production from the 2003 estimates.
Now, here's my question. Are we protecting warlords in
Afghanistan who are growing poppy or producing heroin? Are we
holding back on eradicating crops for political reasons? So
what is the reason for the absence of military force to
eradicate the opium poppy in Afghanistan?
General Myers. Senator Feinstein, as we've discussed, and I
think you're focused on a very important issue--and I traveled
to Afghanistan--and now it's about 3 weeks ago, I guess. When I
talked to our Ambassador there, Ambassador Khalilzad, and our
military personnel, and the Ambassador's staff, they described
this issue as one of the big strategic issues for the future of
Afghanistan. As you know, the United Kingdom has the lead,
and--overall, for the international community, to deal with
this. The State Department has the U.S. Government lead for
this. I think what needs to be done is, we need to hear from
the Ambassador what kind of plan he would put in place to deal
with this effectively, and then we have to resource it. It's
going to require additional resources to what we have in
Afghanistan today. And I'm not talking now just with military
resources, but my understanding is we're going to need a lot
more of the type of resources that deal with drug issues, Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) and others. And I think we'll
be hearing from the Ambassador on that, if they haven't
already, because we had a long talk about that when I was
there, based partly on our conversations, because that was--it
is a critical issue.
On the issue of warlords, I don't know that you can say one
way or the other. You'd have to guess, though, that probably a
lot of the warlords, or some of the people they support, are
involved in this. And that's why it's going to take more
resources to work this issue and come up with policies to work
this issue. That's a guess on my part. I have not--I'd have to
go back and research the intelligence. I'm sure there are some
that have to be involved. That's a way of life for some of
them, and you just have to assume it is.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, could I ask you a quick question? Last----
Senator Stevens. This will be the Senator's last question.
ROBUST NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR
Senator Feinstein. Is my time--last question, I'll be fast.
Last year, I asked you, at this hearing, about the robust
nuclear earth penetrator, and you told me it was just a study.
Since that time, it's changed rather dramatically. The
Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports that the
administration's budget calls for spending $485 million over
the next 5 years just on the robust nuclear earth penetrator.
And the report says, and I quote, ``The study is examining
feasibility and cost, yet the 2005 request seems to cast
serious doubt on assertions that the robust nuclear earth
penetrator is only a study,'' end quote.
In light of this, are you still going to say to us that
this is just a study, or is the administration intent on the
development of a nuclear earth penetrator?
Secretary Rumsfeld. A decision to go forward with a earth
penetrator has not been made. A decision to determine whether
it's possible to have one that could help solve some potential
problems has been made. So that work is going forward, and the
money has been requested of Congress.
I don't--what I can do is--I don't believe the studies have
produced the kind of information that would enable one to say,
at this stage, that the development should go forward. But,
clearly, with the amount of underground activity that exists in
the world--and it's pervasive in country after country, that
people have tunneled underground--North Korea is a perfect
example, certainly Iran is, we have found this in country after
country. And the question is, If that is a problem, what might
be done about it? Your first choice would be to find some
obviously conventional way to do it. They've looked and looked
and looked, and this additional way is, at least in my view,
worth studying. And at that point where it migrates over into a
program, clearly the Congress would know and would have to make
a decision on it.
Senator Feinstein. Would you permit me just one quick
comment? Since we got into this, I've done my own study and
talked with physicists, and what they tell me is, there is no
known casing that can get a device deep enough--which would
have to be between 800 and 1,000 feet--to prevent huge nuclear
fallout. I'll just leave you with that.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Maybe we ought to hire them.
Senator Feinstein. Sidney Drell, physicist, Stanford
University.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Right, I know who he is. Right.
General Myers. Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, if I may,
just one more comment. There is a lot more that Central
Command--I talked about the general problem--there's a lot more
that Central Command is doing, in terms of funding and in
instructions to the troops in Afghanistan that I'd like to
provide you for the record, if I may.
Senator Feinstein. I would appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
[Deleted].
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, General.
I'm going to go out of order and recognize Senator
Hutchison. I understand she has a problem.
Senator Hutchison, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Hutchison. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to add a story to the one that General
Myers told at the beginning of this hearing, and it is one
about which I know personally.
Senator Stevens. Pull your mic up, please, Senator. Just
pull it toward you.
Senator Hutchison. Okay.
Senator Stevens. They're all live.
Senator Hutchison. I want to----
Senator Stevens. All these mics are live.
Senator Hutchison. Okay. I want to add to your story,
General Myers. I went to college with a friend who was a great
football star at the University of Texas. He had one son. We
all thought he would follow his father's footsteps to the
University of Texas. But he only had one dream. The son wanted
to go to the U.S. Naval Academy. And because he was so
qualified, I was proud to give him my appointment.
That young man, a marine, participated in the march to
Baghdad, came home. He is now back in Iraq, somewhere around
the Fallujah area, doing his job, and wrote me a note saying,
``Thank you, Senator, for giving me the opportunity to do
this.'' So I do hope that we can put those and the stories of
Pat Tillman out there when we are going through this very hard
and difficult time.
The second thing I want to point out, that has been stated
in the media and by others, there continue to be questions
about whether al Qaeda and the war on terrorism are really
connected to Iraq. Well, I think we found out yesterday--and
something you added to today, General Myer--that an al Qaeda-
connected animal perpetrated a heinous crime on videotape in
Baghdad, because the body was found there, unfortunately.
Similar atrocity in Pakistan to a journalist named Danny Pearl,
videotaped. That reporter was reporting on al Qaeda at the
time.
So I think if anyone is going to question whether the war
in Iraq or Afghanistan, either one, are connected to the war on
terrorism and all these loosely affiliated organizations, that
they're answering that question for us as we speak.
I wanted to ask a question, and Senator Feinstein made
several of these points, but there was one other, and that is
regarding the prisons. One of the other reasons, or allegations
made, was that there weren't enough guards to guard the number
of people who were in those prisons. You, Secretary Rumsfeld
and General Myers, and others in this administration, started
looking at this situation apparently the very day you heard,
which I think you should be commended for doing. So you have
had the investigations, which started in January. Have you
determined that there are enough guards now? Has that situation
changed in any way? Or if that's not appropriate to answer
whether it's changed, do you feel that you have the funding or
the facilities and the number of guards needed to meet our
standards in the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Guantanamo Bay, or anywhere else that we may be needing to
hire--to watch, guard, and interrogate, properly, prisoners?
TROOPS IN ABU GHRAIB
General Myers. To go back to the beginning, we were in a
closed hearing yesterday in front of the House Appropriations
Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, and General Taguba was with
us, and the question was asked, Did the--you know, how many
troops did we have in Abu Ghraib, at that time, providing
security in detainee operations? And he said, ``Well, they
didn't have enough at the time, but the brigade could have
reallocated some of their forces to that situation, which was
not done.''
From what I know today--and I'll probably have to get you
an answer for the record--but from what I know today, that
situation has been corrected. We have made a lot of corrections
over time, over the last couple of months, to ensure that the
folks that are responsible for detention operations have the
people they need to do the job. But I'll double-check, and I'll
give you an answer for the record on that.
[The information follows:]
As of May 28, the number of MP guards vice detainees in Abu
Ghraib prison was 450 to 4,561 or approximately a 1:10 guard to
detainee ration.
As of June 22, the number of MP guards remains the same
with 450 guards, but the number of detainees is now 2,262 or
approximately a 1:5 guard to detainee ratio.
MANAGING DETAINEES IN IRAQ
Senator Hutchison. And do you have the facilities that you
need at this time for the number of prisoners we have----
General Myers. I think----
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. And the number of guards?
General Myers [continuing]. I think, for the most part, we
do. Now, we have--I think--yes, ma'am, we do. We have--right
now. But, you know, these are--this is a continuing issue,
where we get reports from the International Committee of the
Red Cross, of our own commanders looking at the situation, so
it's a matter of continuing improvement, which is appropriate,
and would have to change over time. But the situation that was
described in the Taguba report that he saw in the January/
February timeframe, those have been corrected.
Secretary Rumsfeld. May I just add that over the period of
time in Iraq, some 43,600 people have been captured and
detained for some period of time. Of those, 31,800 have been
released. And the remainder currently detained is about 11,800.
That is not a fixed population. It's constantly changing. There
isn't a week that goes by that our forces don't scoop up, you
know, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 a day and move them into one of the
detention centers. And, simultaneously, there's a process, as
you can imagine--if we've already released 31,800 out of
43,000--our goal is to get as many out of there as fast as we
can, as soon as we believe that's the appropriate thing to do.
There's no one in the United States Government who wants to be
a jailer and hold people that we don't need to hold.
So there's constantly a group coming in, and constantly a
group going out. And currently the population is about 11,000.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for----
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Dorgan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I regret I was not here at the first part of this hearing.
But I welcome the Secretary and General.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 RESERVE FUND
Let me ask a question, if I might, about the $25 billion.
And I understand that you've been asked some questions about
that. There was a piece in the newspaper today, here on the
Hill, that said that the Senate majority leader's senior staff
was saying that there's a school of thought that Congress
should double the administration's request to amend its 2005
budget request by $25 billion, and so talking about increasing
it from $25 to $50 billion. I understand the request has not
even yet been made. So what I'm trying to understand a bit here
is, the $25 billion that has been discussed that I think the
chairman will ultimately hold a hearing on, is that money that
relates to this current fiscal year, or is that a reserve fund
for the next fiscal year?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The answer, sir, is that the White
House, the Office of Management and Budget, the leadership in
Congress in the House and Senate, and in the Appropriations
Committees are currently debating that. What they're doing is,
they're, at the moment, calling it a reserve, and the number
is--that the President proposed was $25 billion. And that was a
judgement that that would be appropriate to move us until such
time as a full 2005 supplemental could be passed by Congress
sometime next year, after Congress gets back, reorganizes, and
acts on it, probably sometime in the April period.
You want to say--I can't read your writing, I'm sorry.
Mr. Lanzillotta. Yes, Senator. It was based on what we
thought to alleviate the risk, or reduce the risk, in cash-
flowing the service operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts
for that period of time that the Secretary talked about.
Senator Dorgan. For what period of time, now?
Mr. Lanzillotta. Well, from the period of time from October
1 until the Congress could act on a supplemental request. So we
looked at our spend rates, decided that this reserve account
would help us reduce our risk of cash-flowing those accounts,
to have the services avoid reducing training or other type
activities.
Senator Dorgan. If I might ask, the $60 billion that we
previously appropriated was expected to last until a request
would come in next January, so that would have been money that
would have been available through this fiscal year, into the
next fiscal year, is that correct?
Mr. Lanzillotta. No, Senator. The money--the $65 billion
that was appropriated, that was for fiscal year 2004. That
money was never intended to last past October 1.
Senator Dorgan. So money for the costs of the prosecution
of the war in Iraq, and also activities in Afghanistan, would
have come from the regular Pentagon budget from October 1 until
some subsequent date, when the Congress would pass another
emergency supplemental, is that the case?
Mr. Lanzillotta. What the intent was--that we would cash
flow the accounts and put a supplement request in to cover
those costs.
Secretary Rumsfeld. The way I think of it is this, that we
were, in effect, asked by the Congress not to try to guess what
the war would cost and put it in the regular budget, which, of
course, the regular budget for 2005 was prepared last year, and
then submitted to the President in December, and then to the
Congress in February, and now we're into May, and it's for the
period starting October 1 for a whole 'nother year. So there's
no way to look into that future well, or precisely. And so the
judgement was made not to budget for it, but to come in with a
supplemental.
From a management standpoint, it is very tough on the
Department of Defense. When the world changes, as it has, we
have the higher level of forces there, it's a more difficult
situation, and, therefore, the amount of cash flowing that
would have to take, taking money out of money account, sticking
it into another account, has grown. And we looked at it, and
the President did not want to go up and ask for a $25 billion
reserve, but I went to him, as I have to, and told him the
truth, and the truth is, we need the money if we want to reduce
the amount of cash flow, robbing Peter to pay Paul and then
trying to correct it at the end.
BUDGETING FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS
Senator Dorgan. Well, I would expect everyone on this
committee would feel that we don't want to withhold $1 that is
necessary for the safety of the troops that we've put in harm's
way. Whatever is necessary to protect them and provide for
them, that which we think is important for them, we want to
provide. But you indicated that you felt that the Congress had
asked that you not include these funds in the regular
appropriations request. I mean, my own feeling is, it's been a
bit frustrating, because we get the budget, and the budget for
the Department of Defense has zero in its request for Iraq and
Afghanistan. We know that there are ramped-up, continued
operations that----
Secretary Rumsfeld. Right.
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Will be there for some long
while. And I understand there is a need, and will be a need,
for emergency supplementals, but I would--I think it would make
more sense, at least in the regular budget process, as well, to
recognize we're at a different level here, and these routine
and--not routine; I shouldn't say--the continuing operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan ought to be at least accounted for, in
some measure, in the regular budget process.
Secretary Rumsfeld. It's a fair comment. And I felt that
way, as well, 2 years ago, and tried to do it. And we were in
Afghanistan at that time, and it was clear that it was going to
cost some money, so we proposed $10 billion, and the Congress
rejected it all, 100 percent of it, and said--now, here's the
tension, the dilemma. The earlier you ask for the supplemental,
the less you know, and the less precise you can be. And,
properly, Senators that have the responsibility for managing
the taxpayers' money look at it and say, ``Well, it's not very
precise.'' And that's true. And the later you wait for a
supplemental, the greater knowledge you have, the more precise
it is, but the longer you've passed the time when you have to
begin doing this cash flowing and taking money out of here and
putting it in there. So the cycle is so long--the budget
cycle--when we have to prepare this last year, get it to the
President, get it up here, for a year that doesn't start until
October 1, it's just a difficult problem.
Senator Dorgan. Well----
Secretary Rumsfeld. I could do it either way, myself.
Senator Dorgan. Yeah, at least speaking for myself, I would
prefer that we try to recognize we're ramping up to a different
level and it's going to be continuing for some while, and see
at least a part of that, to the best extent we can estimate it,
in the regular process.
Just one final question. Do I have time for an additional
question, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Stevens. No, you don't. Sorry.
Senator Dorgan. Okay, thank you.
Senator Stevens. Our next Senator is Senator Specter, by
seniority.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ASSASSINATION OF NICHOLAS BERG
Mr. Secretary, Mr. Nicholas Berg, who was the victim of a
brutal assassination, as we all know, was a Pennsylvanian. And
in talking to his lawyer yesterday, I tried to get some of the
particulars about what happened to him when he was held in
detention--reportedly initially by Iraqis, and then later by
U.S. military--and a lawsuit was filed in the Federal court in
Philadelphia; and shortly thereafter, Mr. Nicholas Berg was
released. I would appreciate it if you would give your personal
attention to assist in answering some of the questions which
the family is now posing as to exactly what happened to him
during the detention period, why he was detained, and the
circumstances of his release. The case was never litigated, but
it was filed.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, we will be happy to ask
someone in the Department of the Army probably, and, if not,
the General Counsel's Office, to focus in on this and be in
touch with you.
[The information follows:]
Due to the fact that a number of different entities, including the
Iraqi police, had contact with Mr. Berg during his detention in Mosul,
it is not possible to provide a definitive account of his detention and
release. Nonetheless, the following is a summary of the facts as we now
understand them.
On March 25, the Iraqi police in Mosul detained Mr. Berg for
``suspicious activity'' and for his personal safety. He was taken to a
police office and placed in a spare break room typically used for
eating and resting, rather than a jail cell. He was placed in this room
because it was private and cleaner than the cells and because he had
expressed concern about being in a cell with Arab inmates and guards
due to the fact that he was Jewish. This break room is located in the
same building as the Iraqi police office, which is connected to the
Digala Police Station. Coalition forces, who were present in the Iraqi
police office to provide assistance to the police, provided Mr. Berg
with a cot, blanket, and food. The FBI interviewed him later that day
and took his fingerprints. The FBI interviewed him again on March 26.
On March 28, Mr. Berg was moved to a cell in Digala Police Station,
one that the Iraqi police had cleared specifically for him, because it
was no longer practical to keep him in the spare break room. After he
was moved to Digala, the Coalition forces' involvement with Mr. Berg
was minimal, although they did interpret directives to Mr. Berg.
On April 1, an officer of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)
informed the U.S. Consular Officer in Baghdad that Mr. Berg was being
detained by the U.S. military. We note that this information, which the
U.S. Consular Officer provided to Mr. Berg's family at that time,
appears now to have been incorrect; it is our understanding that Mr.
Berg was, in fact, being detained by the Iraqi police. The U.S.
Consular Officer in Baghdad also notified Mr. Berg's parents that all
questions about Mr. Berg should be directed to the FBI.
On April 3, the FBI interviewed Mr. Berg for a third time. In
addition, the Iraqi police obtained his possessions from his hotel room
at his request, paid his hotel bill with his money, and stored his
possessions at the police station.
By April 4, the Iraqi police were prepared to release Mr. Berg, and
the FBI had finished interviewing him. FBI, U.S. military, and CPA
personnel were concerned, however, for his safety in Iraq if he were to
be released and remain there. On April 6, a CPA officer in Mosul, along
with a Public Administration Officer of the 416th Civil Affairs
Battalion posted with CPA-Mosul, met with Mr. Berg and did the
following:
--offered to provide him with financial assistance (which he
refused);
--asked him to sign a Privacy Act Waiver so that the CPA could
respond to his parents and his Member of Congress (he refused);
--counseled him to leave Iraq for his own safety and offered him
transportation assistance (he said he would go to Baghdad in a
few days because he wanted to spend more time in Mosul, and the
assistance we offered would have taken him out of Mosul on the
next MILAIR [military] flight and then to Jordan in the next
few days);
--asked him to check in with the U.S. Consular Officer in Baghdad (he
agreed);
--watched him inventory his possessions, taking account of his
concern that some money was missing; and
--had him sign a paper confirming that he received the above
information.
At that point, Mr. Berg was released from Iraqi police custody. Mr.
Berg indicated that he would not be leaving Iraq right away because the
road to Amman had been closed indefinitely.
At some point between April 8 and April 10, the U.S. Consular
Officer spoke by telephone with Mr. Berg and offered to assist him in
obtaining a seat on a charted Royal Jordanian Airlines flight from Iraq
to Jordan. We understand that he declined that offer and stated that he
would be traveling to Kuwait with a convoy of journalists. The U.S.
Consular Officer reminded him of the security risks of traveling in
Iraq and asked him to call his mother upon arrival in Kuwait. We
believe that this was the last contact the U.S. Consular Officer had
with Mr. Berg.
Senator Specter. I would appreciate it. And there's one
other request which the family has made. Mr. Berg's body is
being returned to Dover, and the family would like to meet the
body on arrival, and they have made a request to be with their
deceased son. But they are not permitted to come onto the base,
as I am told, unless there is a waiver. And I would appreciate
it if you'd take a look at that and see if we couldn't
accommodate their request.
General Myers. You bet.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Be happy to.
ASSISTANCE TO IRAQ: GRANT OR LOAN?
Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, on the issue of the funding
in Iraq, when the $87 billion was requested some time ago an
issue arose as to whether some $10 billion ought to be in the
form of a loan to Iraq, on the consideration that Iraq has
enormous oil reserves and enormous potential resources. And it
is obviously a difficult matter to draw the line on what would
be appropriate for Iraq to pay for--rebuilding the country, for
example, or rebuilding their infrastructure. Where we have
costs of the military operation, that is something different.
But I think it would be very useful to this committee and the
Congress if we had an idea, with some particularization, as to
what money is being spent, and for what purpose, so that we
could try to make a judgment as to what would be appropriate to
have paid for by Iraqi resources which are obtained at some
later date, sort of on the analogy of a trustee in bankruptcy.
We're a trustee, and there are international aspects of it with
the United Nations and the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. So it would not be something that we would make
a judgment on, but at least if we knew what the accounts were,
we would then be in a position to try to make some
determination as to where we would like to see some of the
money in a loan form.
The President was very insistent on having it in the form
of a grant, and he met with a number of us, and ultimately we
made a decision--I did, personally--to honor what the President
wanted to do, to try to get it done faster in a critical
period, trying to get other countries to make loans. But as the
matter progresses and evolves, I think it is something we ought
to revisit.
Can you see any of those expenditures at this moment which
you think ought to be paid for by Iraq, as opposed to the
American taxpayers? We're getting a lot of comment as we--the
taxpayers are concerned, as we face a very tight domestic
budget--as to why those expenses are not being borne by Iraqi
resources.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, I recall the debate, and it
was a perfectly appropriate thing to debate and discuss and
weigh. The President concluded that ``an amount'' ought to be a
grant, as opposed to a loan. There were complications, as
you'll recall, with debt forgiveness and other debts and
reparation requests from Kuwait for the 1991 war, and the like.
And he felt that it would be appropriate to take a single
amount, make it a grant, and use that to help jumpstart Iraq on
a path towards democracy and recovery.
No one believes that any additional money should go from
United States to Iraq for that purpose. For security, yes, for
the other things that we're doing, to be sure--governance,
assistance, and so forth. The United States also went out and
tin-cupped the world and raised additional funds to try to
assist the Iraqi people, and other countries have been giving
money, as well as assistance, humanitarian assistance, to Iraq.
The situation, I'm told--why don't you do it, Larry? Just
chime in.
USE OF IRAQI ASSETS
Mr. Lanzillotta. If I may, Senator, on Iraqi money, we have
an account that's called the Developmental Fund for Iraq. It
was $18.2 billion that's been in that account so far, basically
from oil revenues. And we've taken out $8 billion, so far, to
pay for Iraqi needs. And so that leaves a balance of $10
billion that will be continued to be used to pay for those type
of expenses.
Secretary Rumsfeld. But Iraqi oil revenues are paying for a
part of what's being spent today. Frozen assets that were found
around the world from the Saddam Hussein regime have been
retrieved, in some measure, and they are being used. Assets
that were discovered in the country, caches of money--there
were hundreds of thousands of dollars with Saddam Hussein when
he was pulled out of the hole--in that neighborhood, I should
say. So all of that is going toward this problem.
Senator Specter. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I want to submit,
for the record, questions on the Comanche helicopter, the base
closing issues, as they affect Pennsylvania, the V-22, future
combat systems, Bradleys, and the M1A1 tank.
Senator Stevens. We welcome those questions. We do not
welcome questions----
Senator Specter. I thank you, Mr. Secretary----
Senator Stevens [continuing]. Concerning other than----
Senator Specter [continuing]. And I thank you----
Senator Stevens [continuing]. Appropriations.
Senator Specter [continuing]. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Senator Durbin, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary and
General.
It is unfortunate that a million acts of kindness and
goodwill and bravery by our troops have been overshadowed by
the shameful acts at the prison in Iraq.
I'd like to read to you an excerpt from an e-mail. This
comes from a career officer in Iraq, and it was received
yesterday. He wrote, ``I think that any soldier over here with
any moral clarity is appalled and ashamed by what has occurred.
Personally, I'm also ashamed of those that attempt to mitigate
what's happened by saying,' It's not as bad as what others have
done.' If we're not better than that, then I simply want no
part in what we're doing. Take away the Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD), the links to al Qaeda, and the singular
reason for being here was the prospect of disposing of a
ruthless dictator and bringing democracy to Iraq. And now we
are all left to simply wonder: At what cost? It seems to become
clearer every day that this is simply the beginning of the end
to any chance we may have had to achieve anything of substance.
June 30 looms, and most of us can see no achievable goal in
sight. Two-thirds of the Iraqis simply want us to leave as of
yesterday, and every battlefield success appears to be nothing
more than a Pyrrhic victory. Nobody wants to compare this to
Vietnam, but it's starting to feel that way on the ground.
Everybody just wants to finish their year, get the hell out,
and forget they were ever here. Finally, I would just simply
say that the issue here really is moral clarity. As soldiers in
the Army, it just seems a little implausible to a lot of us
that 7 to 12 people simply perpetrated unthinkable and
unconscionable acts over a period of several months without
knowledge of their superiors. These people will likely be
punished, and rightfully so. But the question is, Did they let
us down, or did the Army and their leaders let them down?
Because everyone knows that the entire chain of command, to the
very top, holds some level of responsibility for what has
occurred.''
Mr. Secretary, I voted against this war believing that we
needed a broader coalition and better preparation. The decision
was made to move forward and move quickly without the United
Nations' support, without giving time for inspection, without,
I'm afraid, the necessary calculation of the real cost of this
war. We are now being asked to consider a supplemental at a
later time here. We have appropriated some $90 billion for the
execution of this war. And I am told--at least you've
testified, or General Myers has testified--that force
protection will be one of the highest priorities.
But as we look back to the last 14 months, on the issue of
force protection, there are some very, very unsettling facts.
Nine months after our invasion, in December of last year,
nearly 1 year after the forces were deployed to the region,
more than one-third of our forces still lacked interceptor body
armor. A friend of mine with a son in a military police (MP)
unit, he and his wife went out and bought the appropriate armor
to send to their son to protect him. When we lost a Chinook
helicopter last year from the Illinois/Iowa Guard Unit, I came
to learn that the helicopters were deployed in Iraq without
necessary defensive equipment. And now we learn that perhaps 3
or 4 months from now, when they're supposed to be returning
home, they will finally be equipped as they should be.
And I suppose the worst part of it was the armoring of
Humvees. It's been estimated that one-fourth of the American
lives lost were lost because of lack of armor for these
Humvees, and we still are uncertain as to whether an adequate
number will be protected in the near future.
My question is this. Having appropriated all of this money,
and myself having voted for every penny of it, how can we
explain that we didn't meet the most basic requirement when it
came to body armor, helicopter equipment, and armored Humvees
to protect our troops?
DETAINEE ABUSE IN IRAQ
Secretary Rumsfeld. Let me comment, first, Senator, on the
statement you made, and then General Myers will discuss the
force protection issues, because they're very important.
With respect to what took place at Abu Ghraib, we will get
to the bottom of it. There are six or seven investigations
taking place, criminal prosecutions taking place, and people
will be punished at every level, I can assure you. I know
there's a--the Uniform Code of Military Justice works, and it's
operating, and I am confident that the facts will become known,
and people who did things that were illegal will be dealt with,
and those that--in the administrative chain that did things
that were seen to be inappropriate will also be dealt with in
non-criminal administrative ways.
Second, the e-mail you read is--I guess it's disturbing,
but it's not surprising, that an individual feels that way.
Senator Durbin. A career officer.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I understand. An individual. Doesn't
matter to me whether he's an officer or an enlisted person, but
he feels that way. And I can understand that. And we all go
through strong emotions when something like this occurs. We see
it, and we're shocked, and we're stunned, and we're disgusted,
and we know, in our hearts, we're better than that, and yet
that is what's being seen in the world as representing our
country. I know it doesn't represent our country. That isn't
America. We've got--we're a lot better than that. And it's been
true over many decades, and it'll be true over decades ahead.
And the conclusion that that young person came to, that we're
at the beginning of the end, I submit, will prove to be wrong.
And, the good Lord willing, I'll be right, and his
understandable concern and comment and emotional reaction, I
hope and pray, will be wrong.
Senator Durbin. Will you address the force protection
issues?
General Myers. You bet. I want to start with interceptor
body armor. The small arms protective insert (SAPI) plates were
relatively new technology. The Army had decided, earlier in
this century, in 2001/2002, to provide only to dismounted
infantry. As we got into 2002, it was clear that was not
sufficient, so they started to ramp up the production from 1600
sets per month to now 25,000 sets per month. Currently,
everybody in theater--military, civilian, contractors, anybody
who needs that kind of vest with the SAPI plates--has been
provided that.
Senator Durbin. General, excuse me.
General Myers. Yeah.
Senator Durbin. Fourteen months after the invasions?
Senator Stevens. The Senator's time for asking questions is
expired, but we permit General Myers----
HUMVEES
General Myers. Well, I'm just saying that it was new
technology, so it took time to ramp it up. I mean, we just--we
couldn't--as much as we wanted to wish it true and have it
ready immediately, that just wasn't technically or from a
manufacturing standpoint feasible. What we're looking at now--
--
Senator Durbin. But you weren't prepared, General.
General Myers. What we're looking----
Senator Stevens. General----
General Myers [continuing]. What we're looking at now is,
the SAPI plates are good, and you know they fit front and back.
We're looking for other protection now, on the sides and the
armpits, because there is technology there, and we're starting
to produce that, to provide those vests, as well.
Up-armored Humvees, that requirement was set by Central
Command and by the field commanders. It has consistently gone
up. We've tried to meet that with lots of different things and
ways. Currently, they need 4,454 up-armored Humvees. They're
currently on hand, 3,134. We're producing--we're ramping up
to--production rate up to 300--in fact, I think we're, this
month, at 220 to 225 per month. We've gathered all the up-
armored Humvees from all the services around the world, pushing
them into theater, only saving a few back here for the nuclear
security mission, and I mean just a handful. And we also have
some bolt-on armor that we've made for that, those Humvees and
the trucks, as well.
So we've tried to stay up with the demand as the
requirements come in from the field, and I think we're doing a
reasonably good job. I would like to have done all of that,
certainly, if we could have; if it had been physically possible
to do it all faster, we would have. I will say this, that the
support we got from the Congress on the funding has not been an
issue. The funding has been there when we've needed it.
Senator Stevens. I apologize to the Senator. We still have
several Senators to go on the first round.
Senator McConnell is next. You're recognized for 5 minutes.
General Myers. If I could just follow up that, you also
asked about helos. The information you provided on the
helicopters does not correlate with the information I've been
given on those helicopters--to include, you know, the
helicopter that was shot down where we lost so many people. My
information was that it did have countermeasures onboard, and
that nobody----
Senator Durbin. That one helicopter was properly equipped,
but the Army acknowledged that there is a new level ALE-47 that
was needed. Only five of the 13 helicopters in the unit are
currently equipped with it. It is said that they will receive
the equipment in 4 months, which is the time when they're
supposed to be leaving the country.
ACTIVE AND RESERVE
General Myers. It was--but it's true of Active duty and
Reserve helicopters, because there was a move at that time, and
I'll just make sure. I'll check my records, the facts here.
But, as I recall, that the Army was in the middle of upgrading
all that Active and Reserve, and that's what they were in the
middle of, so there are some units that have the newer
technology, or some that have the older technology.
Senator Stevens. Okay, Senator.
Senator McConnell is recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
After the prisoner abuse revelations over the last few
weeks, it's easy to lose perspective, and I'd like to begin by
congratulating you, Mr. Secretary and General Myers and your
entire operation, for the liberation of 50 million people over
the last 2\1/2\ years and for extraordinary success in the war
on terrorism.
It is no accident that we have not been successfully
attacked again here at home since 9/11. The reason for that is
clearly that we've been on offense, at the President's
direction. And you and the people that you command have done an
extraordinary job, and it's important to remember that when
things do go wrong, as they do occasionally in any complicated,
difficult task.
PAYING WAR COSTS
Now, we're going to have, Mr. Secretary, the Defense
authorization bill on the floor next week, and one of the
things I fear is that an awful lot of amendments are going to
be offered to try to take money away from arguably very
important tasks that you need to carry out, and direct them to
Iraq.
For example, we expect numerous amendments to cut important
programs such as missile defense in that bill. Over the last
decade, proliferators such as Iran and North Korea have made
dramatic and unexpected progress in their nuclear programs. If
we do not improve our ability to defend America and our troops
against ballistic missiles, and deter rogue regimes from using
them against us, by modernizing our weapons systems to hold
their deeply-buried nuclear or command and control facilities
at risk, we're likely to face a far greater danger than that
which reared its head on September 11. So I have a couple of
questions in that regard.
Would it be appropriate to reduce funding for important
programs in your fiscal year 2005 bill in order to pay for
operations and maintenance costs that the Department plans to
fund in an upcoming request for a contingency reserve fund?
Secretary Rumsfeld. We've made a judgment, Senator, that
the cash flowing for a long period is a bad management
practice, and that to the extent the amount is large it becomes
a very bad management practice.
In terms of the separate--therefore, we came up--despite
the fact the President didn't want to--when I went in and told
him I believed we needed $25 billion, he has made that proposal
as a reserve to reduce the damage, reduce the difficulties, the
management difficulties, that otherwise would have occurred.
The second question, as to whether we should simply take
money from one important account and put it in another and
change our priorities, my strong recommendation is that the
Congress not do that. The idea that we were asked not to fund
for the war in the budget, we allocated the budget, we're now
at a point where we believe that the priorities that have been
established in that budget are sound, they enable our country
to address the global war on terror, to see that the Armed
Forces of the United States are the most capable and most
deployable and best equipped on the face of the Earth, and I
don't think we ought to try to fund the war out of the
priorities that help rearrange our military for the 21st
century.
Senator McConnell. When I was in Iraq in October, I was
meeting, it won't surprise you to know, with General Petreas in
101st, since they're headquartered in my home State. And he
indicated that the reconstruction funds, which you and, I
think, Senator Specter were talking about earlier, were
extremely important to the success. And one of the things I
fear next week is that we may have amendments transferring
money out of the reconstruction fund, which we fought very hard
to make sure was a grant and not a loan, to help pay for the
military side of this. Do you share my view that the
reconstruction is extremely important in allowing us to
ultimately exit the country?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I do.
TRAINING IRAQI SECURITY FORCES
Senator McConnell. And, also, I'm curious--I know you've
sent General Petreas back to be in charge of the upgrading of
the Iraqi military. I want to commend you for that decision. I
don't think you could have picked a better person to do it. But
I would like to kind of get a report on how that's going and
this whole challenge of getting the Iraqi military up to speed,
which we all know is the best way to ensure our exit at some
time in the future.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Indeed. From the beginning, we've
focused on strengthening the Iraqi security forces. They, for
all practical purpose, had dissipated and didn't exist. The
police that were there were not the kind of police we have in
our country; they're the kind of people that went and arrested
people at night and threw them into prison. The military was a
mixture of some, I don't know, how many thousand generals,
mostly Sunni generals, and the large mass of Shia conscripts,
that just dissipated into the villages and towns of the
country. So we had to start pretty much from scratch.
We're up to about 206,000. You see reports in the press
that, in some cases, they didn't do a great job. They, some of
them, didn't engage the enemy in certain circumstances. Well,
my goodness, if a group of people had been trained for a few
weeks, and they're poorly equipped, and they're going up
against people with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades,
they're smart not to. And they're doing pretty darn well. And
General Petreas is the right person to go in there and work
this problem.
And we're going to go from 206,000 to 265,000, we're going
to continue to improve their equipment, we're going to continue
to improve their training and their chain of command, and that
is, as you say, who we have to pass off security responsibility
for that country too. We've got to make that work, and then
we've got to pass it off, and we don't have to stay and do that
job for the Iraqis. The Iraqis have to do that job.
General Myers. If I may, Senator? Let me just----
Senator McConnell. Yeah. General?
General Myers [continuing]. Just add something. When I was
in Iraq 3 weeks ago, approximately, I looked at the line items
of the types of equipment needed by Iraqi security forces. I
think it's the first time that we've had specifically the types
of equipment needed, on contract, starting to deliver--this
month, matter of fact--to make up for that equipment problem
that we talked about, that, for a variety of reasons, to
include challenged contracts and, in fact, people just not
writing down the requirement, that is fixed, and we should see
these Iraqi security forces, from the police to the new Iraqi
army now, begin to receive the type of equipment that will
allow the things that the Secretary said needs to happen,
happen.
And, if I may, let me go back to your previous question,
where you talked about using other accounts to pay for the
operations and maintenance. As you know better than anybody,
one of our traditions--and all of us--I'd put all of us in this
group--is that we raid procurement accounts when we're short on
operations and maintenance, and readiness, and so forth. We
have had procurement holidays. We do not need to do that. We
have a chance to transform our military, and the thought of
raiding particularly the procurement accounts to make up for
maybe shortfalls in other places, I would think, would be a
very, very bad idea for the future of our Armed Forces.
Senator McConnell. One final question, if I have time, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Stevens. You don't have the time, Senator. I'm
sorry.
Senator McConnell. Okay, I don't have time. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
First of all, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you, as others
have, for your service, and also General Myers, for your
leadership. And I want you to continue doing that, and I
believe you will. I have confidence in you.
I've got a couple of questions, and I'd like to get into
dealing with the budget.
I believe, first of all, Mr. Secretary, that the Army is
underfunded, given the overwhelming role that they're playing
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The issue that causes me some concern
here today is reset. The Army is struggling to sustain and
maintain its equipment. The 2005 budget, according to the
Army's own documents, only includes 72 percent of the regular
depot maintenance funding requirement. The 2005 shortfall is
compounded by the severe toll that Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) are taking on the
Army's equipment.
Mr. Secretary, first to you, and then to General Myers, Do
you support the Army's reset plan, and do you believe it's
properly resourced?
RESTRUCTURING THE ARMY
Secretary Rumsfeld. We're told by the Army that they
believe it is properly resourced. What it will require is that,
over the supplementals this year and next year and possibly 1
year into the future, the funds need to be made available to
allow the Army to have a higher level of forces so that they
can rearrange it and pull division capabilities down into the
brigades, so that they can multiply the number of brigades from
33 to 43, and that they can develop this greater modularity.
And it's, I think, a very innovative approach, it's exactly the
right thing to do. That, coupled with balancing the active
force with the Guard and Reserve, I think, will make us have a
vastly improved Army.
EQUIPMENT
General Myers. There is no doubt the Army is using their
equipment up at a very, very fast rate, whether it's tracks on
Bradleys or helicopter blades or parts. This is a very serious
issue for the Army.
Senator Shelby. Tanks, too.
General Myers. Tanks, the whole thing. I mean, it's every
piece of gear they have, they are using up at a much faster
rate than anticipated. In my view, this should be dealt with in
the supplemental as we look at a----
Senator Shelby. Okay.
General Myers [continuing]. A possible 2005 supplemental.
We just need to make sure that this kind of money is in there
to make them well. And, otherwise, we're going to have a
problem out there in the not-too-distant future if we don't
make them well.
Senator Shelby. Reset's important, isn't it?
General Myers. Reset is extremely important.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
PERFORMANCE OF STRYKER VEHICLES
Mr. Secretary, would you comment on the Stryker vehicle
performance in Iraq? Have you spoken with the troops about the
Stryker performance during your visits? And what are they
reporting? We've been hearing a lot of good things, but I'd
like to hear your comments, and then General Myers.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I've heard a lot more good than not
good.
Senator Shelby. Yeah.
Secretary Rumsfeld. There are those not in those Stryker
units that raise questions.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Secretary Rumsfeld. But--and it's early.
Senator Shelby. Well, we've always----
Secretary Rumsfeld. This is the first deployment.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Secretary Rumsfeld. It's the first deployment. But my sense
is, net, that they're valuable, they provide mobility, they
provide--nothing provides the kind of armored protection that--
even a tank, they--you've seen pictures of tanks smoldering,
with their turrets off. I mean, there's no way to prevent
something from being badly damaged. But as a midrange leading
edge of what may very well evolve as the future combat systems,
I think this Stryker is doing well.
Senator Shelby. They've got a lot of fire power, too,
haven't they?
General Myers. They've got fire power, and they have good
battlespace awareness when they get there because they can be
connected to all sorts of other information sources, which is
powerful.
One thing, when I was--again, when I was in Iraq not too
long ago, a couple of weeks ago, one of the things that I heard
that I had not thought of, even though I've been around Stryker
and I've driven a Stryker and spent some time at Fort Lewis
looking them over, is that it's quiet. And quiet's important,
because they can arrive on the scene without a lot of notice,
and sometimes take adversaries by surprise. And they said that
happened on more than one occasion. So I think the report card
on the Stryker, so far, is A-plus.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Burns, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs for this
appearance today.
I want to bring up a couple of things. Back in 1993 and
1994, it was obvious to me that, with the new plans of the
military, the force structure, and how it would appear, the
military complex was in for change. And knowing that, we've
seen more of our responsibilities moved into the Reserve and
the National Guard sectors. And I looked at the infrastructure
in my State of Montana, and we began rebuilding the
infrastructure there to train and to prepare our people for an
enemy and a mission that was quite different than anything they
had ever faced before. We were operating out of old World War
II structures, as you well know, using outdated material to
train for an enemy that had passed.
And I would suggest to my colleagues that we attend to our
facilities and infrastructure, and also how we train our
citizen soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen for an enemy
that is consistent with what we are seeing now, and the needs
that they're going to have to have in distance learning and
electronics and everything that we can gather to prepare our
people for a possible call up.
The Army has begun converting some Reserve component
artillery forces to military police, for instance. This has
been done to meet the high demand for MPs, which I think we can
expect to increase in the future.
CONVERSION OF FORCES
Can you give me an idea as to the number to be converted to
this type of duty? And do you have adequate resources to
continue this process and provide necessary training and
equipment that will meet this need, considering we might be
working with personnel who lack this type of training
experience.
Secretary Rumsfeld. It's an important question, and it's
one that has to be reviewed continuously as circumstances
change. But, at the moment, we believe that, with the budget
and the additional requests that have been made, and with the
restructuring that's taking place, that, at least for the
foreseeable future, we're on the right track.
Senator Burns. Well, we have started our rebuilding in
Montana, and now we have the ability to retrain a four of five
State area. They're bringing them into Helena, Montana. Fort
Harrison now, for training on these new missions. General
Myers, we have something else to offer in Montana right now, in
terms of training and research and that's airspace. And we're
running out of airspace in which to train our pilots and even
some of our ground forces. And I would like to visit with you
on that someday, about our capabilities up there. We've got two
Air Force Bases now that are doing little, but could offer a
lot more, as far as our training's concerned.
And my next question is, the weapons caches that you've
discovered in Iraq, are we finding them, are we securing them,
and are we destroying their holdings?
WEAPONS CACHES
General Myers. Senator Burns, all the information I get
says yes to those questions on weapons caches. We continue to
find them. We find--we're up over 8,700 now, and tens are found
every week, so we keep adding to that number. The last number I
saw, none are unsecured. Some of the sites are secured 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week, continuously, when they have the sorts of
things that are being used by the bomb-makers for the
improvised explosive devices, or if the have the man-portable
surface-to-air missiles, or if they have mortars and grenades
and those sorts of--and small arms. Others, which have--can be
secured by bulldozing dirt up against bunkers that have 1,000-
pound bombs in them that have not been pilfered are maybe not
24 and 7, but secured with locks, with berms, with patrols.
I'm not satisfied. We know--I mean, this is a country that
we estimate has 660 shore tons of weapons in it. We've
destroyed under 130 shore tons. We've got 6,000 people, to
include contractors and Armed Forces personnel, on this all the
time, trying to do away with these arms caches. I'm not sure
that--I mean, I can't sit here and say that we know of every
one. But as we find them, we try to deal with them. And it's a
personal thing of mine to--because I get asked this question a
lot. Again, from what I'm told, we deal with them just like I
described. I think we need to be very curious about that and
continue to probe.
Senator Burns. Well, I'm concerned about that, because we
know that's the base of making these----
General Myers. You bet.
Senator Burns [continuing]. Individual weapons----
General Myers. You bet.
Senator Burns [continuing]. Used in roadside----
General Myers. The soldiers know that, you bet.
Senator Burns. And the quicker we eliminate that supply, I
think, the safer we will be in our----
General Myers. It's going to be--yes, sir--it'll be a long-
term job, but we've got to be at it with as much capability as
we need to put against it.
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, I have more questions, but I
will submit them in private, and thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
We'll now--Senator Inouye has not asked questions in the
first round, so, Senator Inouye, do you have any questions?
Senator Inouye. Yes.
AIR FORCE TANKER LEASE
Mr. Secretary, we were advised that last week the Defense
Science Board was supposed to release a report on the Air Force
tanker lease deal. Has that been released?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I have been briefed, and I'm sure we
can brief you. Whether they have formally released it, I just
don't know.
Senator Inouye. Can you provide us with----
Secretary Rumsfeld. In fact, here it is, they're briefing
staff directors here on your committee today.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Second, has the events of the past 2 weeks had any impact
upon recruiting and retention of Active, Reserve, and National
Guard?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, I'm afraid that the systems we
use to track recruiting and retention may not be sophisticated
enough to give us good data that fast. Last month's worth that
I heard about, we were doing fine in both recruiting and
retention. What it'll be when the next data comes out remains
to be seen.
QUANTITY OF MILITARY INVESTIGATIONS
Senator Inouye. Last week on talk shows and at the hearing,
I believe three witnesses, including you, Mr. Secretary,
mentioned 18,000 military crimes being processed. And I believe
you indicated that about 3,000 resulted in court-martial. Can
you provide us--not at this moment, but--the nature and the
severity of these crimes, where they occurred and in what
services? We've tried to get some information, but no one seems
to know 18,000. So----
Secretary Rumsfeld. Of course, this kind of information is
not centralized in the Department. Each service manages itself.
The data I have is, as you suggested, that there were something
in--it's 17,000-plus criminal investigations opened. There were
about 72,000 non-judicial punishments that took place. In terms
of Article 32, we don't have the information from the Army--
it's not tracked--but the other services have about 400. In
terms of total court-martials, as you said, it's about 3,000.
And in terms of general court-martials, it's about 1,100. And
that was all 2003 data. So you can imagine the scope of that
all across the services. There's always--with the number of
people we have, there's always going to be these types of
things that occur, I'm afraid.
Senator Inouye. Of that number, about how many occurred in
Iraq?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Oh, I have--am not able to provide that
answer.
Senator Inouye. Can you provide us with those?
Secretary Rumsfeld. We certainly will. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
SERVICES INVESTIGATIONS DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal Total
Investigations Criminal Criminal Total Investigations
Opened Investigations Investigations Investigations Opened in
Worldwide Opened Fiscal Opened Fiscal Opened in Iraq Afghanistan
Fiscal Year Year 2003 Iraq Year 2003 Since March Since
2003 Afghanistan 2003 September 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................ \1\ 10,915 969 216 1,362 \2\ 59
Navy............................ \3\ 4,260 35 .............. 56 1
Air Force....................... \4\ 2,531 .............. .............. 16 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CID ROI only.
\2\ Estimate.
\3\ NCIS only.
\4\ OSI only.
SERVICES JUSTICE DATA FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
General Courts- Criminal
Courts- martial Article 32s Nonjudicial Investigations
martial (GCM and Held Punishment Opened
SPCM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................................ 688 1,329 ( \1\ ) 43,084 \2\ 10,915
Navy........................................ 183 835 173 19,770 \3\ 4,260
Air Force................................... 351 935 248 9,164 \4\ 2,531
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unknown. Information is not tracked.
\2\ CID ROI only.
\3\ NIS only.
\4\ OSI only.
Senator Inouye. Following up Senator Domenici's question,
in 7 weeks, when we have this transition, when do you consider
would be the time when we may be able to consider a Status of
Forces Agreement? When can we count upon the new government to
take over the water and sewer responsibilities?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The which responsibilities?
Senator Inouye. Water and sewer.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Ah.
STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT
Senator Inouye. And I'd like to know when you think would
be appropriate for them to take over the prison system.
Secretary Rumsfeld. First on the Status of Forces and our
arrangement with the current government, the lawyers for the
United States have concluded that the U.N. resolution that
exists already provides appropriate protection for U.S.
forces--coalition forces, I should say--between the time--
certainly now, and the time, going forward, between June 30,
when the sovereignty responsibilities are assumed by the
Iraqis, and the next government takes over. There are people
who debate that and discuss it, but my guess is that the Iraqis
are going to have to decide whether or not they want the
interim government or the permanent government to make those
arrangements. The permanent government, of course, would only
result after elections some time next year, in 2005. We,
needless to say, have to have confidence that our forces are--
have the right kinds of protections in that country. And I
believe that the current conviction is that we do and we will,
and that those detailed discussions were probably not
appropriate for the Iraqi Governing Council to engage in, nor
would they necessarily have been viewed as sufficient or final
for the other governments, so that that task is going to be
left for the government to come, which is after June 30, or
after the final Iraqi government is elected next year.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRISONS IN IRAQ
General Myers. On the prison system, the----
Secretary Rumsfeld. Oh, yes, I'm sorry.
General Myers [continuing]. Iraqis are currently
responsible for those picked up on criminal charges, so, at Abu
Ghraib, the Iraqis maintain the criminals in their part of that
prison. The U.S. forces have what we call our security
detainees, folks that are picked up that either have shot at
the Coalition or are involved in other operations that we think
are security related. So the Iraqis are in charge of their
operation. I would think, as times goes on, and as we become
more of a partnership, you can see this--more and more, this
burden probably shifting to the Iraqis, but it'll be over time.
Senator Inouye. So this prison, Abu Ghraib, was jointly
operated?
General Myers. Yes. Yes, sir. That's the information I
have.
Senator Stevens. We now approach the second round, and I am
told that the Secretary needs to be through with us, or we'd be
through with him, at noon. So what I propose to do is to ask
two questions I want to ask, primarily for the record, and then
we will recognize the balance of the five of you over the 25
minutes that's left.
Mr. Secretary, I've got to say that I--and General--I had
to--I didn't have to, but I did apologize to Senator Feinstein
because last year she raised a question of those munition
dumps, and I sort of downplayed it, because I said that that
had been taken care of. We later found, as we went over there,
that not only--they're still being found, which is an
interesting comment. In April, I was told there were--munitions
that we recovered were--is that on tons? In shore tons,
154,000-plus recovered, 124,000 destroyed. They found 8,756
caches, cleared 8,684. The remaining were either secured or
partially secured. I'm really concerned about the partially
secured.
So what I would like to ask you, for the record, if you
could update that chart that was given us on April 1 and to
assure Senator Feinstein we will pursue making sure that you
have adequate money to deal with those munitions, because one
of the contractors told me that when they wanted equipment just
to protect their convoy, they just went to one of those dumps
and picked them up--handheld weapons, et cetera. So if they can
pick' em up, anyone can pick' em up.
[The information follows:]
Weapons Cache Update
Purpose
To provide information on Weapon Caches in Iraq.
Bottom Line
Since September 11, 2003, (current as of June 18, 2004).
Short Tons destroyed--195,141.
Short Tons on-hand at depots--149,861.
Caches found--9,693.
Caches cleared--9,631.
Caches remaining--62.
Caches secured (24-hour presence)--21 of 62.
Caches partially secured (Periodic patrols, reconnaissance,
surveillance)--41 of 62.
Caches unsecured (No security)--0.
Background
There are over 6,000 soldiers and contractors dedicated to
securing, transporting, guarding, and destroying captured enemy
munitions.
The captured enemy ammunitions are evaluated to determine the best
disposal methods or reutilization potential.
The most dangerous munitions, such as rocket-propelled grenades,
mortar and artillery rounds (for IED making materials) and surface-to-
air missiles, are transported to six depots for safe, secure storage
and eventual destruction. There is one depot per divisional sector.
Partially secured sites contain ammunition that would be extremely
difficult to remove quickly, such as aircraft ordnance and large
caliber ammunition or missiles.
Senator Stevens. Second, I would like to ask a question
about--for the record--concerning the F-22. According to the
current plans, current--the procurement funding will increase
by 50 percent from fiscal year 2005 to 2009. That's required
for full-rate production of the F-22, and the continued
development of the Joint Strike Fighter fielding a future
combat system. We have additional commitments in Defense to
space surveillance and access. I worry about whether we can
afford these programs. Could you give us a projection out to
that same number, 2009, for all of the systems that are going
to be competing with the money here starting in 2006? We know
what the competition is in 2005--this is just for the record,
now.
[The information follows:]
There will be several procurement requirements competing
for valuable resources within the Air Force as we approach
2009. The larger programs include the Joint Strike Fighter, C-
17, C-130J, KC-135 Tanker Replacement, and Airborne Laser. All
of these programs, as well as the F/A-22, are currently covered
within the Air Force topline. In addition, funding is provided
for modification upgrades to the C-5, E-3, F-16, Predator and
Global Hawk aircraft.
IRAQ
Senator Stevens. And, based on that, I will call on Senator
Byrd for the second round for 5 minutes.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Myers, earlier you stated that there is no way that
we can militarily win or lose in Iraq. Does that mean that
there's no military solution possible?
General Myers. Senator Byrd, what I was saying is the same
thing the Secretary has said, that we need to win on the
security front, which has a strong military component; but not
just U.S. military. Iraqis have to be part of that, the
international community has to be part of that. We have to win
on the political or governance front. That has to go hand in
hand. And we have to win on the economic front. And the sub-
tick under that would be the infrastructure. So, I mean, we
could flood the country with U.S. Armed Forces and have a
soldier next to every house and every Iraqi, but we wouldn't
achieve our end objective, which is a free and democratic Iraq.
So these other pieces have to go with it.
Senator Byrd. Well, do we have an exit strategy?
General Myers. Senator Byrd, I believe we do, and it's
bound up in the things the Secretary has already talked about.
We've got the United Nations, and they're working the
governance piece, and that first piece, we should see here on
June 30. That is only a temporary piece until we get to
elections, in December or January--January 2005. And then
there's a further piece after that for the constitution. Then
there's further elections and a government. We've got our
security piece pretty well figured out. If we get--we're
working hard on a United Nations Security Council resolution,
and if that is successful, I think more of the international
community will be willing to be part of this.
I was just in NATO. I can tell you, at least among most of
my NATO military colleagues, that they feel there is a role for
NATO in Iraq. Whether there's political will in NATO, we won't
know yet, but we do have the Istanbul summit coming up, and I'm
sure that'll be one of the issues that's discussed. As the
Secretary said, there is already big NATO involvement, just not
a NATO mission. The NATO involvement is supporting the Polish-
led division with forces and equipment.
Senator Byrd. When do you think we can see the end of the
tunnel and our troops can come home?
General Myers. I think the next time we'll have a pretty
good picture will be in--and this is something I've talked to
General Abizaid about--is sometime this fall, maybe even early
winter, but after Iraqis are in charge, after June 30, see what
traction the political process gets, see if, in fact, it has
the effect of, for those that are opposed to progress in Iraq,
saying, ``Okay, it looks like we might as well join the team.''
And I think we can make that judgment this fall, and look at
the way forward. I think that's the next place where we'll have
a pretty good lens into what the way forward is.
Senator Byrd. This fall?
SOVEREIGNTY
General Myers. This fall. I think through elections--I
mean, we've provided testimony before--General Abizaid's, I
think, provided testimony on this subject--that certainly
through the transfer of sovereignty here on June 30, it's going
to get--it's going get worse before it gets better, and we're
seeing that. After June 30, it remains to be seen.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, you said that the, quote,
``Congress,'' close quote, asked you not to request the Iraq
supplemental in the President's February budget. I don't know
who, quote, ``the Congress'' is.
Senator Stevens. Senator, I can confess.
Senator Byrd. I beg your pardon?
Senator Stevens. I will confess. I made that request
because of the delay that's caused by the loss of 2, almost 3,
weeks for conventions, and I said we did not have time to do 13
bills and a supplemental before September 30 of this year.
Senator Byrd. Well, when the Senate passed the fiscal year
2004 appropriations bill last summer, we approved an
amendment--I believe it was my amendment--with over 80 votes
expressing the sense of the Senate that you should budget for
the war--that you should budget for the war in Iraq in the
President's request for the annual budget. Let me read the
exact language. Section 8139, ``It is the sense of the Senate
that, one, any request for funds for a fiscal year for an
ongoing overseas military operation, including operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq, should be included in the annual budget
of the President for such fiscal year as submitted to Congress
under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code; and,
two, any funds provided for such fiscal year for such a
military operation should be provided in appropriations acts
for such fiscal year through appropriations to specific
accounts set forth in such acts.''
So we've asked that that be done, and I hope it will be
done. That was my amendment. Do I have time for any further----
Senator Stevens. I'm sorry, Senator, your time's expired.
Senator Byrd. I thank the chairman. I thank the Secretary.
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici is recognized for 5
minutes.
Senator Domenici. What was the time?
Senator Stevens. Five--well, 4 minutes.
Senator Domenici. All right.
First, let me say, Mr. Secretary and General Myers, in my
first round of questions, typically I got excited and I didn't
tell you both that I congratulate you. I do.
IRAQI DEBT AND OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM
Mr. Secretary, there's been a series of questions, not as
much as I would have hoped, about how we're going to
reconstruct the country, and whether we had a plan, and I want
to thank you both for at least telling the American people that
you have the plan. And in particular, General Myers, I think
what you described, in terms of the merging, the command
structure, of the Iraqi military with ours is tremendous. I
hope you proceed with dispatch.
General Myers. Yes, sir, we will.
Senator Domenici. I have also determined that there is not
very much Iraqi oil money that is currently available for the
payment of infrastructure. The reason is that Iraq owes a huge
amount of money to countries that they borrowed from, led by
Russia, France, and others. Now, Mr. Secretary, we have asked
Jim Baker to go around and see what can be done to minimize the
payment of those so we can get on with reconstruction. Is that
not correct?
Secretary Rumsfeld. It is correct.
Senator Domenici. Now, second, we know that France and
Russia, two of the biggest creditors, have cheated immensely
with hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in the
Oil for Food Program. Now, frankly, it disturbs me that we're
working on making sure that their debt is paid, when, as a
matter of fact, they've taken money from the Oil for Food
Program and allocated it to themselves in what might be a giant
fraud. Now, I ask you, who is responsible for seeing that
something's done about that? Is that Jim Baker's job, or is
that the Secretary of State's job, or is that your job? Because
I think we ought not to be recognizing those debts if, in fact,
we have reason to believe that that program was pilfered the
way we understand it. Mr. Secretary and General, either one of
you.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, there are several
investigations--at least two that I know of--of the Oil for
Food Program, and a lot of charges have been made. The
investigations are not complete.
With respect to the responsibility for dealing with Iraqi
debt, the President asked former Secretary of State Baker, as
you pointed out, to address that, and those are matters that
are being handled by the Department of State--the United States
Department of State, by the United States Department of
Treasury, not by the Department of Defense.
Senator Domenici. I thank you.
I have four or five questions that are more parochial and
don't fit this meeting, but I will submit them.
And, General, there's one--and that is on the border of the
United States, we have a very serious problem of the
infiltration of potential terrorists. Those borders have been
guarded by Reserve and National Guard people, and I am
concerned that--in our desire to solve Iraq, that we don't
minimize the protection of our borders by our military to
prevent terrorists. Can you just either address it now or
address it later?
General Myers. I'll say a couple of things. One is that the
stand-up of Northern Command was exactly the right thing to do,
because they, along with Department of Homeland Security, worry
very much about that. So I think it's good that we have a
military command that worries about that, as well, and works
with our neighbors to the north and to the south to help stem
that flow.
I am not aware, right now, of military augmentees that
other than on--occasionally we have reconnaissance forces that
help, but not like we did right after 9/11, where we had
military people, generally from the National Guard, augmenting
some of our border organizations.
Senator Stevens. General, I've got to--if I'm going to let
you go, I've got to----
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Senator Stevens [continuing]. Stop you right there.
General Myers. Stop it.
Senator Stevens. Senator Leahy, you're recognized for 4
minutes.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was going to raise a question on the ammo dumps, but--
following up Senator Feinstein--but I appreciate what you said,
and I'll wait to see what we hear from that.
I was glad to hear the comment made about the value of
TRICARE for the National Guard. When I and several other
Senators on both sides of the aisle were trying to push through
TRICARE last year, we received a letter from the Secretary
saying the President would veto a bill that might have TRICARE
in it. So I'm glad that you have come around to our side, and I
compliment you on that.
So that Secretary Rumsfeld does not have to spend a great
deal of time checking his databanks, I want to make sure you
understand what I was saying earlier about the letters I have
written to you. I was not saying I didn't get an answer. I
meant a letter came back. The answer was questionable. For
example, one on June 25 of last year regarding treatment of the
Baghram Air Base; and, after what's been reported there, Abu
Ghraib, and Guantanamo, I suspected the answer was incomplete.
I will give you compliments, however. The Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), when we asked them such questions, they never
responded. And, of course, as he usually does, Attorney General
Ashcroft didn't respond to my letters, or letters from
Republican Senators, or others.
I was going to bring up, and I will submit it for the
record, some of the specific funding questions.
PRISONER ABUSES IN IRAQ
But just because of some of the things said here today
about the concern that the prison abuses in Iraq are just the
work of a few bad apples, I look at this report that we have
had----
Secretary Rumsfeld. Who were you quoting that said
``they're just the work of a few bad apples''? Certainly not
me.
Senator Leahy. No, I'm not quoting you. I said for those
who have said this--suggested this at the hearing today. But if
I might get on with my point----
Secretary Rumsfeld. I didn't hear anyone say that.
Senator Leahy. Fine. Your recollection will be yours;
mine's mine.
If I might, let me go back--to those who have suggested
it's only a few people involved that were, sort of, out of the
chain of command, I have a copy of a March 2004 report by Human
Rights Watch--has corroborated such things as interrogation
techniques employed by U.S. personnel--sleep deprivation,
prisoners stripped naked and kept in freezing cells,
humiliating taunts by women, hoods placed over detainees' heads
during interrogations, forced standing/kneeling for hours, and
so on. Incidentally, Mr. Secretary, the reason I even raise
this, and to refute some who have suggested that it's only a
few, is that this report, of course, is about Afghanistan, not
about Iraq. But it appears to be exactly the same techniques
used in Afghanistan as were used in Iraq. Now, I don't think
they're getting techniques over the Internet. There is
obviously some systematic training.
And so I would suggest, especially about the report by
Major General Ryder, that we find out whether there is a
coordination between all of these so that nobody will have the
assumption that it may be just a few bad apples. Because I know
that the vast majority of our American men and women follow
orders, do it very professionally, and make every single Member
of the United States Senate proud, as they do you and General
Myers.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator Leahy, first on the ammunition
dumps, we are discovering more every day. The country is filled
with them. Any number we give you--and we'll give you weekly
reports if you want--changes because of the number that are
found and the numbers we deal with.
Second, I know I don't know the extent of the abuse
problem. We've got, I believe, six investigations underway. I
am absolutely certain that there are more revelations to come.
The question as to whether or not there is something systemic,
as I believe you said is obvious, is not obvious to me. I'm
anxious to learn whether that's true. And the investigations
that are taking place, we hope and pray, will tell us whether
there is that.
TAGUBA REPORT
I do not recall, General Myers, anything in the Taguba
report that said that there is obviously systematic training to
do those things. Indeed, I am reasonably confident there isn't
anything in General Taguba's report that suggests that there
was training to do those things. Is that your----
General Myers. I think that's----
Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. Recollection?
General Myers [continuing]. That's my recollection.
Secretary Rumsfeld. But the----
Senator Leahy. I think I was talking about General Ryder's
report, but that's okay.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I see.
Senator Stevens. Senator, could we move on to the other two
Senators----
Senator Leahy. Sure.
Senator Stevens [continuing]. So we can--we have--matter of
fact, we have three Senators. Do we?
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, you have run this hearing very,
very fairly, as you always do, and I appreciate that.
Senator Stevens. I'm trying.
Senator Durbin, you're recognized for 4 minutes.
Senator Durbin. I'd like to ask two questions, if I can
briefly. And the first follows up on this whole question of the
interrogation techniques. We have, I understand, one soldier
who has been captured--is it--a soldier, last name Maupin, if
I'm not mistaken----
General Myers. Right, Maupin.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. And we're uncertain of his
whereabouts.
General Myers. That's correct.
FOLLOWING THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS
Senator Durbin. And we certainly hope he is safe. I'd like
to ask, Mr. Secretary, wouldn't it help if there was clarity
from you and from this administration that we would abide by
the Geneva Conventions when it comes to civilian and military
detainees, unequivocally? Wouldn't that help to put to rest
concerns about our interrogation techniques in Guantanamo, at
Baghram, in Iraq? And wouldn't it also serve to protect any
Americans who become prisoners?
As I look at the interrogation rules of engagement, which
have been issued, there are, frankly, many of those which are
violative of the Geneva Convention standard, and these are
rules which have been issued by our Government. Wouldn't it be
good for us, at this moment in time, to clearly and
unequivocally state that we will follow the Geneva Convention
with civilian and military detainees?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Senator, that is a question that's
being discussed widely in the press and editorial comment in
newspapers, and certainly that's a fair thing. Regrettably, the
discussion and the dialog and the editorials tend to be, in
many instances, inaccurate.
There is no ambiguity about whether or not the Geneva
Conventions apply in Iraq. There never has been any ambiguity.
From the outset, Iraq is a country, the United States is a
country. The Geneva Conventions apply to parties, nations. They
don't apply to terrorist networks. They do apply to nations.
Iraq's a nation, the United States is a nation. The Geneva
Conventions applied. They have applied every single day, from
the outset.
Now, where the confusion comes in--and it's understandable
to some extent--is this. And I'm very glad you raised it,
because it's something that's concerned me, and I have been
disappointed to see the lack of research that's taken place on
this subject. The Geneva Conventions apply to conflicts between
states, parties to the conventions. In the case of Afghanistan,
it is a state; and, therefore, the Geneva Convention applied to
Afghanistan as a state. It did not apply to the al Qaeda that
was using that state.
And a judgment was made by the President of the United
States, very simply, that to protect the Geneva Conventions and
to protect U.S. Armed Forces, it would be wrong to state that
the Taliban were--merited the benefits of the Geneva
Conventions; the reason being, that the Geneva Conventions
apply to people, and they get prisoner of war (POW) status only
if they satisfy certain criteria: Do they operate in the chain
of command? Do they wear uniforms? Do they carry arms openly?
Do they comply with the laws of war?
Terrorists don't comply with the laws of war. They go
around killing innocent men, women, and children.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, I----
Secretary Rumsfeld. Just a minute. Just a minute, Senator.
Senator Durbin. I want to have----
Secretary Rumsfeld. I'll stay late.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. A chance to follow up.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I'll stay. Listen, I'd like a chance to
follow up.
The situation is that the President not only said it should
not apply--the Geneva Conventions--under the law, to the
Taliban or the al Qaeda, although it does to Afghanistan, and
it always has to Iraq; but he said, notwithstanding that fact,
they would be treated as though those conventions applied.
Now, that's not a decision we made. That's a decision the
President made. In my view, the conventions are there to
protect people who obey the laws of war. To have--to do what
you're suggesting, simply regardless of what the convention
says, apply the conventions to anybody--terrorist, Taliban, you
name it--doesn't strengthen the Geneva Conventions, it weakens
them.
DOD INSTRUCTIONS CONSISTENT WITH GENEVA CONVENTIONS
Senator Durbin. Let me go specifically to Iraq, and let me
talk about the detainees that were held at Abu Ghraib and other
prisons. And let me tell you, your interrogation rules of
engagement, the ones that are published, go far beyond the
Geneva Convention. The things that we allow, with CJ's approval
here--stress positions, sleep management, dietary
manipulation--all of these things go far beyond a standard
which says, ``There will be no physical or mental torture, nor
any other form of coercion or that the people involved will be
exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any
kind.'' That's the Geneva Convention. These rules of engagement
for interrogation issued by your Department are inconsistent
with those. And I'm not talking about the terrorists, al Qaeda
or the Taliban. We're talking about Iraq.
Secretary Rumsfeld. General Myers, correct me if I'm wrong,
but my recollection is that any instructions that have been
issued, or anything that's been authorized by the Department,
was checked by the lawyers in your shop, in the Department, in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and deemed to be
consistent with the Geneva Conventions.
General Myers. Absolutely. And you could read any one of
those--stress positions--you could read any of those--stress
positions for an excessive amount of time, or that would hurt
somebody, is not approved. I don't know if you--I don't have
that with me; I had it for the last hearing--I think, at the
bottom, it says, ``In all cases, they will be treated
humanely.'' I don't know if it's on that chart. Is it at the
bottom? What's it say at the bottom?
Senator Stevens. Well, gentlemen, this is a very
interesting conversation----
General Myers. We'll be happy to come brief you on this,
but that is not illegal according to the Geneva Convention or
the ways they were applied. Every time we have an
interrogation, we have an interrogation plan. Those are
appropriate, and that's what we're told by legal authorities
and by anybody that believes in humane treatment.
Senator Durbin. I will just conclude by saying I don't
believe what you have issued is consistent with the Geneva
Convention. And I think, now more than ever, in light of what
happened in that prison, in light of the fact that an American
serviceman is being held, we should be clear and unequivocal--
--
Senator Stevens. Senator, we've got to terminate this
sometime. I'm late for appointments myself.
Now, we have two other members who have 4 minutes each. One
of them is Senator Dorgan, for 4 minutes.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
CAPTURING OSAMA BIN LADEN
It seems to me that one of the major goals with respect to
our security here in this country is the apprehension of Osama
bin Laden. I'd like to ask you about that briefly. It has been
2\1/2\ years since Osama bin Laden perpetrated the attack
against our country. He communicates to us and to the world
through videotapes sent to al Jazeera and other outlets. It
seems to me, I'm sure in your mind and in the mind of all
Americans, that it is urgent that we find Osama bin Laden and
apprehend him. I'd like to know what is happening on that
front. What can you say publicly about it? What is new? What
should we understand about any progress that might or might not
be being made with respect to finding Osama bin Laden?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The Department of Justice, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of State, working
with other countries, the Department of Defense, with military
intelligence, spends an enormous amount of time attempting to
develop information, frequently from detainees, that can lead
to information that conceivably might produce actionable
intelligence to capture him. We have not been successful. It's
the kind of thing where people ask me, ``Well, are you close?''
There is no ``close'' in this business. Either you have him or
you don't. And they are well financed, they're clever, they go
to school on us and watch what we do. And, thus far, we have
been successful in capturing a large number of the top al
Qaeda, we've been successful in capturing a large number of
Taliban, we have been successful in capturing a number--many of
the top 55 in Iraq, including Saddam Hussein, and attacking his
sons, but we haven't got Osama bin Laden.
Senator Dorgan. But, Mr. Secretary, you know, I understand
you and General Myers and others, all of us, have our hands
full with Iraq. We pray that that gets resolved. But would you
agree that another significant goal must be the apprehension of
Osama bin Laden? My expectation is if there is a terrorist
event, God forbid, in this country in the future, it----
Secretary Rumsfeld. I think that's a good----
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Will be directed by----
Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. Reasonable----
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Osama bin Laden.
Secretary Rumsfeld. That's a reasonable expectation. We see
threats to that effect consistently, for this country and for
other countries. And they're not just by Osama bin Laden. I
mean, as General Myers pointed out, Zawahiri is--he hasn't
sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden, but he's running his own
network--but he's the next best thing. He's as close to Osama
bin Laden as you can get without having decided that he wants
to give up his own independence and swear allegiance to him.
General Myers. Zarqawi.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I mean Zarqawi. And----
General Myers. We have--this is something that we review
all the time, and let me just assure you that we have a great
deal of capability and resources put to this problem, and we're
trying to do it the best we can. I mean, we are--there is no
lack of resources. Nobody's asking for anything we don't have.
We're trying to, in a very difficult part of the world, where
the terrain is not only tough, but the people's allegiances to
any government are essentially nonexistent, that it's a very
tough place to operate. And there are other considerations, as
well, we can go into in a classified session. But we certainly
are putting a lot of resources to this issue.
Senator Dorgan. So you're saying, ``We're on the hunt, on
the move, we have resources directed.'' I know that, at one
point, substantial resources were directed to that goal. Is
that not----
General Myers. I would say we have substantial resources
directed to that goal. I would say it's correct.
Senator Dorgan. There were others who predicted that--
within this year, for example--we were getting close enough to
expect that within this year, that Osama bin Laden would be
apprehended.
Secretary Rumsfeld. I think predictions like that are
difficult. It's like predicting what a war's going to cost, or
how long it's going to last, or how many people are going to be
killed. Anyone who does that ends up being embarrassed.
Senator Dorgan. All right. I'd just, finally, say, whatever
resources you need to do that job, I think this committee is
very interested in making those resources available if the
resources aren't, at this point, sufficient.
General Myers. You bet, sir.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Yes, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much.
DETAINEES AND GENEVA CONVENTIONS
If I may, Mr. Secretary, I just want to venture an opinion
on the Geneva Convention. I think we always have to apply the
Geneva Convention, because, with our Nation, regardless of
whether it is state or non-state, we have a certain moral
imperative that we cannot escape, and that's everything that a
just nation believes in, and there's no escape from it. And so
my very strong view is that this nation should always observe
the protocols of the Geneva Conventions.
Now, a question, if I might.
Secretary Rumsfeld. May I comment on that?
Senator Feinstein. Surely.
Secretary Rumsfeld. That sounds so plausible and so
reasonable, and I'm told, by people who study these things,
that there's a danger to doing that. And the danger is that the
Geneva Conventions were put in place to try to protect innocent
civilians. And to the extent people behave in a way that's
inconsistent with the conventions, that is to say they attack
innocent civilians, they operate--they don't wear uniforms,
they don't carry arms openly, they carry them in concealed
basis, they mix themselves among civilian populations, putting
civilian populations at risk, as we see happening in Iraq
today, putting people in front of them, children and the like--
to the extent you say, ``That's okay. Let's give everybody the
benefits of Geneva Convention,'' then the worry was, when the
convention was developed--and I'm not expert on this, but I'm
told this--the worry was that it would lead people to put more
innocent people in jeopardy.
Do you want comment on that?
General Myers. Well, I think that's exactly right. And I
think the next point is, then, having said that, that the
Geneva Convention--that we will apply it in all cases, and we
have, faithfully, and, I think, to include our interrogation
techniques.
Senator Feinstein. Let me make my point. A large number of
detainees are innocent. They're in the wrong place at the wrong
time.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Sure.
Senator Feinstein. You just acknowledged, earlier, that
31,000 detainees were released, presumably because they were
innocent. And, you know, and you also said, General, a very
profound thing this morning. You said, ``There is no way we can
lose this war militarily, and there is no way we can win it
militarily,'' which I think makes the exact point of why this
nation's adherence to the Geneva Conventions, protocols--the
fourth, the fifth, and others--are so very important.
Now, let me just ask one other question. You also said that
your hope would be that, within a few months after the
transition, we would be able to withdraw. And we talked about
planning ahead----
Secretary Rumsfeld. I didn't say that.
Senator Feinstein. The General, I think----
General Myers. No, I said that we would--that the next time
we'd have a lens on what the requirement would be. We'd have to
see how the political track--that was what I hoped to----
Secretary Rumsfeld. Absolutely not. That would be a
terrible----
General Myers. Right.
Secretary Rumsfeld [continuing]. Misunderstanding.
Senator Feinstein. All right----
Secretary Rumsfeld. There's no one I know who believes
that.
Senator Feinstein. So you're saying the next time to view
that would be within----
General Myers. Senator, because now--between now and June
30, we know it's going to get worse. We've said that for
months. And then we're going to have to see afterwards how the
Iraqi citizens behave once they have a government. And so
sometime this fall, I think, General Abizaid will feel
comfortable to say, ``Okay, here's the track we're on now.''
Senator Feinstein. Could I ask for your assessment, both of
your assessment, if I might, on another subject? What is your
assessment of the probability of civil war following a
transition, largely Sunni/Shi'ite?
PROBABILITY OF CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ
Secretary Rumsfeld. It's been a problem we've worried about
from day one. It's a problem we worried about on entering the
country, that it could happen. It hasn't happened. We do know
that terrorists and foreign people and former regime elements
and some other elements in the country have consciously
developed a plan to try to incite that and to attack various
elements and lead people to believe it was another element in
the country, in the hope that that could create anarchy and
chaos and cause the Coalition to leave. So it's a risk. It's a
risk.
The goal would be for us to stay there as long as we have
to, to have the Iraqi security forces sufficiently developed
that they would be able to deal with the overwhelming majority
of the kinds of problems that could occur--normal law
enforcement and the like.
Our role, one would think, would diminish as the government
stands up next year--this year and next year, in some way, as
soon as it's possible, but to, for a good period of time, be
available to be of assistance in the event it's necessary. And
the last thing in the world anyone wants to see is a civil war
in that country.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein. I thank you both very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, I think--I'm not sure about
history, but I know you've served this Department of Defense as
Secretary before, and I certainly congratulate you for the way
you're handling these terrible days right now. And, General
Myers, we have worked with a number of chairmen of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and you're the finest, and I really believe we
are very fortunate to have you where you are. We appreciate
your testimony today.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Could I make one last comment?
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Secretary Rumsfeld. Mr. Chairman and members, these
events--these abuses, have been a body blow for the country.
I've heard a lot of comments today, and one citation that it's
the beginning of the end, and that kind of a feeling. I must
say, I don't believe that. I think that these abuses that took
place are terrible, they're inhumane, and they're inexcusable,
and they'll be punished, but they don't represent America. They
certainly don't represent Americans or the American military.
Iraq has made enormous progress, and it's getting ignored.
The schools are open, the hospitals are open, the oil is
pumping, they've got a new currency, the ministries have been
formed, there are governing councils for the provinces, there
are city councils for the cities, 80 to 90 percent of the
people in that country are being governed by local councils
over them. And all we hear about are the problems. And there
are problems.
And I've got to tell you, there are going to be more
revelations of abuse that'll come out in the days and weeks
ahead, because we've got six investigations looking into all of
this. And they will not come out because of the media being so
wonderful and investigating everything; they'll come out
because the United States military investigations will let them
out, and they'll announce them, and that's a good thing, and
that tells a whale of a lot about our country.
I've kind of stopped reading the press, frankly. I'm sure
you can understand why. I've been reading a book about the
Civil War and Ulysses Grant, and I think about the--and I'm not
going to compare the two, don't get me wrong, and don't
somebody rush off and say, ``He doesn't get the difference
between Iraq and the Civil War''--the fact of the matter is
that casualties were high, the same kinds of concerns that were
expressed here were expressed then. They weren't in e-mails,
they weren't in digital cameras; they were in diaries and
letters. They were by families, they were by soldiers,
politicians. And they were all across the spectrum. They were
despairing, they were hopeful, they were concerned, they were
combative. And, in the end, they were losing 1,000, 1,500,
2,000 casualties in a 3-day war. The carnage was horrendous.
And it was worth it.
And I understand concern. By golly, I've got it. But I look
at Afghanistan, 25 million people liberated, women voting, able
to go to a doctor. And I look at Iraq, and I--all I can say is,
I hope it comes out well. And I believe it will. And we're
going to keep at it.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, and we
appreciate your comments. And, God willing, we hope you're
right. We certainly pray you're right, as a matter of fact.
This hearing concludes our planned hearings on the fiscal
year 2005 Defense budget. I have stated that the subcommittee
will schedule a hearing on the forthcoming request when more
details are available. We will have to do that before we mark-
up.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We thank you all for what you've done for us. We do have a
series of questions that have been submitted for the record, as
you heard. We appreciate if you'd submit those. We're in no
rush. We actually won't close this record until sometime the
end of the month.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
PROCUREMENT BOW WAVE
Question. The Department projects that military personnel costs
will grow from $104.8 to $120.4 billion during the same period absent
an increase in end strength. That may be optimistic given that basic
pay increased 29 percent from fiscal year 2000 to 2004. None of the
projected costs described above capture funding for on-going operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to current plans, procurement funding will increase by
fifty percent from fiscal year 2005 to 2009. This level of funding is
required if the nation is to fund full rate production of the F-22,
continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter, fielding of the
Future Combat System, our commitment to space surveillance and access,
and meet minimum levels of investment in the shipbuilding industrial
base. I worry that we can afford all of these programs while fighting a
war in Iraq and manning the force. Do you consider this level of
investment to be sustainable?
Answer. Yes, I believe the defense investment projected in the
President's budget for fiscal year 2005-09 is sustainable. Total
defense funding for these years includes only moderate real growth--
about 2.5 percent per year. Admittedly, we do not know the future costs
of possible military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or for other
contingency operations. But we would not want to allow those possible
costs keep us from prudent investments in the future--especially
investments to develop and field new capabilities most suited to 21st
century threats, most notably terrorism.
CAPTURED ENEMY AMMUNITION IN IRAQ
Question. The Committee provided an additional $165 million in the
fiscal year 2004 supplemental for the disposal effort. In total, the
Defense Department has awarded $285 million in fiscal year 2004
contracts for the demilitarization of captured enemy ammunition in
Iraq.
On my recent trip to Iraq, I was shocked to learn about the number
and size of munitions dumps in the country. I am especially concerned
about the sites that are partially secured. Could you please give us an
update on efforts to secure these sites and dispose of captured enemy
ammunition?
Answer. There are an estimated 600,000 short tons (ST) of munitions
from the Saddam era in Iraq. We have over 6,000 soldiers and
contractors dedicated to securing, transporting, guarding, and
destroying captured enemy munitions. As of June 18, we have located
9,693 weapons caches. Of those, 9,631 weapons caches have been cleared
and 195,141 ST of munitions have been destroyed. There are an
additional 149,861 ST on hand being evaluated to determine the best
disposal methods or their reutilization potential. There are 62 weapons
caches remaining to be cleared, of those 21 are classified as secured
and the remaining 41 are classified as partially secured. Secured
caches have 24 hour coverage by armed guards. Partially secured sites
contain ammunition that is extremely difficult to remove quickly, such
as aircraft ordnance and large caliber ammunition or missiles and are
monitored by periodic patrols, reconnaissance and surveillance.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
RDT&E BUDGET
Question. I believe superior technologies can be applied to better
protect our forces.
To what extent does this budget fund high-energy laser solutions to
problems such as artillery and rocket attack?
Answer. As part of the on-going evaluation of high energy laser
technology for a range of potential missions, the Department of Defense
supports efforts to establish the technical feasibility and demonstrate
the military effectiveness of high energy laser systems in tactical
applications. Specific to the threat posed by artillery and rocket
attack, these efforts include both focused programs and more general
tactical high energy laser technology investigations that are also
relevant to this threat.
The Army continues to support field testing and evaluation of the
ground-based Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL), which is a deuterium
fluoride chemical laser-based high energy laser system jointly
developed and funded with Israel. The THEL system is located at the
High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility at White Sands Missile Range,
NM, and continues to be useful in assessing potential benefits of high-
energy laser systems on the tactical battlefield. Most recently, the
laser successfully detected, acquired, tracked, engaged and destroyed
155 mm artillery rounds fired from a howitzer.
On May 29, 2001, Israel requested the Department of Defense to
support the development of a complete Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser
(MTHEL) prototype by fiscal year 2007. The Army has committed $340.4
million in fiscal year 2004-09 to support the combined MTHEL prototype
development and testing effort. Israel is expected to match the United
States' research and development investment for the laser. The program
objective is to design, develop, fabricate, and test a working
prototype weapon system by fiscal year 2007 based on demonstrated high
energy deuterium fluoride (DF) chemical laser technology. MTHEL will be
the first mobile, integrated Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) system
capable of acquiring, tracking, engaging and destroying rocket,
artillery, and mortar (RAM) projectiles, unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs), cruise missiles, and theater ballistic missiles. No fielded
capability currently exists to counter the RAM threat. This prototype,
as the HEL pathfinder system, will enable the Army to develop an
operational understanding of the tactics, techniques and procedures
(TTPs) necessary to effectively employ this new weapon class. Results
of the prototype testing in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 will
be used to develop the pathway for future HEL weapon systems' evolution
into the Army's emerging Enhanced Area Air Defense System (EAADS).
Army, Air Force, and HEL Joint Technology Office S&T funding
supports the development and demonstration of enabling technologies to
provide options for improved performance, better efficiency, lighter
weight, lower costs, and improved operational suitability for future
tactical HEL systems. A significant initiative ($39.4 million in fiscal
year 2004-05) is the on-going Joint High Power Solid-State Laser
Program (jointly funded by the HEL Joint Technology Office, the Air
Force, and the Army), which has a goal to demonstrate laser power
scaling to 25 kW for three different technical approaches within the
next year and longer-term scaling to the 100 kW level. Development and
demonstration efforts are also addressing critical technologies for
tactical beam control, HEL optical components, and tactical target
effects and vulnerability assessment.
Question. What resources does this budget provide for new
technologies to help detect improvised explosive devices that have
killed and maimed too many of our troops?
Answer. Most of our efforts to date in developing technologies to
detect improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have resulted from internal
reprogramming actions and requests for supplemental funding. To date we
have invested about $10 million in technologies intended for IED
detection, with most of the efforts targeted to detecting changes in
the ground where IEDs are buried or in detecting concealed weapons such
as suicide bombers or vehicle-borne explosives. Specific project
details are classified and have been presented in closed forums.
Organizationally, the Force Protection Working Group and the Combating
Terrorism Technology Task Force are working directly with
representatives from the Central Command and Special Operations Command
to examine technology alternatives to address immediate operational
needs to support the Global War on Terrorism.
Within the Military Services, the Army's Rapid Equipment Force
(REP) and Army IED Task Force are helping focus Army investments in
detecting IEDs. Specifically, the IED Task Force focuses on counter IED
Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, and compiles and disseminates
``Blue'' counter-IED TTPs and corresponding ``Red'' TTPs through their
cell at the Center For Army Lessons Learned. This TF maintains an
extensive classified website of TTPs and has recently produced an IED
training module. In addition, the Army continues to investigate
improved methods for Airborne IED/Mine Detection, with funding to
improve change detection software, cueing algorithms, and
identification of sensors that provide high resolution imagery at
typical aircraft (manned and unmanned) altitudes.
In deploying the 1MEF to Iraq, the Navy and Marine Corps are
currently reprogramming funds to deal with detection and defeat of
IEDs. In addition, the Navy is initiating a network-centric effort to
provide forces the means to detect, classify, and locate IEDs and other
tactical threats; and an initiative to exploit the properties of the
terahertz band for detection of IEDs. The goal is to achieve sufficient
precision, low false-alarm rate, and stand-off distance to permit
deployment of tactically useful countermeasures to IEDs and related
threats.
The Counter Bomb/Counter Bomber (CB\2\) Advanced Concept Technology
Demonstration (ACTD) program will develop and assesses technologies
that can be deployed in a layered system of countermeasures that
assess, detect, identify, and mitigate the terrorist threat from an
IED. The threat operations of interest for this ACTD include human-
carried, vehicle-delivered, and leave-behind explosives.
Question. Finally, the urban environment of Iraq exposes our
personnel to the danger of snipers. Do you agree that new anti-sniper
systems that take advantage of high-energy laser and other cutting-edge
technologies should be a high priority?
Answer. There are a number of counter-sniper technologies being
assessed within the Department, including acoustic, infrared (IR), and
laser capabilities. Experience indicates the effectiveness of these
systems is driven by terrain and environmental conditions, with
fielding options based on operational scenarios. For example:
--The Naval Research Laboratory VIPER system detects the unique IR
signature of a muzzle blast and permits the precision location
of the source of gunfire. The gun may be fired on or off axis
with respect to the sensor. Gun firings within closed
structures having windows and in partially obscured
environments can also be detected. Detection and location is
limited to line of sight. A directed video sensor permits
zooming in on the firing location.
--The Overwatch Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration will
demonstrate an operational sensor and targeting system's
capability to detect, classify and accurately locate direct
fire weapons in real-time and transmit that information to a
command and control element in support of ground forces
operating in urban and complex terrain. The sensor targeting
system will provide a capability to ground forces to improve
target acquisition, detect multiple types of weapons firing,
locate snipers in real time, and decrease counterfire reaction
time.
--The Air Force Research Laboratory's Battlefield Optical
Surveillance System, or BOSS, is a grouping of lasers, optics,
sensors and communications equipment mounted on a High Mobility
Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle. While initially envisioned as a
mobile counter sniper platform, BOSS has evolved into a working
concept of a covert surveillance/detection system with the
ability to visibly--or invisibly--designate a battlefield
threat. BOSS utilizes forward looking infrared, an IR camera
illuminator to light up an area of interest, a visible laser to
designate a threatening individual, and a microwave relay to
transmit data to a command post.
--The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate is developing a new
concept that uses pulsed electromagnetic energy in the optical
spectrum to distract, deter and dissuade an adversary from
extended range. The object of the Pulsed Energy Projectile
(PEP) program is to develop and demonstrate the technology
necessary to produce a crew served, counter personnel non-
lethal directed energy weapon providing controllable bio-
effects to deter, disable, and distract individuals. The device
directs an invisible induced plasma pulse at a target that will
create a flash-bang near the intended target.
STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT
Question. Questions remain about the role of U.S. military forces
that will still be in Iraq after the transfer of sovereignty.
Can you describe status of forces agreement that will dictate how
our troops will be able to operate in Iraq after June 30th?
Answer. During the period of the Iraqi Interim Government (June 30,
2004 until the election of a Transitional National Assembly no later
than January 31, 2005), U.S. forces will operate under current
authorities, i.e., U.N. Security Council Resolution 1511 and Coalition
Provisional Authority Order 17. After the election of the Assembly, we
expect to negotiate the role and status of United States and other
multinational forces with the Iraqi Transitional Government that will
be formed by the Assembly.
In addition to these authorities, the new Interim Government has
already stated its understanding that multinational forces must remain
in Iraq until Iraqi security forces can assume their full
responsibilities.
Question. Does the agreement provide adequate protections for our
service personnel should disputes arise over the propriety of their
actions?
Answer. The current authorities, under which United States and
other multinational forces will operate until early 2005, provide
adequate protection. We will require the same level of protection in
the agreement we will negotiate with the Iraqi Transitional Government.
CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION
Question. I believe the Department must increase the top-line
funding for chemical demilitarization in order to keep its commitment
to the citizens who reside near America's chemical weapons stockpiles.
Neither my constituents nor I will tolerate continued mismanagement and
under funding of the efforts to get rid of these chemical stockpiles.
Please explain why the Department of Defense cut funding for
chemical demilitarization despite the Department's directive, signed by
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology
Pete Aldridge, for acceleration of demilitarization of chemical
weapons. Is the Aldridge directive in effect, and where does the
Department stand on maintaining its schedule for destruction of
chemical stockpiles?
Answer. The Department realigned funds in its fiscal year 2005
request to help ensure we meet the Chemical Weapons Convention extended
45 percent destruction deadline of December 2007. When the previous
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics,
USD (AT&L), directed the Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons
Alternatives (PM ACWA) to accelerate the destruction of the Pueblo,
Colorado, chemical weapons stockpile, this was based on PM ACWA
pursuing four recommended acceleration options: (1) an accelerated
contract award; (2) an expedited permitting approach; (3) enhanced
reconfiguration of the assembled chemical munitions; and (4) offsite
treatment of secondary wastes. The first two acceleration options were
fully implemented and have reduced time and generated a cost avoidance
during this phase of the project. However, Colorado state regulators
indicated they require a separate permit for enhanced reconfiguration,
therefore eliminating the acceleration benefits of option (3).
Additionally, the Colorado Citizens Advisory Committee, in its capacity
as the voice for the Pueblo community, for the most part rejected
option (4). PM ACWA is therefore no longer pursuing these two
acceleration options. Regardless, the USD (AT&L) direction remains in
effect. Other acceleration options are always welcome for
consideration; however any option which requires additional resources,
such as major design changes, must also be validated by the Department.
The Department will continue to make every effort to comply with the
Chemical Weapons Convention destruction deadline requirements.
Question. The Department's cuts to the ACWA program have the
potential to slow demilitarization at certain sites by roughly a year.
How can the Department claim to support accelerate clean up while at
the same time cannibalizing the ACWA budget to pay for mismanagement
and cost overruns at incineration sites?
Answer. The Department realigned funds in its fiscal year 2005
request to help ensure we meet the Chemical Weapons Convention extended
45 percent destruction deadline of December 2007. Meanwhile, the full
effects of this internal realignment on the Pueblo Chemical Agent-
Destruction Pilot Plant (PCAPP) project have yet to be quantified.
While design and construction of the process building may be delayed,
efforts are underway to begin construction of the support buildings.
Additionally, a recent analysis has found there are viable design
concept options less costly than the current design concept that can
complete destruction of the Pueblo chemical weapons stockpile by the
same time.
Question. Please explain why the Department cut the budget for
chemical demilitarization between the fiscal year 2005 estimate and the
submission of the fiscal year 2005 budget to Congress.
Answer. The Department did not cut the fiscal year 2005 budget. The
Chemical Demilitarization Program fiscal year 2005 estimate was
$1,456,876,000, and the overall fiscal year 2005 submission was
$1,453,876,000. Due to the concerns of the House and Senate
Authorization Committees that all funds for the Chemical
Demilitarization Program should be appropriated in a Defense-wide
account, the Department realigned the Military Construction request to
a separate DOD-wide account. Accordingly, $81.9 million was submitted
in the Chem Demil Construction, Defense account. Also, $3 million was
decremented in the fiscal year 2005 submission due to non-pay inflation
adjustments. Therefore, the difference between the two submissions was
$3 million.
Question. Please explain why the department transferred $147
million in funding from the ACWA program to fund cost overruns at the
Office of Elimination of Chemical Weapons' incineration sites?
Answer. While preparing the fiscal year 2005 President's Budget,
the Department moved $147 million of unexecutable funds from the ACWA
Program research and development budget activity to cover shortfalls in
other areas of the Chemical Demilitarization Program to help ensure we
meet the Chemical Weapons Convention extended 45 percent destruction
deadline of December 2007. This was not a punitive action and not
intended or expected to slow down our demilitarization actions at
Pueblo. Sufficient funds will be available in fiscal year 2005 to
proceed with the Pueblo effort, to include $45 million for Military
Construction projects.
Question. One of the great successes of the ACWA program has been
the robust involvement of the local community. ACWA's efforts to reach
out to local leaders and citizens have invested them in the project at
BGAD and help to build an unprecedented amount of trust in the Chemical
Demilitarization program. Why, then, am I hearing talk of cutting
funding to the citizen involvement programs underway at stockpile
communities such as the Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board
in Kentucky?
Answer. The Department has no intention of cutting funding to the
Citizens Advisory Commissions (CACs) in any of the eight states
possessing chemical weapons stockpiles. The Department is required to
provide this funding under section 172(g) of Public law 102-484, and
fully intends to continue to comply.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
Question. It is more important now than ever that Iraqis see other
Iraqis in military positions and other areas of law enforcement. Would
you provide this subcommittee with an update on progress in training
the Iraqi Police Force, the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps and the Iraqi
Army? Are you finding that you have adequate facilities, equipment and
resources to precede with this training and then transition them into
operational forces?
Answer. The Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-
I), commanded by LTG Dave Petraeus, in coordination with the Iraqi MOI
and MOD, is responsible for manning, training, equipping, mentoring and
certifying the Iraqi Security Forces. Training, equipping and mentoring
programs are being aggressively implemented to develop internal and
external Iraqi security force capability.
As of July 25, 2004, the Iraq Security Forces (ISF) is gradually
and steadily developing increased capability to assume internal
security responsibility. Forces under the Minister of Interior include
the Iraqi Police Service (IPS) and the Department of Border Enforcement
(DBE). Thirty percent of the 89,000 man IPS have completed either an 8
week basic course for new recruits, at the Jordan International Police
Training Center or the Baghdad Police Service Academy, or the three
week Transition Integration Program (TIP) for veteran officers,
accomplished in provincial training facilities. Advanced training being
accomplished at the IPS Adnon Training Facility in Baghdad includes
Leadership and Criminal Investigation as well as specialty courses for
the Emergency Response Unit and Counter-Terrorism Unit. Equipment,
including weapons, body armor, communications and vehicles is being
delivered at a steady pace.
The Department of Border Enforcement is manned at 85 percent of the
desired end state. Equipment and training similar to the IPS programs
is being provided to the Iraqi Border Patrol (IBP) of the DBE.
Infrastructure improvements to border forts are also progressing with
contracts let to rebuild Class A and B entry and denial points along
the Syrian, Saudi and Iranian borders.
Under the current plan, 100 percent of the training required to man
the MOI forces will be completed by June 2005. Equipment deliveries
should be completed by April 2005.
Under the Ministry of Defense (MOD), the Iraqi Civil Defense Force
has been renamed as the Iraqi National Guard (ING). There are 45 ING
Battalions operational, with 40 manned at over 75 percent of personnel
requirements. As with the MOI forces, ING equipment is flowing
steadily. All 45 Battalions will be fully operational by December 2005.
Five of 27 Brigades of the Iraqi Army (IA) are operational or in
training, including the 1st Brigade of the Iraqi Intervention Force
(IIF) currently operating in Baghdad. The IIF was created to conduct
internal security tasking after the events of April and May 2004 in
Fallujah and the Center South. Equipment is delivered to the IA
battalions as they complete training. Under the current schedule, 27
Battalions of the IA will be operational by February 2005.
The Iraqi Coastal Defense Force (ICDF) has recruited 71 percent of
the required manning and is equipped with 5 patrol boats and 10 Rigid
Hull Inflatable Boats (RHIBs). They are currently conducting supervised
daytime operations. They are on track for full operational capability
by October 2005.
The Iraqi Air Force will consist of a reconnaissance squadron, a C-
130 transport squadron and a UH-1 Huey helicopter squadron. Training is
underway or completed for 23 percent of the pilots and mechanics. Two
Seeker reconnaissance aircraft have been purchased and will be
operational by September 2004.
MNSTC-I is aggressively ensuring that Iraqis take responsibility
for developing the capability of their own forces. MNSTC-I, in
coordination with the Chief of Mission, provides mentoring to the
staffs of the Iraqi Joint Headquarters (JHQ), the MOD and the MOI to
develop command and control capability and implement Iraqi policy for
employment of the ISF. As C\2\ capability grows, combined with the
ongoing ISF training and equipping programs, the Interim Iraqi
Government (IIG) will be able to assume control of security
responsibilities at the local, then provincial, then national level
supported in the background by the Coalition. Finally, NATO has agreed
to provide additional training resources to the IIG. MNFI is
coordinating with NATO to determine the breadth and scope of that
assistance.
Question. Last year, the Air Force proposed a $21 billion lease of
100 Boeing 767's, which would be converted to KC-767 tankers. The Air
Force and conference reached a compromise last year, included in the
Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Authorization Act, allowing the Air Force to
lease 20 tankers from Boeing and buy 80 under a traditional procurement
program. However, negotiations for a final contract were put on hold at
the end of 2003, pending the outcome of the DOD Inspector General
investigation. Exactly where are we now in respect to the KC-767 tanker
issue and what is the plan moving forward?
Answer. In response to the tasking of the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, and associated with the hold on the proposed 767 Tanker Lease/
Buy, the results of three studies have been provided to the Department.
The studies are: The Aerial Refueling Defense Science Board (DSB) Task
Force Study; the Analysis of Lessons Learned from the United States Air
Force Tanker Lease Program (TLP)-Industrial College of the Armed
Forces/National Defense University (ICAF/NDU); and the DOD Inspector
General Audit Report, ``Acquisition of the Boeing KC-767A Tanker
Aircraft.'' All three studies recommended that the Department readdress
how it implements and controls innovative acquisition processes,
including leasing. In light of this, the Acting USD(AT&L) directed the
President, DAU chair a working group to formulate recommendations based
on the results of these three studies that will result in changes to
the DOD 5000 Series, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)/Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFAR), and other acquisition related
documents. Recommendations are due to USD(AT&L) not later than
September 1, 2004. In addition, an Analysis of Alternatives for Tanker
Recapitalization and the ongoing Mobility Capabilities Study have been
accelerated. The overall goal of these efforts is to more fully
understand the tanker requirements and options for meeting those
requirements, before recapitalizing the tanker fleet.
Question. This year, eight active duty, eight Air Force Reserve,
and 18 Air National Guard units provided 1,300 tanker sorties
offloading more than 32 million pounds of fuel for missions related to
Operation Noble Eagle (ONE). Last year, the Air Force brought personnel
and materiel into Iraq and Afghanistan via 7,410 sorties. Over 4,100
passengers and 487 tons of cargo were moved by airmen operating at
various Tanker Airlift Control elements in and around Afghanistan. Are
you finding that you're tactical and strategic airlift capabilities
adequate? Are tactical and strategic airlift funded adequately in the
fiscal year 2005 budget?
Answer. Tactical airlift capabilities as a whole are adequate to
prosecute the national defense strategy. Moderate areas of concern
still exist such as aircraft survivability in current and future
dynamic environments. However, fleet capability is currently adequate.
Strategic airlift capabilities present a different picture. The Air
Force can provide enough capability to meet the limited requirements
mentioned in your question, but lacks the capacity to fully prosecute
the national defense strategy. Given fiscal realities, the fiscal year
2005 budget adequately addresses the capability shortfall and a roadmap
is in place to improve. Finally, the Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS)
due for release in fiscal year 2005 will update the airlift
requirements.
Question. Can you give me an idea of when the Strategic
Capabilities Assessment (SCA) will be completed?
Answer. The term ``Strategic Capabilities Assessment'' refers to a
planned, periodic review of progress in implementing the findings of
the December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review. The first of the planned
reviews was completed earlier this spring. The draft results are still
being reviewed by senior DOD officials.
______
Questions Submitted to General Richard B. Myers
Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
CAPTURED ENEMY AMMUNITION IN IRAQ
Question. Over 770,000 short tons of enemy ammunition have been
discovered in Iraq. Continued finds could increase the total number to
over 1 million short tons.
The captured ammunition is stored at 72 sites throughout the
country. Of these sites, there are 23 secured sites and 49 partially
secured sites. A secured site is defined as having a 24/7 Coalition
presence. Partially secured is defined as periodic patrolling/
surveillance and either fenced or bermed.
It has been reported and confirmed that weapons, ammunition and
explosives at many partially secured ammo dumps are easily available to
enemy combatants that has the means to load and transport them.
The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for processing and
demilitarizing captured ammunition in Iraq. Security is their top
priority. They plan to have all ammo secured by the end of September.
The Corps of Engineers is safely disposing of approximately 600 tons
per day. Under the best case scenario, it will take three years to
complete the disposal process.
The Committee provided an additional $165 million in the fiscal
year 2004 supplemental for the disposal effort. In total, the Defense
Department has awarded $285 million in fiscal year 2004 contracts for
the demilitarization of captured enemy ammunition in Iraq.
Soldiers and Marines are uncovering new weapons caches on almost a
daily basis. How are you securing and disposing of these recently
captured munitions?
Answer. Since January 1, 2004, we have found 2,281 weapons caches.
Those weapons caches are evaluated based on the type and quantity of
munitions. The most dangerous munitions, such as rocket-propelled
grenades, mortar and artillery rounds (used for making improvised
explosive devices) and surface to air missiles are transported to six
depots for safe secure storage and eventual destruction. There is one
depot per divisional sector. Munitions that are deemed unsafe or
potentially booby trapped are destroyed at the site of discovery.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
HOMELAND SECURITY
Question. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the National
Guard and Reserves have played an integral role in securing the
homeland. This has been particularly important to border states like
New Mexico where terrorist infiltration is a constant concern.
General Myers, do you expect that the National Guard will maintain
significant border protection responsibilities?
Answer. No. Our National Guard troops were only used in the
aftermath of the 9/11 attacks as a stopgap measure. There is no long-
term plan to engage them in border security operations. Border security
is not the primary responsibility of the military.
Question. What new roles and missions (such as UAV operations) will
they be assuming to enhance border protection?
Answer. The National Guard will not be engaged in border protection
operations.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Stevens. We appreciate your concern. And, again, we
generally thank you. I mean, you've taken a lot of time with us
today. Did you know that every member of this subcommittee was
here and asked questions of you? And that's probably a record
for this subcommittee on these wrap-up hearings that we have.
Yes, as Senator Inouye says, it's the first time they all
came for the wrap-up.
Thank you very much.
General Myers. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Senator
Inouye.
Secretary Rumsfeld. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., Wednesday, May 12, 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
Air Force Sergeants Association, Prepared Statement of the....... 569
American Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statement of the.... 573
Armen, Harry, President-elect, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers...................................................... 511
Prepared Statement of........................................ 513
Baggeroer, Arthur B., Massachusetts Institute of Technology on
behalf of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and
Education...................................................... 460
Prepared Statement of........................................ 462
Barnes, Master Chief Joseph L., USN (ret.), National Executive
Secretary, Fleet Reserve Association........................... 454
Prepared Statement of........................................ 456
Benge, Seth Allan, Legislative Director, Reserve Enlisted
Association on behalf of the National Military Veterans
Alliance....................................................... 515
Prepared Statement of........................................ 516
Blum, Lieutenant General H. Steven, Chief, National Guard Bureau,
Department of Defense.......................................... 215
Prepared Statement of........................................ 221
Questions Submitted to....................................... 271
Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 629
Statement of................................................. 216
Bramson, James B., D.D.S., Executive Director, American Dental
Associa-
tion........................................................... 528
Prepared Statement of........................................ 530
Brannon, Major General Barbara C., Assistant Air Force Surgeon
General, Nursing Services, Medical Programs, Department of
Defense........................................................ 410
Prepared Statement of........................................ 412
Brownlee, Hon. Les, Acting Secretary of the Army, Department of
the Army, Department of Defense................................ 39
Prepared Statement of........................................ 44
Questions Submitted to....................................... 86
Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator From Montana:
Prepared Statements of........................19, 72, 169, 217, 317
Questions Submitted by................................272, 273, 671
Statement of................................................. 317
Butler, Benjamin H., Legislative Director, National Association
for Uniformed Services......................................... 506
Prepared Statement of........................................ 508
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
Statement of................................................... 3
Cartwright, Lieutenant General James E., U.S. Marine Corps, J-8,
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense................... 1
Chu, Dr. David S., Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness), Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense..... 577
Clark, Admiral Vernon, Chief of Naval Operations, Department of
the Navy, Department of Defense................................ 105
Prepared Statement of........................................ 108
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 217
Questions Submitted by.....................................165, 343
Statement of................................................. 90
Cotton, Vice Admiral John G., Chief, Naval Reserve, Department of
Defense........................................................ 287
Prepared Statement of........................................ 288
Cowan, Vice Admiral Michael L., Surgeon General, United States
Navy, Medical Programs, Department of Defense.................. 358
Prepared Statement of........................................ 360
Questions Submitted to....................................... 425
Daly, Petty Officer 1st Class Kyle, United States Naval Sea Cadet
Corps.......................................................... 533
Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico,
Questions Submitted by................86, 87, 163, 213, 214, 668, 673
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
Submitted by.................................................422, 425
England, Hon. Gordon R., Secretary, United States Navy,
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.................. 89
Prepared Statement of........................................ 92
Questions Submitted to....................................... 163
Summary Statement of......................................... 91
Evans, David on behalf of Illinois Neurofibromatosis, Inc........ 498
Prepared Statement of........................................ 500
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 334
Questions Submitted by................................424, 426, 427
Foil, Martin B., Jr., Member, Board of Directors, National Brain
Injury Research, Treatment, & Training Foundation (NBIRTT)..... 520
Prepared Statement of........................................ 521
Galloway, Kenneth F., Dean, School of Engineering, and Professor
of Electrical Engineering, Vanderbilt University on behalf of
the Association of American Universities....................... 450
Prepared Statement of........................................ 451
Gregg, Senator Judd, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 86
Gustke, Colonel Deborah A., Assistant Chief, Army Nurse Corps,
Medical Programs, Department of Defense........................ 396
Prepared Statement of........................................ 398
Hagee, General Michael W., Commandant, United States Marine
Corps, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense........... 122
Biographical Sketch of....................................... 139
Prepared Statement of........................................ 124
Question Submitted to........................................ 165
Hall, Howard R., Vice President, Joslin Diabetes Center.......... 441
Prepared Statement of........................................ 442
Hanson, Captain Marshall, United States Naval Reserve (ret.),
Chairman, Associations for America's Defense (A4AD)............ 492
Prepared Statement of........................................ 493
Helmly, Lieutenant General James R., Chief, Army Reserve,
Department of Defense.......................................... 275
Prepared Statement of........................................ 276
Henry, Heather French, Miss America 2000 on behalf of the
National Prostate Cancer Coalition............................. 540
Prepared Statement of........................................ 542
Hurd, Captain Robert C., United States Navy (ret.), Congressional
Liaison, United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps................... 533
Prepared Statement of........................................ 535
Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 40
Statement of................................................. 40
Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii:
Prepared Statements of............................58, 168, 219, 316
Questions Submitted by.....................................271, 345
Statements of....................2, 57, 90, 168, 218, 316, 348, 578
James, Lieutenant General Daniel, III, Director, Air National
Guard, National Guard Bureau, Department of Defense............ 257
Prepared Statement of........................................ 238
Questions Submitted to....................................... 273
Jumper, General John P., Chief of Staff, Department of the Air
Force, Department of Defense................................... 167
Questions Submitted to....................................... 214
Statement of................................................. 195
Kadish, Lieutenant General Ronald T., U.S. Air Force, Director,
Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense.................. 315
Prepared Statement of........................................ 319
Statement of................................................. 318
Lanzillotta, Lawrence, Comptroller, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Defense.......................................... 577
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
Questions Submitted by.....................................272, 420
Statements of..............................................217, 349
Lescavage, Rear Admiral Nancy J., Director, Navy Nurse Corps,
Medical Programs, Department of Defense........................ 403
Prepared Statement of........................................ 405
McCarthy, Lieutenant General Dennis M., Commander, Marine Forces
Reserve, Department of Defense................................. 293
Prepared Statement of........................................ 294
McIntosh, Major General Robert A., United States Air Force
Reserve (ret.), Executive Director, Reserve Officers
Association of the United States............................... 466
Prepared Statement of........................................ 467
McKibban, Tom L., Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, MS,
President, American Association of Nurse Anesthetists.......... 473
Prepared Statement of........................................ 474
Myers, General Richard B., Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff, Office
of the Secretary, Department of Defense........................ 577
Prepared Statement of........................................ 595
Questions Submitted to....................................... 673
Statement of................................................. 593
Odom, Dr. Jerome, Provost, University of South Carolina on behalf
of the Coalition of EPSCoR States.............................. 553
Prepared Statement of........................................ 554
Peake, Lieutenant General James B., Surgeon General, United
States Army, Medical Programs, Department of Defense........... 347
Prepared Statement of........................................ 352
Questions Submitted to....................................... 420
Puzon, Captain Ike, United States Naval Reserve (ret.), Director
of Legislation, Naval Reserve Association...................... 546
Prepared Statement of........................................ 547
Raezer, Joyce Wessel, Director, Government Relations, the
National Military Family Association........................... 479
Prepared Statement of........................................ 480
Roche, Hon. James G., Secretary, Department of the Air Force,
Department of Defense.......................................... 167
Prepared Statement of........................................ 178
Question Submitted to........................................ 213
Rubin, Janet, M.D., on behalf of the National Coalition for
Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases......................... 437
Prepared Statement of........................................ 438
Rumsfeld, Hon. Donald H., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Defense.......................................... 577
Prepared Statement of........................................ 583
Questions Submitted to....................................... 667
Sager, Christopher, Ph.D., on behalf of the American
Psychological Association...................................... 445
Prepared Statement of........................................ 446
Schoomaker, General Peter T., Chief of Staff, United States Army,
Department of the Army, Department of Defense.................. 39
Prepared Statement of........................................ 44
Questions Submitted to....................................... 87
Schultz, Lieutenant General Roger C., Director, Army National
Guard, National Guard Bureau, Department of Defense............ 256
Prepared Statement of........................................ 224
Questions Submitted to....................................... 272
Schwartz, Sue, R.N., Chairperson, Health Care Committee, The
Military Coalition............................................. 429
Prepared Statement of........................................ 431
Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama, Statement
of............................................................. 316
Sherrard, Lieutenant General James E., III, Chief, Air Force
Reserve, Department of Defense................................. 300
Prepared Statement of........................................ 302
Smith, Melanie K., Director, Public Policy and Advocacy, Lymphoma
Research Foundation............................................ 488
Prepared Statement of........................................ 490
Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
Opening Statements of...........1, 89, 167, 215, 315, 347, 429, 577
Prepared Statement of........................................ 167
Questions Submitted by................................341, 667, 673
Statement of................................................. 39
Sullivan, Major General Paul J., Vice Chief, National Guard
Bureau, Department of Defense, Prepared Statement of........... 247
Taylor, Lieutenant General George Peach, Jr., Surgeon General,
United States Air Force, Medical Programs, Department of
Defense........................................................ 372
Prepared Statement of........................................ 375
Questions Submitted to....................................... 427
The American Legion, Prepared Statement of....................... 562
Visco, Fran, J.D., President, National Breast Cancer Coalition... 557
Prepared Statement of........................................ 558
Zakheim, Hon. Dov S., Ph.D., Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), Department of Defense........................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 7
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Page
Army Aviation Procurement........................................ 26
Budget........................................................... 25
Caches of Arms................................................... 21
Costs of Occupation of Iraq...................................... 17
Doing Right by Our People........................................ 8
Estimated Costs of War........................................... 17
Exit Plan........................................................ 14
Force:
Protection................................................... 8
Structure.................................................... 21
Funding:
Conflicts.................................................... 16
The Global War on Terrorism..................................
Haiti............................................................ 12
HMMWV............................................................ 10
IFF.............................................................. 27
Iraq Reconstruction Funding...................................... 31
Needed Enhanced Authorities...................................... 7
Operational:
Post-handover Numbers........................................ 36
Support...................................................... 34
Outlays.......................................................... 24
Provincial Reconstruction Teams.................................. 33
Retention of Troops.............................................. 20
Rotation of Forces............................................... 29
Shipbuilding..................................................... 15
Temporary Strength Increases..................................... 12
Transforming How DOD Does Business............................... 9
TRICARE for Guard and Reserves................................... 13
Department of the Air Force
Additional Committee Questions................................... 213
Aerospace Expeditionary Force.................................... 196
Air and Space Dominance in a New Environment..................... 181
Airborne Laser................................................... 206
B-1.............................................................. 174
B-2............................................................174, 202
B-52...........................................................173, 202
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)............................201, 203
Boeing Corporation............................................... 200
Bombers.......................................................... 173
C-9As............................................................ 209
C-17...........................................................174, 205
C-40s............................................................ 208
Columbus Air Force Base.......................................... 205
Developing Airmen--Right People, Right Place, Right Time......... 187
End Strength..................................................... 200
Ensuring America's Future Air and Space Dominance................ 187
F-117 Stealth Fighter..........................................213, 214
F/A-22...............................................170, 199, 203, 210
Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request.................................. 178
Global Hawk...............................................176, 203, 206
Guard and Reserve.........................................197, 204, 209
Integrating Operations........................................... 193
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)....................................... 212
F-35......................................................... 172
Missile Warning Receiver......................................... 211
Operation Iraqi Freedom.......................................... 175
Predator......................................................... 176
Recruiting and Retention......................................... 198
Securing America's Next Horizon.................................. 195
Space Programs................................................... 198
Space-based Radar................................................ 212
Supersonic Training Study........................................ 214
Supplemental Appropriations...................................... 178
Tanker Fleet..................................................... 202
Tankers........................................................175, 198
Technology to Warfighting........................................ 190
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles......................................... 175
Department of the Army
A Commitment to Our Nation....................................... 57
Add-on Armor.....................................................69, 82
Kits for the HMMWV........................................... 70
Additional Committee Questions................................... 85
Ammunition Shortages............................................. 81
Armoring Bradley Fighting Vehicles............................... 72
Army:
Aviation..................................................... 64
End Strength................................................. 60
ATIRCM........................................................... 86
Brigade Units of Action.......................................... 63
Calibration Sets (CALSET) Requirements........................... 65
Comanche Termination............................................. 82
Core Competencies................................................ 47
Future Combat system (FCS).......................................66, 74
Health Usage Monitoring System (HUMS)............................82, 83
Improvised Explosive Devices (IED)...............................74, 87
MEADS Reprogramming.............................................. 80
Miniature Kill Vehicle........................................... 79
National Guard Aviation Modernization............................ 71
Patriot Advanced Capability--Phase 3 (PAC-3) Medium Extended Air
Defense System (MEADS) Reprogramming........................... 79
Post-traumatic Stress Treatment.................................. 83
Recruiting and Retention.........................................63, 87
Reserve Component:
Deployments.................................................. 67
Recruitment and Retention.................................... 68
Training and Equipment....................................... 73
Reset........................................................64, 65, 77
Rotation of Troops............................................... 70
Science and Technology (S&T)..................................... 86
Funding...................................................... 78
Stop Loss........................................................ 67
Stryker.......................................................... 66
Supplemental Budget Request......................................69, 75
Theater Support Vehicles......................................... 81
Traveling Army Art Exhibit....................................... 77
Traveling Army Exhibit on Integration............................ 76
2004 Army Posture Statement Executive Summary.................... 45
UAV Procurement.................................................. 80
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles......................................... 80
Department of the Navy
Additional Committee Questions................................... 163
Advanced Radar Technology........................................ 157
Airspace Availability for Training............................... 153
Amputee Medical Treatment........................................ 158
Body Armor....................................................... 158
Building on Success for:
Immediate Operations......................................... 125
The Future................................................... 130
CG(X)............................................................ 156
CY 2003 Operational Successes (A Nation at War).................. 93
DD(X)............................................................ 141
End Strength..................................................... 143
Reductions................................................... 141
Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Priorities--Underway With Naval Power 21. 92
Fleet Response Plan.............................................. 139
Forcible Entry................................................... 144
Global Hawk...................................................... 161
Improvised Explosive Device (IED)................................ 153
Information Paper................................................ 147
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).....................................142, 164
Large Deck Amphibious Ships Replacement.......................... 146
LHA(R) and Shipbuilding Industrial Base.......................... 146
Lightweight 155 Howitzer Program................................. 161
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)....................................... 151
M4 Carbines...................................................... 165
Maritime Norad Capability........................................ 159
Missile Defense.................................................. 149
MK45............................................................. 154
Navy and Marine Corps:
In Transformation (Future Readiness)......................... 99
Today (Current Readiness).................................... 94
Navy High Energy Laser Testing................................... 163
Our Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request.............................. 112
Our Main Effort--Excellence in Warfighting....................... 132
Our Total Force (Sailors, Marines, and Civilians)................ 102
Recruitment and Retention........................................ 152
Seabees.......................................................... 160
Ship Force Structure............................................. 144
Shipbuilding Program............................................. 150
Submarine Force Structure........................................ 143
Supplemental Funding............................................. 157
Taking Care of Our Own........................................... 126
Tilt-Rotor Pilot Training........................................ 147
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)................................... 159
Uparmored Humvees................................................ 161
V-22............................................................. 140
Water Purification Program....................................... 163
Your Navy Today--Projecting Decisive Joint Power Across the Globe 108
Your Navy Tomorrow--Accelerating Our Advantages.................. 110
Medical Programs
Additional Committee Questions................................... 420
Aeromedical Evacuation.........................................374, 410
Blood Substitutes................................................ 422
Budget........................................................... 381
Closure of U.S. Naval Hospital Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico...... 369
Combat Medicine.................................................. 374
Core Competencies................................................ 352
Current Deployments.............................................. 352
Defense Health Budget for Fiscal Year 2004....................... 368
Dental Research................................................423, 425
Deployment Medicine.............................................. 361
E-Health......................................................... 369
Education........................................................ 416
And Training................................................. 411
Force Health Protection.......................................... 361
Garrison Care.................................................... 357
Health Care Delivery............................................. 366
Healthy and Medically Protected Soldiers......................... 352
Iraq............................................................. 410
Joint Initiatives................................................ 409
Loan Repayment Programs and Bonuses.............................. 418
Lowest KIA/WIA Ratios............................................ 355
Medical:
And Dental Screening......................................... 389
Personnel Shortages.......................................... 392
Readiness.................................................... 373
Research...................................................370, 389
Mefloquine....................................................... 427
Naval Medical Education and Training Command..................... 364
Naval Medicine and Sea Power 21.................................. 372
Naval Medicine Office of Homeland Security....................... 362
Naval Medicine's People: A Manpower Status....................... 362
Next Generation TRICARE Contracts................................ 380
Non-combat Injuries.............................................. 384
Nursing:
Force Development............................................ 416
Initiatives.................................................. 407
Operation Iraqi Freedom.......................................... 373
Post-deployment Health Assessments............................... 373
Pre and Post Health Assessments.................................. 355
Professional Nursing in Naval Medicine........................... 409
Protective Body Armor Research................................... 385
Readiness........................................................ 356
And Homeland Security........................................ 405
Recruiting....................................................... 411
And Retention.........................................394, 414, 417
Research..................................................408, 411, 415
Reserve Component and National Guard Integration................. 353
Retention........................................................ 411
Skills Sustainment............................................... 414
Surge Capability From Guard and Reserve.......................... 419
The Home Front................................................... 380
The Lasting Wounds of War; Roadside Bombs Have Devastated Troops
and Doctors Who Treat Them..................................... 390
Transition to the:
Department of Veterans Affairs............................... 356
Next Generation of TRICARE Contracts......................... 369
TRICARE.......................................................... 374
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences............. 366
Missile Defense Agency
Additional Committee Questions................................... 341
Advanced Technology Funding...................................... 340
Airborne Laser Program........................................... 342
Ballistic Missile Defense System................................. 320
Research and Development Program............................. 326
BMD Fielding Acceleration........................................ 333
Concurrent Testing............................................... 337
Cost Justification of a BMDS..................................... 336
Development of BMDS Without Adequate Testing..................... 337
Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) Repairs........................ 330
Fort Greely Missile Defense Facilities........................... 342
Ground-based Missile Defense (GMD):
Funding...................................................... 331
Program...................................................... 341
High Altitude Airship............................................ 332
Improving Fielded Capability Through Evolutionary Acquisition.... 323
Initial Defensive Capability--The Beginning...................... 321
International Partnerships....................................... 328
MDA Funding...................................................... 331
Other Budget Highlights.......................................... 327
Responsible and Flexible Management.............................. 329
Rush to Deploy or Postpone?...................................... 338
Scientific, Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA)
Contractors.................................................... 339
Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) and MDA Relationship.... 340
Space Based Sensors--Space Tracking and Surveillance System
(STSS)......................................................... 333
System Readiness and a Rush to Deployment--Why?.................. 335
System Test and Evaluation Planning Analysis..................... 339
Testing Missile Defenses--We Need To Build It To Test It......... 324
World-Class Systems Engineering--The Key Success Factor.......... 329
National Guard Bureau
Additional Committee Questions................................... 271
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).............................. 267
Blended Units.................................................... 270
C-17 Aircraft..................................................258, 261
Employers........................................................ 260
Equipment Backlog................................................ 264
F-16 Fleet....................................................... 273
Fielding of Lighter Weight Howitzers for Montana Army National
Guard.......................................................... 266
Health Insurance................................................. 262
Homeland Defense.....................................222, 230, 241, 251
Homeland Security................................................ 272
Iraq............................................................. 268
KC-135........................................................... 258
Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures.......................... 264
Litening II targeting pods................................265, 273, 274
Operation Iraqi Freedom.......................................... 258
Readiness........................................................ 260
Recruiting....................................................... 259
And Retention................................................ 258
Sniper Pod....................................................... 265
Support the War Fight................................221, 225, 239, 248
Tactical and Strategic Airlift................................... 274
Tankers.......................................................... 259
Training Ranges.................................................. 265
Transformation for the 21st Century..................223, 231, 242, 252
Unmanned Aircrafts............................................... 274
Office of the Secretary
Abuse............................................................ 633
Accomplishments Since 2001....................................... 579
Active and Reserve............................................... 646
Additional Committee Questions................................... 667
Air Force Tanker Lease........................................... 652
Assassination of Nicholas Berg................................... 640
Assistance to Iraq: Grant or Loan?............................... 641
Budgeting for Continuing Operations.............................. 639
Captured Enemy Ammunition in Iraq..............................667, 673
Capturing Osama bin Laden........................................ 662
Chemical Demilitarization........................................ 670
Considerations and Recommendations for Goldwater-Nichols Act..... 606
Contractors...................................................... 627
Control of Private Military Contractors.......................... 624
Conversion of Forces............................................. 650
Current Homeland Defense Operations.............................. 601
Detainee Abuse in Iraq........................................... 644
Detainees and Geneva Conventions................................. 664
DOD Initiatives.................................................. 587
DOD Instructions Consistent With Geneva Conventions.............. 661
Equipment........................................................ 649
Fiscal Year 2004 Fiscal Status................................... 610
Fiscal Year 2005 Reserve Fund.................................... 638
Following the Geneva Conventions................................. 660
Highlights of Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request.................... 581
Homeland Security................................................ 673
Humvees.......................................................... 645
Investigating Reported Abuses.................................... 620
Iraq...........................................................612, 655
Troop Levels...............................................612, 619
Iraqi Debt and Oil for Food Program.............................. 657
Joint Warfighting................................................ 605
Mail Service..................................................... 632
Managing:
Demand on the Force.......................................... 580
Detainees in Iraq............................................ 637
The Force.................................................... 585
Mark Berg........................................................ 620
Mass vs. Capability.............................................. 586
Mobility Requirement Study....................................... 617
OIF and OEF Operations........................................... 597
Other Overseas Operations........................................ 600
Paying War Costs................................................. 646
Performance of Stryker Vehicles.................................. 649
Prisoner Abuses in Iraq.......................................... 659
Probability of Civil War in Iraq................................. 665
Procurement Bow Wave............................................. 667
Quantity of Military Investigations.............................. 652
RDT&E Budget..................................................... 668
Readiness for Future Operations.................................. 602
Rebalancing Active and Reserves Forces........................... 631
Reconstructing Iraq Infrastructure............................... 623
Recruiting and Retention......................................... 652
Reporting on Contracts........................................... 626
Responsibility for Prisons in Iraq............................... 654
Restructuring the Army........................................... 649
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.................................. 635
Security Forces in Iraq.......................................... 623
Shortfall........................................................ 610
Sovereignty...................................................... 656
Special Legislation.............................................. 582
Status of Forces Agreement.....................................653, 670
Stop-loss Policy................................................. 614
Stress on the Guard and Reserve.................................. 616
Structuring the $25 Billion Reserve.............................. 614
Supporting the Global War on Terrorism........................... 581
Taguba Report.................................................... 660
Training Iraqi Security Forces................................... 647
Transfer of Authority in Iraq.................................... 621
Transformation of the U.S. Armed Forces.......................... 607
Troops in Abu Ghraib............................................. 637
2005 Budget...................................................... 589
United Nations and NATO.......................................... 613
Use of Iraqi Assets.............................................. 642
War on Terrorism................................................. 595
Weapons Cache Update............................................. 655
Weapons Caches................................................... 651
Reserves
Accomplishments................................................278, 292
Active and Reserve Integration................................... 312
All-Volunteer Force.............................................. 277
Army Reserve Response............................................ 280
Aviation Element Equipment Priorities............................ 298
Fair Representation and Compensation............................. 301
Fleet Modernization.............................................. 305
Ground Element Equipment Priorities.............................. 297
Growing Contributions............................................ 280
Infrastructure................................................... 298
Joint Reserve Centers............................................ 312
Manpower......................................................... 311
Marine Corps Reserve............................................. 310
Marines and Their Families....................................... 295
Modernization..................................................301, 304
And Transformation........................................... 299
National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation............... 297
Naval Reservists................................................. 310
Navy Reserve Priorities for 2004................................. 289
Personnel........................................................ 309
Preparation for OIF II/OEF V..................................... 297
Readiness........................................................ 301
Recruiting....................................................... 302
And Retention..............................................295, 300
Retention.................................................301, 303, 311
The Challenge.................................................... 277
The Imperative for Change........................................ 280
Your Marine Corps Reserve Today.................................. 294
-