DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington, Chairman 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

PAUL JUOLA, GREG LANKLER, SARAH YOUNG, PAUL TERRY, KRIS MALLARD, ADAM HARRIS, 

ANN REESE, BROOKE BOYER, TIM PRINCE, B G WRIGHT, CHRIS WHITE, 

CELES HUGHES, and ADRIENNE RAMSAY, Staff Assistants 

SHERRY L. YOUNG, and TRACEY LATURNER, Administrative Aides 

PART 3 

Page 

Department of Defense Budget Overview for Fiscal 

Year 2011 ................................................................................ 1 

Army and Marine Corps Ground Equipment ................... 75 

National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve Readiness ........ 153 

National Capital Region ........................................................ 201 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
PART 3—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington, Chairman 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

PAUL JUOLA, GREG LANKLER, SARAH YOUNG, PAUL TERRY, KRIS MALLARD, ADAM HARRIS, 

ANN REESE, BROOKE BOYER, TIM PRINCE, B G WRIGHT, CHRIS WHITE, 

CELES HUGHES, and ADRIENNE RAMSAY, Staff Assistants 

SHERRY L. YOUNG, and TRACEY LATURNER, Administrative Aides 

PART 3 

Page 

Department of Defense Budget Overview for Fiscal 

Year 2011 ................................................................................ 1 

Army and Marine Corps Ground Equipment ................... 75 

National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve Readiness ........ 153 

National Capital Region ........................................................ 201 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

65–009 WASHINGTON : 2011 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2011 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET OVERVIEW FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 

WITNESSES 

HON. ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

ADMIRAL MICHAEL MULLEN, USN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF 

STAFF 

HON. ROBERT HALE, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. The committee will come to order. This morning the 

committee will hold an open hearing on the fiscal year 2011 Department of Defense budget request. We are pleased to welcome 

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, and the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, Robert Hale. 

More than anyone else, this group of people is qualified to speak 

for the Department regarding the content of the Department’s 

budget request for fiscal year 2011. Secretary Gates has taken on 

a leading role in the budget formulation for his Department and 

has employed an extremely inclusive process in the development of 

the 2011 budget. 

Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, Mr. Hale, thank you all for 

being here this morning. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines 

are performing very well in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in many other 

hot spots around the globe. In typical United States Armed Forces 

fashion, despite the conditions they operate under, we hear very 

few complaints from these exceptional personnel. 

However, the members of this committee are very concerned 

about providing the resources and equipment that these men and 

women require to continue to defend our great Nation. As the elected representatives of the citizens of the Nation, we owe it to our 

fellow citizens to ensure that our fathers, mothers, sons, and 

daughters are properly outfitted and cared for as they carry out 

their orders willingly and without question. 

We are looking forward to hearing about how you have chosen 

to recommend allocating the Nation’s precious resources to ensure 

the national security of the United States. From personnel and 

daily operations to equipment procurement and health care, you 

are all charged with an incredible responsibility while serving as 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
2 

the caretakers of the Nation’s Armed Forces. Gentlemen, we look 

forward to your testimony and to an informative question-and-answer session. 

Now, before we hear your testimony, I would like to call on the 

Ranking Member and former Chairman of this subcommittee, my 

good friend Bill Young, for his comments. 

Mr. Young. 

REMARKS OF MR. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I want to 

add my welcome to the Secretary and the Chairman and Under 

Secretary Hale. 

We have a major challenge this year in that there are so many 

things that need to be done. The budget request does not really, in 

my opinion, provide enough to do all of the things that we need to 

do. The budget request could be amended by the time it gets to the 

subcommittee. When the 302(a) allocations are handed down to the 

302(b) levels, we are not exactly sure where we will be, but I am 

satisfied that my friend Mr. Obey will see to it that the necessary 

funds for national defense is made available to the subcommittee. 

We have talked so many, many times, but it is my opinion, and 

I think you all share that, that our defense needs should be based 

on threat; on the missions that we have to perform; on what our 

soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines need in order to conduct the battle; and be based on threat rather than anything political. This 

subcommittee, since I have been a member of it, and that has been 

many, many years, has never been political. 

Mr. DICKS. That is correct. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Dicks and I have worked together for many 

years on a lot of very important issues, as did Mr. Murtha and I. 

Mr. Murtha—he was Chairman, then I was Chairman, then he was 

Chairman, then I was Chairman, then he was Chairman again— 

and we always had just a tremendous working relationship where 

the needs of our military, the needs of our Nation were the priority 

in our minds. 

So we are anxious to hear what you have to say to us today. We 

follow your activities, your visits to the troops on a regular basis, 

and we just appreciate the really good job that you do. As Mr. 

Dicks said, it is important that we make sure that our military, 

that our troops have whatever training they need to do their job, 

whatever equipment that they need to accomplish their mission, 

and whatever the best we can provide them for force protection to 

make sure that they stay as healthy as possible while they are conducting these important missions. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I look forward to 

the witnesses today. 

Mr. DICKS. Well, I appreciate your comments. And I think that 

Secretary Gates has also been at the forefront of trying to meet 

every need and requirement that the troops have. I think of 

MRAPs and body armor and other things. So, Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen, we appreciate your continued leadership and stewardship. 

I would like to call on the Ranking Member of the full committee 

Mr. Obey for any comments he would like to make. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
3 

Mr. OBEY. Did we lose the election? 

Mr. DICKS. Excuse me, the Chairman of the committee Mr. Obey. 

We have not lost it yet. 

REMARKS OF MR. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. We are not going to either. I am used to this kind of 

calumny from the other side of the aisle. 

First of all, I simply would like to take a moment to note that 

this is the first overview hearing with DOD that is chaired by our 

new Chairman Norm Dicks. We are operating at somewhat of a 

disadvantage because he is very inexperienced. He has only been 

on this subcommittee 31 years, so he has a shortage of knowledge 

in terms of the issues at hand. But in all seriousness, I think people understand him to be a serious, dedicated, and tenacious Member of Congress, and I for one have a great deal of confidence in 

him. 

I also have a great deal of confidence in Mr. Young. There is not 

a finer human being in Congress than Bill Young. I am looking forward to watching both of them work together. 

Let me say, since I am going to have to leave in about 20 minutes for another problem-resolving session, I do just want to make 

one point. When the House approved the administration’s request 

for Afghan funding last year, we focused on two things when Mr. 

Murtha was still subcommittee Chairman. We were both hugely 

concerned not so much about the policy that you were trying to follow in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but we were concerned about the 

adequacy of the tools that you had to implement that policy, the 

two tools being the Afghan Government and the Pakistani Government. While we seem to have made some progress on the Pakistani 

side, the government seems to have a new-found determination to 

actually focus on the right threat, nonetheless we have some problems. 

Since I will not be here during the question period, I just want 

to put a series of questions to you now that I hope you will answer 

during the hearing. And then I would appreciate it if you would expand on those answers for the record before we deal with the supplemental. 

We have a request for a significant amount of increased funding 

for the Afghan Police for the training program. We are making a 

lot more progress, it appears to me, on the army side than we are 

on the police side in providing that training. So I would simply appreciate it if you would describe the program that the Department 

of Defense has in place to train the Afghan Army and the police. 

Would you describe the training program as successful to this 

point? Why or why not? Does the low literacy rate among Afghans 

significantly affect the content of the training? And how do we 

overcome that? To what extent do Afghan Security Forces participate in military operations? To what extent do they lead these operations? 

A September 2009 report by DOD inspector general found that 

the NATO training mission in Afghanistan led by General Caldwell 

only had about 51 percent of the field trainers needed to meet current requirements. Is that still the case? Commanders in theater 

indicate that developing indigenous leadership is key to foster unit 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
4 

cohesion, and maintaining discipline, and reducing corruption and 

promoting the operational success of Afghan Security Forces. What 

leadership development training is available for ANA and ANP? 

How long do you anticipate it will take to develop a self-sustaining 

leadership cadre for Afghan Security Forces? And several other 

questions that I do not want to take the time to read right now. 

But we have a serious decision to make coming up very shortly, 

and I think we need to have a full and detailed understanding of 

those issues before we move ahead on the supplemental. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding the time. And 

again, I congratulate you on chairing your first hearing. 

Gentlemen, glad you are here. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Gates. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF SECRETARY GATES

Secretary GATES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Young, members of the committee, first let me offer the committee my condolences with respect to Chairman Murtha. I first started working with Chairman 

Murtha in 1984, 1985, and always had a great working relationship with him. 

I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on your selection. I suppose I should note, as an aside, that virtually all of my 

very many in-laws all live in the Chairman’s district. 

Mr. DICKS. We will treat them very respectfully. 

Secretary GATES. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you to discuss the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2011. 

I first want to thank you for your support of the men and women 

of the United States military these many years. These troops are 

part of an extraordinary generation of young Americans who have 

answered their country’s call. They have fought our wars, protected 

our interests and allies around the globe, and, as we have seen recently in Haiti, they have also demonstrated compassion and decency in the face of incomprehensible loss. 

I have a brief opening statement to provide an overview of the 

budget requests. My submitted statement includes many more details that I know are of interest to the committee. The requests 

being presented today include $549 billion for the base budget, a 

3.4 percent increase over last year, or a 1.8 percent real increase 

after adjusting for inflation, reflecting the administration’s commitment to modest, steady, and sustainable real growth in defense 

spending. We are also requesting $159 billion in 2011 to support 

overseas contingency operations, primarily in Afghanistan and 

Iraq, plus $33 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year to support the added financial costs of the President’s new approach in 

Afghanistan. 

The base budget request reflects the following institutional priorities: first, reaffirming and strengthening the Nation’s commitment 

to care for the All-Volunteer Force, our greatest strategic asset; second, rebalancing America’s defense posture by emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail in current conflicts while enhancing capabilities that may be needed in the future; and third, continuing the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
5 

Department’s commitment to reforming how DOD does business, 

especially in the area of acquisitions. 

Finally, the commitments made and the programs funded in the 

OCO and supplemental requests demonstrate the administration’s 

determination to support our troops and commanders in combat so 

they can accomplish their critical missions and come home safely. 

The budget continues the Department’s policy of shifting money 

to the base budget for enduring programs that directly support our 

warfighters and their families, whether on the battlefield, recovering from wounds, or on the home front, to ensure that they have 

steady, long-term funding and institutional support. 

The base budget request was accompanied and informed by the 

2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, which establishes strategic priorities and identifies key areas for needed investment. The 2010 

QDR and fiscal year 2011 budget build upon the substantial 

changes the President made in the fiscal year 2010 budget request 

to allocate defense dollars more wisely and reform the Department’s processes. The fiscal year 2010 budget proposals cut, curtailed, or ended a number of programs that were either performing 

poorly or in excess of real-world needs. Conversely, future-oriented 

programs where the U.S. was relatively underinvested were accelerated or received more funding. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget submissions and QDR are suffused 

with two major themes. The first is continued reform, fundamentally changing the way this Department does business, the priorities we set, the programs we fund, the weapons we buy, and how 

we buy them. Building on the reforms of last year’s budget, the fiscal year 2011 request takes additional steps aimed at programs 

that were excess or performing poorly. They include terminating 

the Navy EP(X) intelligence aircraft; ending the Third Generation 

Infrared Surveillance program; canceling the Next Generation 

Cruiser; terminating the Net Enabled Command and Control program; ending the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources 

System, due to cost overruns and performance concerns; completing 

the C–17 program and closing the production line, as multiple 

studies in recent years show the Air Force already has more of 

these aircraft than it needs; and ending the alternate engine for 

the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter, as whatever benefits might accrue 

are more than offset by excess costs, complexity, and associated 

risks. 

I am fully aware of the political pressure to continue building C– 

17s and proceed with an alternate engine for the F–35, so let me 

be very clear. I will strongly recommend that the President veto 

any legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation of these 

two programs. 

Before closing, I would like to provide an update on the F–35 

fighter program, which I know is of great interest and concern to 

this committee. In response to what I consider to be unacceptable 

delays and cost overruns over the past year, this Department has 

taken a number of steps to fundamentally restructure this program. 

First, the program is now based on numbers, costs, and schedules estimates from Joint Estimating Team, an independent body 

known for its rigorous and skeptical assessments. Based on the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
6 

new JET estimates, we reduced the number of aircraft being purchased concurrent with testing and development. While delaying 

full-scale production was not a welcome development, to put it 

mildly, it was important to avoid a situation where a problem discovered in testing would lead to expensive retrofits of aircraft, the 

most common reason for delays and cost overruns in these kinds 

of programs. Correspondingly, we have added more aircraft to the 

testing program, which we believe will reduce the projected delay 

from 30 months to 13. These changes amount to a brutally realistic 

assessment of cost and schedule, one that I believe should stand 

the test of time and the legitimate scrutiny of the Congress and the 

taxpayer. 

Furthermore, with respect to accountability, I have replaced the 

Joint Strike Fighter program manager and elevated that position 

to a three-star billet, while withholding more than $600 million in 

performance fees from the lead contractor. It is important to remember that the F–35’s cost and schedule-related issues, and I regard them as serious to be sure, are problems primarily related to 

program administration and management, not the technology or capabilities of the aircraft. The Joint Strike Fighter will do everything the military services need it to do, and it will become the 

backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation. 

In closing, I would like to offer two thoughts to consider when 

assessing the U.S. investment in national defense. First, the requests submitted this week total more than $700 billion, a massive 

number to be sure. But at 4.7 percent of gross domestic product, 

it represents a significantly smaller portion of national wealth 

going to defense than was spent during most of America’s previous 

wars. And the base budget represents about 3.5 percent of GDP. 

Second, as you recently read, the President has exempted the defense budget from spending freezes being applied to other parts of 

the government. It is important to remember, however, that, as I 

mentioned earlier, this Department undertook a painstaking review of our priorities last year, and as a result cut or curtailed a 

number of major programs. These programs, had they been pursued to completion, would have cost the American taxpayer about 

$330 billion. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, my thanks to you and members of this 

committee again for all that you have done to support our troops 

and their families, especially in light of unprecedented demands 

that have been placed upon them. I believe the choices made and 

priorities set in these budget requests reflect America’s commitment to see that our forces have the tools they need to prevail in 

the wars we are in while making the investments necessary to prepare for threats on or beyond the horizon. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Secretary Gates follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
7 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 17 here 65009A.001
8 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 18 here 65009A.002
9 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 19 here 65009A.003
10 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 20 here 65009A.004
11 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 21 here 65009A.005
12 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 22 here 65009A.006
13 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 23 here 65009A.007
14 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 24 here 65009A.008
15 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 25 here 65009A.009
16 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 26 here 65009A.010
17 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 27 here 65009A.011
18 

Mr. DICKS. Admiral Mullen. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL MULLEN

Admiral MULLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like 

to add my congratulations for your assumption of the chair of this 

critical committee. 

Distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the 

chance to appear before you and discuss the state of our military 

as well as the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget submission. I also 

thank you all for the extraordinary support you provide each and 

every day to our men and women in uniform as well as their families. That they are well equipped, well trained, well paid and enjoy 

the finest medical care anywhere in the world is testament in no 

small part to your dedication and your stewardship. 

It is also, and I know you will agree, a testament to Chairman 

Murtha’s leadership in this committee over the course of many 

years. In him our troops had no greater champion. For him and his 

family we still grieve, and we offer our condolences to all of you. 

We know you share his great concern and his profound respect for 

those who serve. 

Speaking on their behalf, I can tell you that all they want right 

now is guidance on the mission before them and the tools to accomplish it. That is why I am here today, to talk about the guidance 

they are getting from this Department and to secure your continued support for the tools we want to give them. 

Secretary Gates has already walked you through the major components of the Quadrennial Defense Review and the President’s fiscal year 2011 defense budget submission, both of which, when combined with the new Ballistic Missile Defense Review and our Overseas Contingency Operations Fund requests, build upon the reform 

effort of last year and represent as comprehensive a look at the 

state of our military as I have seen in my more than 40 years of 

service. I will not endeavor to repeat his excellent summation, and 

I would ask you to accept without further comment my endorsement of the findings contained in each of these documents. 

Let me leave you, rather, with three overarching things to consider as you prepare to debate this budget request. First, there is 

a real sense of urgency here. We have more than 190,000 troops 

deployed in harm’s way right now, and that number includes only 

those in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Another 150,000 or so are meeting our security commitments elsewhere around the globe, and many of those missions are no less 

dangerous, certainly no less significant. 

I am sure you have stayed abreast of our relief efforts in Haiti, 

where more than 4,000 of your soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, 

and coastguardsmen are still pitching in to help alleviate the suffering of the Haitian people. It has been a truly interagency and 

an international mission. And as the capabilities of our partners increase, we would expect to continue assessing the need for U.S. 

forces on the ground. Decisions to redeploy will be made on a caseby-case basis, but we remain committed to doing what is required 

where and when it is required to support the Government of Haiti, 

USAID and the United Nations mission there. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
19 

We also continue to do what is required to win the wars we fight, 

and the one that needs fighting the most right now is in Afghanistan. You have seen the reports out of Marjah, where coalition and 

Afghan troops have made real headway against a stiffening 

Taliban resistance, and where General McChrystal has been steadfastly applying a populationcentric strategy of counterinsurgency 

warfare with great effect. We have also moved nearly 10,000 troops 

to Afghanistan in accordance with the President’s strategy, and expect that about 18,000 of his December 1st commitment will be 

there by late spring. The remainder of the 30,000 will arrive as 

rapidly as possible over the summer and early fall, making a major 

contribution to reversing Taliban momentum in 2010. Indeed, by 

the middle of this year, Afghanistan will surpass Iraq for the first 

time since 2003 as the location with the most deployed American 

forces. 

Right now the Taliban still believe they are winning. Eighteen 

months from now, if we have executed our strategy, we will know 

they are not, and they will know that they cannot. Getting there 

will demand discipline and hard work. It will require ever more cooperation with Pakistan, with whose leaders we are meeting this 

week. And it will more assuredly demand more sacrifice and more 

bloodshed. But the stakes are too high for failure. That is why we 

are asking you to fully fund our fiscal year 2010 supplemental and 

the fiscal year 2011 overseas contingency operations request. It is 

why we want a 6 percent increase for Special Operations Command. And it is why we need your support to develop and field a 

next-generation ground combat vehicle, to allow us to grow two 

more Army combat aviation brigades, and to continue rotary wing 

production, including nearly $3 billion for the V–22 Osprey program. 

In keeping with the Secretary’s strong emphasis on ISR, an emphasis more than justified by our long experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are asking for more capability in unmanned aircraft 

and ground-based collection systems, including nearly $3 billion to 

double the procurement rate of the MQ–9 Reaper by fiscal year 

2012. 

Our future security is greatly imperiled if we do not win the 

wars we are in. As the QDR makes clear, the outcome of today’s 

conflicts will shape the global security environment for decades to 

come. I am very comfortable that we can and will finish well in 

Iraq, remaining on pace to draw down American forces to roughly 

50,000, ending our combat mission there and transitioning to an 

advise-and-assist role. But without your continued support, we will 

not be able to show the meaningful progress in Afghanistan that 

the Commander in Chief has ordered, the American people expect, 

and the Afghan people so desperately need. 

This is no mission of mercy; this is the place from which we were 

attacked in 2001, the place from which al Qaeda still plots and 

plans. The security of a great Nation, ours and theirs, rests not on 

good intentions, but on what ought to be a cold and unfeeling appraisal of self-interest and an equally cold and unfeeling pursuit of 

the tools to protect that interest, ours and theirs. 

That leads me to the second thing I would like you to consider, 

proper balance. Winning our current wars means investment in 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
20 

hard-won irregular warfare expertise, a core competency that 

should be institutionalized and supported in coming years, and we 

are certainly moving in that direction. But we must also maintain 

conventional advantages. We still face traditional threats from regional powers who possess robust regular and in some cases nuclear capabilities. These cannot be ignored. 

The freedom to conduct operations in support of joint, allied, and 

coalition efforts, assuring access and projecting combat power can 

only be preserved through enduring warfighting competencies. In 

the air, this means sufficient strike aircraft and munitions capable 

of assuring air superiority. At sea, it means having enough ships 

and enough sailors to stay engaged globally and keep the sea lanes 

open. On the ground, it means accelerating the modernization of 

our combat brigades and regiments. On the whole, it means never 

having to fight a fair fight. 

Thus, the President’s budget requests will buy another 42 F–35s. 

It will maintain a healthy bomber industrial base, and will fund 

development of a prompt global strike system, as well as efforts to 

upgrade our B–2s and B–52s. For ship construction, the spending 

plan totals some $16 billion, procuring nine new ships in 2011, including two Arleigh Burke destroyers, two Virginia Class submarines, two Littoral Combat Ships, and a brand new Amphibious 

Assault Ship. It puts the Navy on track to maintain aircraft carrier 

production on a 5-year build cycle, resulting in a long-term force 

structure of 10 carriers by 2040. Our budget requests also seek $10 billion for ballistic missile defense programs, including 8.4 for the Missile Defense Agency. And 

it devotes ample resources to improving our cyberdefense capabilities. 

Again, it is about balance, it is about deterring and winning the 

big and the small wars, the conventional and the unconventional; 

two challenges, one military. But where balance is probably most 

needed is in the programs and policies concerning our most important resource, our people. And that is my final point. 

This QDR and this budget builds upon superb support you and 

this Department have provided our troops and their families for 

much of the last 8 years. Stressed and strained by nearly constant 

combat, many of them on their fifth, sixth and some even their seventh deployments, our men and women are without question, and 

almost inexplicably, the most resilient and battle-ready force in our 

history. On the one hand, we keep turning away potential recruits, 

so good is our attention and so attractive is our career opportunities. On the other hand, we keep seeing an alarming rise in suicides, marital problems, prescription drug addictions, and mental 

health problems. 

Debra and I meet regularly with young troops and their spouses, 

and, though proud of the difference they know they are making, 

they are tired. Quite frankly, many of them are worried about their 

futures, their livelihoods, their children. And so you will see in this 

budget nearly $9 billion for family support and advocacy programs. 

You will see child care and youth programs increased by $87 million over the last year. And you will see a boost in warfighter and 

family services to include counseling to the tune of $37 million. 

Military spouse employment will get a $12 million plus-up, and we 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
21 

will increase the budget to $2.2 billion for wounded, ill, and injured 

members. In fact, the health care funding level for fiscal year 2011 

is projected to provide high-quality health care for 9.5 million eligible beneficiaries. 

Lastly, we are pushing to dramatically increase the number of 

mental health professionals on staff and advance our research in 

traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress. We know the 

strain of frequent deployments causes many problems, but we do 

not yet fully understand how or what or to what extent. So even 

as we work hard to increase dwell time, aided by the additional 

temporary end strength you approved last year for the Army, we 

will work equally hard to decrease the stress of modern military 

service. Indeed, I believe over time when these wars are behind us, 

we will need to look closely at the competing fiscal pressures that 

will dominate discussions of proper end strength and weapons systems. A force well suited for long-term challenges and not necessarily married to any current force planning construct will remain vital to our national security. 

Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, thank you again for 

your time and long-standing support to the men and women of the 

United States Armed Forces. They and their families are the best 

I have ever seen. On their behalf, I stand ready to answer your 

questions. 

Mr. DICKS. Admiral, thank you for that comprehensive opening 

statement. 

[The statement of Admiral Mullen follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
22 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 37 65009A.012
23 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 38 65009A.013
24 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 39 65009A.014
25 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 40 65009A.015
26 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 41 65009A.016
27 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 42 65009A.017
28 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 43 65009A.018
29 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 44 65009A.019
30 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 45 65009A.020
31 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 46 65009A.021
32 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 47 65009A.022
33 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 48 65009A.023
34 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 49 65009A.024
35 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 50 65009A.025
36 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 51 65009A.026
37 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 52 65009A.027
38 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 53 65009A.028
39 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 54 65009A.029
40 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 55 65009A.030
41 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Hale, do you have any? 

Mr. HALE. I do not. 

AFGHANISTAN THEATER

Mr. DICKS. All right. Secretary Gates, several members of this 

committee were on a recent trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan. This 

was at the time of the Marines’ deployment in Marjah. Our impression was that went very well. We were concerned about the governance and the assistance to the people there in that area. Can you 

tell us how that is going? 

Secretary GATES. I think that part of shaping the battlefield in 

the weeks and months before the operation began, a big part of the 

focus was on both our own civilian capacity and that of the Afghan 

Government to come in behind our troops in the hold and build 

phases of the operation. So I would say that this is one of those 

areas where first of all, we have a very good provincial governor 

in Helmand Province. And a lot of effort was made to bring in the 

right kind of people from Kabul and also from the provincial government so that they could follow in behind our troops. And my impression is that part of the operation has gone very well. I do not 

know if Admiral Mullen has anything to add. 

Admiral MULLEN. I would reemphasize certainly the plan was to 

bring in—as it was actually last July to generate capability in another part of Helmand when the Marines went in—to bring in governance immediately behind the troops. That has happened in 

Marjah. I think we are still in the nascent stages of that. I know 

President Karzai has visited that area and has certainly heard the 

local people from Marjah and what they need from their government. And that has had a—from what I understand in discussions 

with General McChrystal—a very powerful impact on him. And we 

know that that is a very critical part of the long-term success here. 

So the people were ready to go. This was not just our military people, but on the civilian side there was a significant number of our 

civilians and international civilians who understand this and are 

pitching in to make this happen. I think it is early to really see 

how effective it is going to be. 

AFGHANISTAN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. DICKS. In Iraq we had a great difficulty of getting nonmilitary people into positions of helping the government, working 

with the people. That seems to be going a lot better recently. Can 

you explain that, Secretary Gates? 

Secretary GATES. As I recall the statistics, a year or so ago, although we had a formal civilian contingent in Afghanistan and the 

embassy of about 350, in fact there were only about 250 people on 

the ground in the embassy. That number has now been almost 

quadrupled. There are somewhere between 900 and 1,000 U.S. 

State Department, AID, Agriculture, other civilians in the embassy, 

in the PRTs now. 

So to be honest, there will never be as many civilians as we need, 

just as no commander will ever have all the troops he feels he 

needs or wants. But there has been a dramatic increase in the 

number of civilians, and those increases are continuing. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
42 

PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT

Mr. DICKS. The other thing that I was impressed with is the commitment of the Pakistan Government and military in the last 10 

months and their military operations in Swat, in southern 

Waziristan. I was even impressed yesterday in a briefing from General Kiyani that they are doing a lot more in the northern part of 

Waziristan. I know that Admiral Mullen in particular has worked 

very closely with General Kiyani, and I know that McChrystal and 

Petraeus also have. But it seems like this is moving in the right 

direction. What is your take on that? 

Secretary GATES. Let me just comment briefly and then turn to 

Admiral Mullen, because he has, I think, at this point made 16 or 

17 trips to Pakistan in the last couple of years. 

It has really been extraordinary, in my view, seeing what Pakistan has done over the last really more than a year in terms of becoming engaged, in terms of their operations, in terms of understanding that they now face an existential threat in this area of 

people who want to destabilize that government and overthrow the 

Government of Pakistan and replace it with an Islamic fundamentalist radical regime. They understand this. Their civilian government understands this. And their troops have paid a heavy price 

for these operations. They have suffered thousands of casualties in 

recent years in taking on these guys. 

But the Pakistanis, in my view, in the last months not only have 

become much more aggressive and active on their side of the border, there is a developing partisanship or relationship with General 

McChrystal in terms of coordinating what is going on on both sides 

of that border that I think represents a hugely salutary development. 

Admiral MULLEN. Sir, I would only add that the Pak military has 

worked hard, first of all, to get the support of the Pakistani people, 

and that was very low a couple of years ago, and now it is exceptionally high. By most counts they have taken on nine separate 

campaigns over the last 12 to 18 months, most recently through 

South Waziristan and Swat. I have been through Swat with General Kiyani, spent all day there, and they truly turned that place 

around, I mean literally rid them of the insurgents. 

The challenge now is to build. It is the same challenge you have 

in any counterinsurgency. His force is actually stationary there because he has got to hold until a government can come in behind 

him and start to build the institutions that will sustain the effort 

so far and meet the people’s needs. 

The strategic dialogue—you took a briefing yesterday, many 

Members of Congress did—the strategic dialogue that we are having this week, led by their Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister 

Qureshi, is a huge step forward in terms of strengthening the partnership. And it is a partnership. General Kiyani has moved troops 

from east to west. He has trained his people in counterinsurgency. 

He has had a huge impact where they have fought. He has limits. 

He still has got an eastern front. They are very focused on India. 

Some of us may not think that is a priority. I assure you they do 

in Pakistan. And they get to choose; it is their country. So they 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
43 

changed dramatically in the last couple of years. Still an awful long 

way to go. And it is an existential threat, and they recognize that. 

And the only other thing I would emphasize is this synchronization across the border. When I have been asked historically, how 

do you eventually get at al Qaeda, it is this synchronization which 

Generals Kiyani and Petraeus and McChrystal have really started 

to move forward on. And we see the impact of that. It is not going 

to happen overnight, but it is a matter of us building trust in the 

relationship. We are working hard on that. It is coming back. And 

we have had an impact on that border area, and we will continue 

to do that. 

Mr. DICKS. I am going to call on Mr. Young, but I just make this 

one point. I also think that our Intelligence Community has played 

a big role in this, and the going after al Qaeda and the Taliban in 

the Federally Administered Tribal Area. I just hope we can carry 

that further to Quetta, where there are still a number of people, 

Afghan leaders of the Taliban, who live in Pakistan. It is something that I did not fully appreciate. But that is an area that we 

have to deal with as well. 

Mr. Young. 

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER SCHEDULE

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, I think you might have anticipated some of my 

questions when you talked about the F–35. And you preempted 

some of my questions because you answered already. But I remember one of the very first hearings that I ever sat through on this 

subcommittee, and a Marine told me and he told the committee 

that he said, look, we will go anywhere you want us to go, we will 

fight any battle you want us to fight. Just make sure that the airplane overhead is an American airplane. And I think that is a reasonable request. An F–35, of course, is a very, very important part 

of that plan. 

So I am curious. There have been delays and slips and IOC 

changes. How confident are you that the 2-year IOC we are talking 

about now, or the 11⁄2 years for the Navy IOC, how confident are 

you that we will be able to maintain those projected dates? 

Secretary GATES. Let me first, Mr. Young, talk about where we 

are in terms of the dates with taking into account the slips that 

we have talked about. First, the training squadron for the F–35s 

will still show up at Eglin in 2011. The Marines will get their F– 

35s in 2012 and will have IOC in 2012. The Air Force will begin 

getting its F–35s in 2013, and the Navy in 2014. Both would tell 

you today that their full IOC will be in 2016. 

Mr. YOUNG. How confident are you that we are going to meet 

this? See, that is my question. How confident are you that we are 

going to meet those dates? 

Secretary GATES. There are two things that I would say give me 

confidence. One is these cost estimates are now based on two successive Joint Estimating Team efforts. Frankly, part of the problem 

that we have faced in this program is overly rosy forecasts by the 

program office itself. So what our estimates are now based on is 

this independent estimating team that, in fact, that kind of independent costing role was part of the Acquisition Reform Act that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
44 

the Congress passed last year. Now that is required. So I think 

these estimates are much more realistic. 

Second, the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics took a considerable amount of time, a number of weeks, to 

go through this program chapter and verse and to figure out what 

needed to be done in terms of restructuring. And to tell you the 

truth, there are some aspects of monitoring these contracts that we 

have not done very well on. One of the things that I was briefed 

on that just drove me nuts is that we have a factory in which about 

6 percent of the floor space is used by the F–35 program compared 

to other aircraft programs, and we are paying 70 percent of the 

overhead for that factory. I think we can fix that. 

So I have confidence because of these estimates, but I also would 

say we have some history to go on here. With both the F–22 and 

the C–17, these both were aircraft that had significant development problems at the beginning of those efforts. What happened 

eventually in those programs is exactly what we are doing now. We 

cut the number of aircraft that we were going to full production on 

before the development program was completed, and we extended 

the development program itself. Both of those programs, I think everybody would agree those are great aircraft, and they both had 

similar problems. That is what you have when you have high-tech 

combat aircraft programs like this. 

There are no guarantees in any of this, but based on everything 

that I have seen, I have confidence that the range of cost estimates 

and timing that is being described and presented to me today will, 

in fact, be executed. 

Admiral MULLEN. Just one brief comment, sir. The individual 

who is nominated, or the name I know of to be nominated, to run 

that program is, at the three-star level—is an exceptional individual, one of the best program executives I have ever known. And 

from my perspective, there is additional confidence based upon his 

skill set. 

Secretary GATES. I would also say, Mr. Young, between firing the program manager and holding out $615 million from Lockheed, I 

think we got their attention. 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT LIFE EXTENSION

Mr. YOUNG. We did take note of that. I thought that was a constructive step. 

Now, with the extension of the IOCs, what about the F–15, F– 

16, F–18? Are we going to have to do anything on a service life extension program or any major changes other than regular maintenance for those aircraft? 

Secretary GATES. Let me just speak to the F–18s. We have quite 

a bit of money in this budget for additional F–18s, particularly the 

G model. 

Mr. YOUNG. New aircraft. 

Secretary GATES. New aircraft. That line will remain open 

through 2013, and we will consistently be reassessing where we are 

in this. But with respect to the F–18s, we are continuing to buy. 

And my understanding is we are talking with the contractor. 

One of the questions I got back in January was about why we 

did not go to multiyear contracts as opposed to single-year conVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
45 

tracts. And frankly, the costs were such that we did not see enough 

benefit from the long-term commitment of capital, if you will. The 

contractors come back to us with some interesting proposals, and 

we are now looking at a multiyear contract with respect to the F– 

18s. 

Admiral MULLEN. We are very focused on what we can do to extend lives of airplanes in terms of modernization. On the F–18 side, 

there was at one point in time a desire to extend them out to upwards of 10,000 flight hours. Essentially, the analysis showed we 

could not get there. So we are going to maximize the opportunity 

to extend those. 

The F–18 problem really does not get critical until 2015, 2016, 

2017 time frame. So we will know a lot more about JSF at that 

particular point in time and can adjust. 

As far as the F–16s are concerned, we are at a time where the 

Chief of the Air Force, General Schwartz, in order to recapitalize 

his fleet, he has really got to cash in, he has really got to decommission older airplanes, but also focus on getting as much out of 

the ones that we have as we possibly can. There is an extraordinary amount of attention being paid to this overall Strike Fighter 

issue across the Department. 

Mr. DICKS. Just briefly, there was a center barrel replacement 

program, right, on the Marine Corps aircraft at one point? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir. Not early in the overall program, but 

a few years ago there was, yes, sir, for F–18s. 

Mr. DICKS. Is that still a problem? 

Admiral MULLEN. Not to my knowledge. I mean, that program 

was done. It was done on the aircraft that we needed that had center barrel cracks, and those were replaced. 

Mr. DICKS. I think we have given you multiyear authority, too, 

by the way. I think Congress has. 

Admiral MULLEN. As the Secretary said, it is this issue of what 

is the value of that? If you have a 5-year—historically, if you have 

a 5-year contract, you really can generate unit savings. But if you 

are just doing it 1 or 2 years out, there just is not much there. I 

think that is really where we were with a goal to, quite frankly, 

end this production line at a certain time in the near future. And 

yet now it is really left open as a hedge as we—and one of the reasons as we move through this critical time in the development of 

JSF. 

SHIPBUILDING

Mr. YOUNG. Along the same lines of the discussion of the aircraft, shipbuilding. We are determined to go to a 313-ship Navy, 

but it requires 10 to 11 ships a year in order to reach that goal 

by a certain time. This year’s budget request is a little short on 

that 10 to 11. I think you are only including nine ships in the 

budget request this year. If we only do 9 ships compared to the 10 

to 11 that are projected needed to get to the 313 ships, how long 

does that extend the time period before we achieve the 313-ship 

Navy? 

Admiral MULLEN. In fact, when I was CNO, I did that study, and 

it was the floor. It was, in my view, the lowest number we need 

in our Navy to handle the global security interests that are out 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
46 

there. And I think today we are at 283. Actually, when we were 

doing that, we were on a glide slope to be around 240, depending 

upon what your assumptions were, 240 ships. So I am actually 

pleased that we have been able to reverse that. 

But this math, which you can do as you have done, Mr. Young, 

pretty clearly, you have got to have 10 to 11 a year if you are going 

to get to 300-plus. There is an awful lot of work to do that. In the 

end it is a matter of affordability and investment. And it is going 

to take—there is a significant amount of money, I think I said $16 

billion this year, and it is going to take—and I have looked at 

many ways to do this over the years—but it is going to take a significant amount of investment to reach that. And on balance, while 

I have talked about the balance in the budget, this year that is 

where the money went. 

There is more production capacity in the industrial base, an industrial base that I have been concerned about for a long time, but 

to get to that it is going to take another 3- to 4- to $5 billion a year 

investment to really generate that Navy. And that is a huge challenge. 

Secretary GATES. I would just add one additional point, Mr. 

Young, because many of you will still be here in the latter part of 

this decade. But the Department of Defense and you and the Nation are going to face a very difficult choice toward the end of this 

decade. One of the new program starts in the fiscal year 2011 

budget is for the next-generation ballistic missile submarine. And 

when that program really begins to ramp up in the latter part of 

this decade, it will suck all the air out of the Navy shipbuilding 

program. And so some tough choices are going to have to be made 

either in terms of more investment or choices between the size of 

surface fleet you want and the submarine fleet. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, just one more question, and that is 

are we still determined that a 313-ship Navy is necessary? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir. We are. I mean, the analysis, extensive analysis, and Admiral Roughead after me, looked at this. And 

again, from my perspective that is the floor, that is the minimum 

to meet the security requirements that are out there. 

Mr. YOUNG. We need to all work together to get ramped up to 

achieve that goal. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Visclosky. 

BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINE REPLACEMENT

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Chairman, thank you much. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much. If I could follow up on Mr. 

Young’s line of questioning. Mr. Secretary, right at the end you 

said Congress is going to have to make a decision as to the type 

of Navy and number of ships we want. Admiral Mullen has said 

several times this morning that 313 is the floor. Anticipating that 

if it is $7 billion a copy that the boomers are going to suck the juice 

out of the Navy’s budget, what is the administration doing this 

year to anticipate that and build that into their budget request for 

a 313-ship Navy? 

Secretary GATES. Well, what the plans that we have been working on with the Navy would, in fact—and I cannot remember the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
47 

exact year, but around 2015 would ramp the Navy up to 10 or 11 

ships a year. But as I say, we are looking well beyond the Future 

Year Defense Program that goes out to 2015, and some difficult 

choices are going to have to be made at that point in terms of either more investment when we start building these SSBNs. 

Mr. HALE. We average 10 ships a year in the 5-year period in 

this budget, but as the Secretary said, the SSBN problem is really 

at the end of this decade. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That is my question to the administration; are 

you anticipating that, how are you building that in? Because this 

year we are told we would hit our target in 2020. Two years ago 

we were told we would hit in 2019. The year before that, it was 

2016. Now, you talk about whether any of us are going to be here 

at the end of the decade. I do not know the number in the administration’s proposal in 2000, but I assume we were going to hit a 313- 

ship Navy sometime in this past decade. And my concern looking 

ahead, knowing that a sub is going to suck the air out of the 

Navy’s budget and that we would have to ramp up, if the Navy believes they need—and I do not know what the right number is, but 

if the Navy—I am just very concerned that every year this subcommittee hears exactly the same testimony, and that chart keeps 

moving to the right every year. 

Admiral MULLEN. I think, sir, you would see that not just in 

shipbuilding, but in a lot of other projections. It is always rosier in 

the outyears than the FYDP. In the end, and I think the Secretary 

laid it out very clearly, I think one way this budget starts to get 

at that is to lay in the money—the initial money for the SSBN. 

And I think that is really critical. I think doing that with this, literally, red flag, this warning, that should conditions sort of remain 

the same, it will end up eating a significant amount of the shipbuilding budget, and you trade—typically inside a fixed budget you 

trade that off against other submarines or other surface ships. You 

typically do not trade it off against the carriers and the big decks. 

So that is what we have done historically. And I think you pose a 

great question that we all have to figure out how we are going to 

answer. How big do we want our Navy to be? What do we want 

it to do? And we are a maritime power, have been for a long time. 

And then are we going to invest? And then the other piece of that 

that is important is this acquisition piece. Those shipbuilding programs have to perform as well. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I see. All right. 

Secretary GATES. Could I just make two quick additional points? 

First of all, it is very important that the top-line number of the defense budget remain where it is. But with the cuts in the programs 

that we have made last year and have continued to propose this 

year, if we end up having to operate with a lower top-line number 

than we have now, I have no place to go but force structure. 

Over the longer term, the only way we can sustain the force 

structure we have today is to have growth, net growth, real growth 

in the defense budget of 2 to 3 percent. That is just a fact of life. 

And we can make this work because of the program changes that 

we made last year on their merits. We were not trying to cut to 

a specific number by any means. I just tell you that in all honesty. 

But we have been able to make this work, shift some of these proVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
48 

grams for Warriors and others into the base budget. But over the 

long term, if the Nation wants to sustain the force structure that 

it has today, it will require a minimum investment of 2 to 3 percent real growth. 

Mr. DICKS. The lives of people are at stake, and it is the people 

who are in the military who have been stressed. And I completely 

concur with the Secretary’s view on this, that if we do not find an 

answer to this, we are going to have to take force structure down. 

And this is the last time you would ever want to do that because 

we are in these two engagements. We have got to get through this. 

I am sorry, if we are going to get everybody in, the Secretary has 

a hard stop time at 11:30. 

NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Can I ask one quick question on the Nuclear Posture Review? When is that going to be completed and released? 

Secretary GATES. I think, Mr. Visclosky, it will be out probably 

within about 2 to 3 weeks. We are very close. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Just one quick question, because it is very important, because Mr. Frelinghuysen and I are on Energy, and we had 

this interchange last year. There is money built into the budget anticipating additional infrastructure investment at NNSA. And as a 

member of the Energy Subcommittee, I do not want to make that 

investment until we see what that strategy is. 

Secretary GATES. I hear you. 

Mr. DICKS. All right. Mr. Frelinghuysen. We have to keep this 

at 5 minutes, everybody, because to get everybody through, and the 

Secretary has got a hard 11:30 departure. 

CONTINGENCY PLANNING

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me thank you all for your extraordinary 

service and the men and women that you represent. I do not advertise it very often, but I spent a year in Vietnam in the Vietnam 

war. Of course, when I got back, they called it the Vietnam conflict. 

I think words are important, and when you start talking about 

overseas contingency operations, I think we need to recognize we 

are fighting two wars, I think, as you said, Admiral Mullen, at one 

time. And one of those wars we are fighting is in Iraq. 

We have today, as I can recount, about 96,000 troops, and that 

is going to be scaled down, I understand, Mr. Secretary, to 50,000, 

and then the President has said we will be out of any sort of a military posture by the end of 2011, by the end of December of 2011. 

I do not want to use the word ‘‘contingencies,’’ but obviously the 

Defense Department is ready for every contingency. What if Prime 

Minister Maliki, while the election is somewhat unsettled and has 

not been determined, says to you, we need you here to provide, continue to provide, a degree of stability? 

Secretary GATES. Well, first of all, we do more contingency planning than probably anybody in the world. But I would say we are 

on track at this point. I think General Odierno is comfortable that 

we will meet the benchmarks that—not only the President’s policy, 

but the security agreement that the Bush administration signed 

with the Iraqis pledging to have all of our troops out by the end 

of 2011. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
49 

We have contingency planning, but at this point we think that 

we can meet these benchmarks and frankly we anticipated all 

along there would be a stressful period after the Iraqi election. I 

did a video conference with General Odierno a few days before the 

election and he said if we get 50 to 55 percent turnout, that will 

be great. If we get 55 to 60 percent, that would be exceptional. We 

ended up with 62 percent turnout. The Iraqis are trying to solve 

their problems politically instead of shooting at each other. And 

frankly, I think we are modestly optimistic that this thing is going 

to go forward without any need for changing the plans. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Obviously, if the request comes, you will be 

making recommendations to the President? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And react to that? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. 

IRAN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Would you focus for a minute—there is talk 

of potential Marine interdiction off of Iran. That is another potential decision that would be on your plate. Can you tell the committee what we might anticipate in that area? 

Secretary GATES. Well, we don’t see the kind of behavior on the 

part of the Iranians that would make that necessary. But all of our 

Navy commanders who are operating in the Gulf have rules of engagement if they are attacked, if they are approached. So I think— 

I defer to Admiral Mullen, but I think we are pretty comfortable 

that we have both the capability and the rules of engagement that 

will allow us to protect our own forces. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Maybe to Admiral Mullen. Do we have the 

resources to do what we might need to do for interdiction purposes? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir. They will. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. Mr. Moran. 

AFGHANISTAN NATIONAL POLICE

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me say, I think 

that all three of you are the right people in the right place, and 

it is nice to be able to say that. For several years, in the past, I 

couldn’t say that. Certainly if I had, I wouldn’t mean it. But you 

are doing a great job and thank you. We can’t discuss—— 

Mr. DICKS. We are in an open session. 

Mr. MORAN. That is the point. And since we are in an open session, we can’t discuss anything that was discussed in closed session, let alone classified documents. So I am going to restrict my 

questions to this current issue of Newsweek and today’s New York 

Times. The front page of The New York Times talks about a deal 

that President Karzai is putting together with Mr. Hekmatyar. As 

you know, Mr. Hekmatyar is a warlord. He is Pakistan’s favorite 

warlord. And he is responsible for killing a whole lot of American 

and coalition forces, but they are working out a deal to withdraw 

within a year from Afghanistan. We gave him the green light to 

work out this deal a couple of years ago and so he is working it 

out with Mr. Karzai, and of course, his brother Wally, who is the 

principal opium drug lord in Afghanistan. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
50 

The reason I bring that up is it is consistent with this article, 

it says a scandal in Afghanistan, the exclusive story of how we 

have wasted $6 billion on a corrupt and abusive police force that 

may cost us the war. I agree with your strategy. Obviously you capture a village, you hold it, you build. The problem is the transfer. 

And it is not a transfer to the Afghan national army, as deficient 

as they are, it is to the police. And as General Caldwell says in this 

article, and I repeat, in fact, when we met with him just a couple 

of weeks ago. It is inconceivable they are going to be ready. It is 

no reflection on our soldiers who are doing a phenomenal job. 

There has been 170,000 Afghans trained. There are only about 

30,000 that remain on the force. We know that much of the ammunition that the Taliban uses against us is coming from Afghan police. 

Mr. DICKS. Why don’t we let them answer because you are going 

to use up your entire 5 minutes on your question. 

Mr. MORAN. I know that. I am aware of that, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DICKS. Then they are not going to have a chance to answer. 

Mr. MORAN. I will give them a chance. The police are not ready, 

and in fact in Marja, the elders of the village said it wasn’t you 

that really liberated us, it was the Taliban from a corrupt police 

chief. And if we were going to stay, it would be fine. But if we turn 

it back over to the corrupt police, 90 percent of them—they are illiterate, they have got no where else to go and frankly they see it 

as an opportunity to extort money from local people, many of them. 

Mr. DICKS. Let them answer. Jim, I am asking you to let them 

answer. 

Mr. MORAN. I am asking you how we are going to deal with the 

problem of transfer to these Afghan police who are not ready? 

Secretary GATES. We have known all along that the police were 

going to be a challenge. I think General McChrystal, if he were 

here, he would tell you that he was pretty satisfied with the 

progress of the Afghan national army and from being from a point 

a few months ago we were partnering eight or nine of us to one 

of them. In the current operation, it has been three of us to two 

of them. So we are getting to the place and partnering as more Afghans are trained that they are in the fight. 

The police are a challenge. We are increasing the number of 

trainers for the police. I think that the local situation will be a 

combination of local security forces that are put together in the 

communities themselves as well as the police. General Caldwell is 

working this problem with the Afghans. We have a number of 

international partners on this. But we have known all along that 

the Afghan police will be a challenge. And until the Afghans can, 

in fact, be responsible for their own security, we will not transfer 

security. Now, where we are headed is really changing the word 

transfer to transition, which is what we did in Iraq, which, if you 

say transfer, that means that on the 30th of August, all of a sudden the support net and the safety net disappears and you are on 

your own if you are Afghan Army or the Afghan police. 

So what we are looking at now is the kind of thing we did in Iraq 

where we are in the lead, then they are partnered with us and 

then they are in the lead and then we withdraw to a tactical 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
51 

overwatch and then withdraw a little further. So they have got the 

support network and we will do that with the police. But clearly 

this is a problem we have got to work on. 

TALIBAN RECONCILIATION

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Secretary, let me ask Admiral Mullen. Are you 

comfortable with the approach of a reconciliation with the Taliban, 

a type of collaborative government that they are working toward? 

Admiral MULLEN. This is really to be an Afghan-led issue. So 

your comment on the first article is certainly one that has great 

relevance, and I just know that we and the international community are very engaged on that aspect of this thing. As far as I am 

concerned, our strategy still focuses on the security of the population, as well as—my view is we need to reconcile from a position 

of strength. We are not there yet. 

Mr. MORAN. Do you think it will work? 

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Tiahrt. 

AERIAL REFUELING TANKER

Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the committee. And I would note that even though your in-laws, Mr. Secretary, are from Washington, you were a graduate from Wichita 

East. So greetings from Wichita. I want to thank you and the Department for their staunch defense of the KC–X, the tanker requirements, consistently noting that the requirements were fair 

and balanced and focused on what the Air Force needs and not 

what benefits any particular company and I think we can all agree 

that military requirements ought to be specified by the warfighter, 

and it is up to protecting—it is up to prospective suppliers how 

best to meet those requirements. It appears that some Europeans 

disagree with this approach. There were some statements from European governments and their leaders and EADS that appear to 

suggest that the Pentagon should change the tanker requirements 

to fit what EADS is offering instead of changing what they have 

to offer to fit the valid requirements. 

I believe that we can all agree that international politics should 

never impact requirements. But there is currently a consideration 

on a request for a 90-day delay, a slide to the due date of the request for proposal. We have waited a long time for this replacement air refueling tanker. If Chairman Dicks and I had our way 

back in 2002 with the proposal we made, we would have 80 airplanes already delivered. 

So a further delay seems out of order. It has been around a long 

time. We know what the Air Force requirements are. And we know 

that a further delay is really unnecessary. Can you assure the committee that you and the Air Force plan to stick to the current requirements as defined by the final RFP? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. 

Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you. With the current ruling, the final decision on the World Trade Organization in its case against—in our 

case, the USTRs case against the European Union regarding illegal 

subsidies provided to Airbus, these impacts of the subsidies has 

had a huge effect on U.S. industry. At one time, we had three 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
52 

major aircraft suppliers in America, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas 

and the Boeing Company. Today, there is only the Boeing Company 

because the other two were run out of business I believe by illegal 

subsidies. Under the current ruling, it says that the proposed aircraft that EADS has considering proposing—excuse me—there was 

a $5 billion subsidy that has been ruled illegal. 

Now, the tanker program is not the lowest price contract. But 

price is an important part of this competition. If EADS decides to 

bid, how can a fair competition be held when EADS has benefited 

from the billions of dollars in illegal subsidies? 

Secretary GATES. First of all, my lawyers tell me that the WTO 

case, that it gives us no basis on which to make a judgment. As 

I indicated, we do not intend to change the requirements. I want 

to buy the aircraft that the Air Force thinks it needs and is convinced it needs. EADS has indicated an interest and has sent us 

a letter indicating that and we are considering it at this time. 

PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT

Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, Air Force 

One is one of the most recognizable symbols of America around the 

world. Regardless of how well these aircraft are maintained, they 

are still 20 years old. And there are fewer than 27 747–200s, which 

is the model that Air Force One is based on in commercial passenger service today. I understand the aircraft is nearing the point 

where the operation and support costs will exceed the cost to recapitalize with state of art more efficient aircraft. Given that these 

aircraft are the President’s flying headquarters and travel the 

world, what are the Department’s plans to—and schedule to recapitalize the presidential 747 aircraft fleet? 

Secretary GATES. We actually have some money in the budget in 

2011 to begin looking at a new Air Force One. That money will 

clearly ramp up in the next few years as we move in that direction. 

There clearly is a need for a new presidential aircraft. 

Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. Ms. Kaptur. 

CONTRACTORS VS. INSOURCING

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, gentlemen. 

Thank you for your service to our country and those under your 

command. Let me just express a general concern about our soldiers 

and the dwell time ratios that we have been given and the extraordinary burden on the force. I know you know that, but just know 

it is of deep concern to this Member. Number two, I wonder, Mr. 

Secretary, if you could provide for the record a listing of coalition 

forces. I believe there are at least 30,000 that are assisting us in 

Afghanistan, and at least that is in the material we have, who they 

are, numbers and what roles they are performing and whether they 

are going up or going down and also money that is coming to assist 

us in these efforts from any other countries. That would be greatly 

appreciated. 

Let me say a $700 billion request is an extraordinary number by 

any measure of history, and I have to be concerned as a Member 

of the Congress on how we pay for this. And I was going to ask 

Mr. Hale if you could provide for the record in past wars means 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
53 

by which the people of the United States have paid for these rather 

than putting these costs on future generations. 

[The information follows:] 

The Administration is committed to returning the federal government to a sustainable fiscal path—including the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, the Administration believes that the costs for these operations should 

not be considered in isolation but rather in the context of the budget as a whole. 

That is why the Budget does not simply assume that the cost of such operations 

will unrealistically disappear, as was the case under the budgets of the previous Administration. Instead, it includes about $160 billion of funding per year in 2010 and 

2011 for overseas contingency operations, and, as a placeholder, assumes an average 

of $50 billion per year from 2012 through the end of the decade. Thus, the costs 

of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are accounted for as part of the total 

spending in each fiscal year. 

The Budget takes us an important step toward achieving fiscal sustainability with these costs accounted for and includes more than $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction 

over the next ten years. As a share of the economy, this represents more deficit reduction than proposed in any President’s budget in over a decade. Achieving this 

deficit reduction requires Congress to enact the Administration’s proposals, including a fee on the largest financial institutions and the expiration of most of the 2001/ 

2003 tax cuts for families making more than $250,000. 

I am very interested in your suggestions there. Because this will be added to our debt. And I think we spent over close to $1 trillion 

now in Iraq and moving up in Afghanistan now. And we have got 

to figure out how to pay for this. Let me ask about contractors. 

Mr. Secretary, I am very interested in what steps your Department is taking to understand the impact of contractors on our operations. For instance, I have figures that show that in the operation 

and maintenance account, about $100 billion is spent annually, $43 

billion of that is on contractors. Only the Army has responded back 

to us based on a bill that was passed in 2008 as to how these dollars are being spent, and I am very concerned that we could save 

money by insourcing a lot of these activities. What guidance have 

you given to the service secretaries and defense agency directors to 

collect actual contracted labor hours, and to give us a sense of 

where this money is going for contractors. I understand there are 

over 230,000 in theater now versus what we would be paying if we 

insourced those activities. What kind of guidance have you given 

to the services? 

Secretary GATES. Well, for one thing, the contingency operation, 

the wars that we are in, for example, we have 10,000 Afghans—— 

Mr. DICKS. Is your mic on, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary GATES. We have 10,000 Afghans who will be performing security responsibilities guarding camps and equipment 

and things like that. If we insource, that would be 10,000 more 

U.S. soldiers. So a lot of the contracting that we do in the theater 

are for functions that we think can be performed by somebody 

other than a soldier. On the first part of your question. Let me ask 

Mr. Hale. 

Mr. HALE. On the insourcing initiative in the base budget, Ms. 

Kaptur, we are on track. We have a goal, as I think you know, for 

33,000 positions to be transferred from contractors to government 

personnel over the period fiscal year 2010 to 2015. We are tracking 

that. We are on track with the goal. And we have issued guidance 

to—— 

Ms. KAPTUR. Over 5 years, sir? 

Mr. HALE. Yes. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
54 

Ms. KAPTUR. There are over 240,000? 

Mr. HALE. We never would anticipate running the Department of 

Defense without some substantial contractor assistance. But we 

will make a major change in the support services area from about 

39 percent contractors 2 years ago to about 26 percent back to 

about where we were in fiscal year 2000 with this initiative. So it 

is a major one. We are tracking the data. 

Ms. KAPTUR. We have been provided with an estimate of contracted services but not an actual inventory, and therefore I would 

question your seriousness in really getting at this insourcing versus 

outsourcing issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. 

Mr. Kingston. 

COST OF WAR

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, gentlemen of the panel. I wanted to ask something about funding. I will 

just throw out a couple of questions. In terms of histories of financing wars, I know that we have had revenue bonds, we have had 

lotteries and so forth. Have we looked at some sort of mechanism 

for paying for this war, either offsets in the existing budget? That 

is sort of the general question. But also perhaps a Grace type commission within the Department of Defense itself to figure out what 

works, what doesn’t work? I had a small contractor come to me last 

week and he built some sort of memory board when he was an employee of a large defense contractor. This is a memory board that 

is used in submarines and it has got a technical term that I am 

not sure what it is. 

It was about this big. The technology has moved on though. And 

he said now your BlackBerry or cell phone has 10 times the memory of this memory board, but this is a multimillion dollar piece of 

property. This is several thousand dollars worth. If not for the earmarking process, the large defense contractors which, as you know, 

can work the Pentagon just as effectively as they can work Capitol 

Hill, the small contractor can’t get in there, and what his point was 

not so much for himself, but in terms of this debate over procurement meets the earmarking process that the earmarking was a 

way for a small contractor to compete against the big guy, but also 

a way for the Pentagon to obtain better and more effective pieces 

of equipment and move quicker because you had the mandate from 

Congress to do it. 

So I guess my question in terms of maybe a Grace type commission, looking at things like that, another article that caught my eye 

recently, and I know I am jumping around, but with the 5 minutes, 

March 8th Stars and Stripes had an article about where reconstructive surgery meets optional plastic surgery and how difficult 

that is for the Department of Defense to have a good determination 

except at the hospital. 

Maybe sometimes this is vanity surgery, some of it is medically 

necessary and there was a big dust up about it. These sort of 

things that cost a lot of money and this committee certainly wants 

to be cooperative with you on the budget request. But we need to 

go back to the other Members of the Congress and the taxpayers 

to say there are a lot of reforms going on, and a lot of good things 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
55 

going on and in order to make sure we are getting the best dollar 

that we can for the $700 billion or whatever it is. I just want to 

talk to you about the big term philosophy on that. 

Secretary GATES. I will tell you that last year we made program 

cuts in acquisitions and for programs that weren’t working or that 

we felt were a waste of the taxpayers’ money that, as I said in my 

opening statement, if built to completion, would have cost $330 billion. I challenge anybody else in the government, proportionately to 

have that kind of record in terms of making changes. Congress 

passed acquisition reform last year. We are implementing that. We 

are enthusiastic about it. We are taking a much tougher view of 

the contracting that we are doing. I talked about the plant where 

we have 6 percent of the floor space and paying 70 percent of the 

overhead. We can fix those things. 

I get 1,000 pages of advice from the authorizing committees 

every year, advice and direction. It is cumulative. I have lots of outside panels. Frankly, what it all boils down to is execution by the 

people who are given the responsibility for doing it. And if they 

won’t execute or they can’t execute then they should be replaced. 

I think I have a better record of doing that than just about anybody 

who has held this job. I think this is about management, it is about 

leadership, it is about acquisition reform. But at the end of the day, 

it is about execution and I think we do a better job of that. We always can do better. This business that has been on the front pages 

about information operations, I have got a group of people looking 

at that. So I think we can do this and I think we can do it inhouse. 

Mr. DICKS. All right. Thank you very much. Yes, Admiral 

Mullen. 

Admiral MULLEN. For the record, I am not speaking about earmarks. But the issue that you raise, how do we get small, innovative companies to sustain themselves in this business is a critical 

issue. And my experience is the big contractors eat them alive. And 

I would urge, pressing those big contractors to show you exactly 

how they are doing it because that is possible, it is routinely possible in the commercial industry, as you have described, and we are 

paying too much money for some of the old stuff we can’t get replaced. 

So I don’t know what the right way to do that is, but I think continued review and pressure and inside this acquisition reform 

structure is absolutely critical because that technology is out there 

and it will help us a great deal. And the only other point I would 

make is on the medical side, this committee has led in so many 

ways for us as a military. And I would just urge you to keep doing 

that. And these young people who suffered so much and sacrificed 

so much, I am not on the cosmetic versus the reconstructive aspect 

of that. They ought to get everything that they deserve and you 

have supported that and we need to continue that. And we lead in 

many areas now because of these injuries and because of your support. And we need to continue to do that. 

Mr. DICKS. I just want to make one comment. The majority made 

a decision to end earmarking for private companies. One of the 

things I know that Mr. Obey and I discussed. And I have talked 

to Mr. Hale about this and Ash Carter about this. There is a small 

business innovation research program that exists already at the deVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
56 

fense department. We would like to put some additional money in 

because we think that these companies after they get through 

phase one and phase two need still a little bit more help to take 

their idea and bring it to fruition. And over the years, many of the 

most important thing, I just think of Predator being one of them. 

Mr. Lewis wasn’t here. He pushed us very hard. We have many, 

many innovations that came from the smaller companies. So we 

don’t want to hurt the smaller companies. We want to work with 

you to figure out a way to do this and we will continue to do that. 

Mr. Rothman, I think you two are out of sync down there. Mr. 

Rothman. 

SPACE PROGRAMS

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, Admiral, Mr. Hale. Thank you for your service. I only have 5 minutes. 

I am concerned about outer space and I would be interested in your 

gentlemen’s view of the issues and risks to the United States that 

we presently face or that we might face in the near future in space 

or from space? Especially in light of NASA’s retirement of the space 

shuttle program, the cancellation of the constellation Aries program. 

I know you are looking at the EELV, evolved expendable launch 

vehicle, et cetera. But what are the national security risks that we 

might face from space? How does NASA’s decision affect the industrial base and institutional knowledge of those who you will be calling upon to defend against threats from space? 

Secretary GATES. I think that the biggest concern that I have 

with respect to our space systems is their vulnerability to anti-satellite capabilities as well as to potential electronic warfare, cyber 

warfare that would deny us access to those capabilities, both intelligence, communications, the whole array. We have a major space 

program review underway that will be done in a few months that 

from the standpoint at least of the Defense Department, looks at 

the full panoply of what is going on in space and what we need to 

do and the balance of programs that we need to have. 

I think we have known this budget is to begin addressing some 

of these anti-access concerns that we have. Frankly unless the Admiral has something, I am not sure quite what the impact of 

NASA’s decisions will be in terms of our capabilities. All I will say 

is that no one has come to me and indicated that it creates a problem for us. 

Admiral MULLEN. I would only add that I think it is an area of 

focus that we have to sustain. I talked about the shipbuilding industrial base, another industrial base that has badly weakened 

over the years is the space industrial base. I too, I am not familiar 

with NASA’s decision in terms of its impact. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. They may not be connected. 

Mr. DICKS. Would the gentleman yield just to make a point? 

General Carlson, who is the head of the NRO, has testified up here 

just recently about his concerns about the industrial base. And also 

the lack of number of people who are actually there to do the 

launches. And Boeing and Lockheed have created this new entity. 

They have had an incredible record of success. But what he, I 

think, is worried about, that we have a backlog of satellites that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
57 

are going to be needed to launch. And we don’t have the launchers 

to do it. And apparently, the NASA decision contributes to this. So 

I think this is something you ought—both ought to take a look at. 

Mr. Rothman. 

MISSILE DEFENSE

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to—thank 

you for having it in the budget and focusing some of your attention—serious attention on that issue. I also want to talk about missile defense. I think what the Obama administration did in Israel 

with operation Juniper, Cobra in October of 2009 in terms of coordination and integration of our missile defense forces was extraordinary and sent a tremendously powerful message to potential 

wrong doers in the region about what the U.S. and Israel are the 

strongest power in the region and our strongest most reliable ally 

in the region can accomplish together to defeat wrong doers in 

terms of missiles fired against our forces or our allies. 

So congratulations on that. And I do support the continued funding of the joint Israel program, the Arrow 3, which is the exo-atmosphere anti-ballistic missile system. So congratulations on that. 

But China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, they are all working on 

intercontinental ballistic missiles. I know this is an open session. 

I know we have a robust defense capability already. But can you 

comment on the efforts reflected in this budget in terms of U.S. 

missile defense? 

Secretary GATES. It has been the policy of several administrations now to try and defend the United States against rogue states, 

but acknowledging that we do not have the capability to defend 

ourselves against large-scale nuclear armed states such as either 

Russia or China, nor are we seeking that capability. We do have 

the capability to defend ourselves against North Korea and Iran. 

And this budget not only has significant increases as the Admiral 

talked about in terms of theater ballistic missile defenses, which I 

might add are growing in the Gulf area, but it also continues the 

ground-base intercepter program, both the 2 and 3 stage. We will 

build out this budget. It allows us to build out the second missile 

site at Fort Greely. It has in it a test program for the 2 stage 

ground based intercepter. And we will continue our development 

work on the 3 stage interceptor. Those would be used potentially 

against an Iranian threat. And frankly, the two will work together 

in ways that I think put us substantially ahead of where we were 

not too long ago. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. Ms. Granger. 

BORDER SECURITY

Ms. GRANGER. Yes. Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, I understand you just returned from Mexico and I am extremely concerned 

about the violence on the border as I know you are. This morning’s 

press has an article about a town, a border town where the residents have been told by the cartels, we own this town. You are to 

get out or we will kill you and they are now showing up at the border asking for asylum. My question is several, and since I have got 

5 minutes, I am going to ask them all at the same time and ask 

that you answer them. How the meetings went, any surprise, what 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
58 

you would say this Congress, and especially this committee as far 

as what we need to do and are we giving the help that Mexico 

needs? I know that Governor Perry in February of 2009 submitted 

a formal request to the U.S. Government to deploy 1,000 Texas National Guard troops to the Texas-Mexico border under Title 32. 

That request is now over a year old. I would ask what the status 

of that request is. 

Also as far as equipment, you know, Admiral Mullen, we worked 

together to break through the bureaucracy and ensure that key 

equipment after it is approved by this committee and this Congress 

is delivered, particularly to Mexico under the Merida Initiative. 

Unfortunately it has been brought to my attention that once again, 

AMCOM is—the contracting process is delaying delivery of helicopters to Mexico and now Pakistan. 

So my third question having to do with that is how do we keep 

this from happening so we don’t keep having that conversation 

where we are saying yes, we approve the help and the equipment, 

but then we have to intercede to get it done. Those are my questions having to do with Mexico, Secretary Gates and Admiral 

Mullen. 

Secretary GATES. First of all, I would say the meetings went very 

well, and I don’t think there has ever been as broad array of senior 

officials on both sides of the border from the Federal governments 

that have come together to talk about the full array of issues, not 

just the security issues. I would tell you I have the same concern 

over the length of time that it is taking to get the aircraft and the 

helicopters to Mexico, and what I committed to them right now the 

delivery dates are, like, in 2012, 2013 and the leaders of the Mexican military made the point that the house is on fire now, having 

the fire truck show up in 2012 is not going to be particularly helpful. 

So I committed to our counterparts that I would look at every 

possible option to give them some bridging capability to provide 

them that kind of capability as a temporary solution until these 

aircraft are delivered. Part of it is the kind of thing that they are 

after is in high demand and so the contractors are working fulltime. I don’t think there are any problems in the contracting. It is 

just that there is such a backlog because helicopters are in demand 

everywhere in the world, and we are obviously a big customer as 

Admiral Mullen pointed out, we are putting $10 billion into more 

helicopters in this budget. 

I would say that we are very sensitive to the need to get them 

capability just as quickly as possible. On National Guard equipment, I would say when I took this job, the equipment on hand was 

40 percent across the Nation, it is now 77 percent. The historical 

norm is 70 percent. We are heading for 90 percent by 2015. So I 

think even when we met with the Council of Governors, they acknowledged that there had been a significant improvement in getting the equipment to the National Guard that they needed. 

Admiral MULLEN. I would only add that there has never been a 

stronger partnership, better relationship on the military side. And 

I would particularly commend NORTHCOM, General Renuart and 

his people who have worked very hard and very directly. I think 

what this committee can do can sustain the Merida Initiative. That 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
59 

really has been the oil that put in the machine that really opened 

up a lot of opportunities. It is not the only answer, but it has had 

a huge impact. They are in a very difficult fight. 

You described it as its own version of counterinsurgency, who is 

going to own this turf. They know that. And we are working with 

them to generate as much capability in that fight, in intelligence, 

it is the same thing. It is intelligence reconnaissance, surveillance. 

So more predators or global hawks. It is helicopters, it is how do 

you fuse the intelligence. What is the doctrine, the training, the 

leadership development. How do the Federal police work with the 

military? And the rest of their agencies and ours as well. Extraordinarily complex challenge, but one that everybody recognizes is 

deadly serious that has to continue to be addressed. We focus a 

great deal on the northern border. Their northern border, and I understand that. 

But I can tell you that the southern border is equally of concern 

because so many of the weapons and the drugs, the cocaine is coming through the southern border. So it is not just Mexico and it is 

not just U.S. and Mexico, it is a regional issue that we have really 

got to continue to focus on. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. And I know you are focused. 

Mr. DICKS. Your time has expired. 

Ms. GRANGER. But he misunderstood one question. Secretary 

Gates, it wasn’t the equipment. It was the troops of the National 

Guard that Governor Perry asked for a year ago and has not received a response. 

Secretary GATES. Let me get you an answer for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Regarding Governor Perry’s request for Federal funding of National Guard personnel for use on the Texas-Mexico border, for over a year DoD has been monitoring 

the situation along the Southwest Border closely, along with the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the National Security Staff. 

The Federal Government also has developed options to respond when necessary. 

As I understand it, DHS and DOJ, in March 2009, launched several southwest border initiatives to crack down on Mexican drug cartels through enhanced border security, including additional law enforcement personnel, increased intelligence capability, and better coordination with Federal, State, local, and Mexican law enforcement authorities. Also last year, DoD worked with DHS to develop for the President 

an option for temporary, limited, and focused DoD support in the form of funding 

the use of National Guard personnel who would be operating at the direction of the 

Southwest Border State Governors. 

Although Governor Perry’s initial requests for Federal assistance were not sent 

to DoD, on September 1, 2009, Governor Perry sent a letter to DoD regarding his 

earlier requests to the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding 

the use of National Guard personnel on the border. I want to assure you that DoD 

did respond to this letter. On September 18, 2009, Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy Miche`le Flournoy sent a letter to Governor Perry outlining DoD’s work with 

DHS to prepare a plan for the President for his consideration. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Bishop. 

IRREGULAR WARFARE

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And welcome 

to you, gentlemen. Secretary Gates, has the irregular warfare priority that was established in the directive of December 2008 been 

reflected in your 2011 budget request? And for Admiral Mullen, tell 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
60 

me what has the joint staff done to revise doctrine, organization 

planning material, leadership, personnel and facilities to reflect the 

sharpened focus on irregular warfare and how has the training curriculum been revised to address tank miles or flying hours given 

the new irregular warfare policy. And if it has been done, when 

was it done? And has the training curriculum been revised, moved 

away from two simultaneous major combat operations as it was 

recommended in the QDR? Secretary. 

Secretary GATES. We mentioned four areas in which this budget, 

significant areas where this budget takes into account our needs in 

the irregular warfare area. First, rotary wing. We are increasing 

the budget this year by almost a billion dollars to $10 billion for 

more helicopters. That will provide for, among other things, two 

new combat aviation brigades for the Army. Second, in the intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance arena, we are increasing 

the money there from $4.3 to $4.7 billion and basically maximizing 

our buys of reapers, predators and other capabilities along those 

lines. 

Third, as the Admiral indicated in his opening statement, we 

have significant increase in the budget for special operations command and we are also increasing our capabilities to carry on electronic warfare in—both of the theaters we are in, but elsewhere as 

well. In these areas and in others we have manifested in this budget meeting the need for irregular warfare. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Secretary, in the fiscal year 2011 request for operation and maintenance, it doesn’t seem to reflect those priorities 

and the tradeoffs. For example, the O&M request for the Air Force 

finances an additional 207 peacetime flying hours, along with the 

cost of fuel to fly these hours based on training curricula that have 

remained virtually unchanged since the Cold War. 

Secretary GATES. A lot of this stuff is dual purpose. If you break 

down our budget, it breaks down in the following way. Even with 

all of the reallocation of the dollars that we have made in the last 

few years for irregular warfare, in the base budget and one of my 

objectives in this job has been to institutionalize these capabilities 

so that when Afghanistan and Iraq are gone, we still have these 

capabilities. It is still about 10 percent of the budget. About 50 percent of the budget is on modernization of sophisticated systems, 

and about 40 percent is dual use, things like C–17s. So a C–17 is 

going to be as applicable in a regular conventional conflict as like 

the first Gulf War as it is in irregular warfare. And that is a big 

chunk of the budget. 

Admiral MULLEN. I would only add that as I have seen—and I 

will give two examples. One is specifically Adnilis. In my visits 

there, I have watched them, the Air Force—the airmen turn lessons that used to take years to get into the manuals and into the 

training in weeks and months from these fights both in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. So I would argue that that omen is very focused, I 

mean, I don’t know specifically, but on both aspects of this, irregular and conventional. And we need to do both to keep the balance. 

And then secondly, on the ground side, special forces but also in 

the conventional forces, the Army and the Marine Corps. I have 

seen them incorporate lessons as rapidly, literally deployment to 

deployment. And, in fact, that training has been put in place over 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
61 

the recent years. So I am actually very encouraged by the speed 

with which we are learning and incorporating it into our doctrine 

and into our training support of what we need. 

Mr. BISHOP. You have revised the curriculum? 

Admiral MULLEN. Absolutely. 

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Admiral MULLEN. Just a target of opportunity. I really appreciate your leadership and standing up this military family caucus, 

which is a big deal. Those families are also absolutely critical in 

our ability to sustain these fights. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Rogers. 

TALIBAN RECONCILIATION

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, gentlemen. 

The administration has cited that a key element of our political 

strategy in Afghanistan will be supporting Afghan led efforts to reintegrate the Taliban, at least those who renounce al Qaeda, disarm and enter the political process. President Karzai announced 

this week that he is planning to convene what he calls a jurga beginning April 29th, to develop a plan for reconciling with Taliban 

members who renounce ties to al Qaeda and embrace the Afghan 

constitution. 

General McChrystal recently told the chairman and members of 

the delegation that visited there, that he was open to that process 

but also concerned that President Karzai will make concessions to 

the Taliban that we and other coalition countries would be uncomfortable with. Am I accurate so far? And what are the concerns 

that we would have? Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary GATES. Well, first of all, in principle, I think we all 

agree, General McChrystal, General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen, myself and the President that ultimately reconciliation will be a part 

of the conclusion to the war in Afghanistan just as it was in Iraq. 

Our concern is that the reconciliation take place on the terms of 

the Afghan government and that it be done from a position of 

strength where those who are reconciling who have been opposed 

to the Afghan government agree to put down their weapons, agree 

to abide by the Afghan constitution and agree to participate in the 

political process. 

There are really two aspects of this. One is reconciliation, which 

is kind of at the top level if you will, the senior Taliban. And the 

other is reintegration. We believe that is a significant number. We 

don’t know exactly what percentage, but a significant number of 

the foot soldiers of the Taliban fight for the Taliban either because 

they get paid and it provides a way for them to support their families or because they and their families have been intimidated. 

We think as the tide turns, as the momentum shifts back toward 

the Afghan government and the international coalition, that we 

will see increasing numbers of these foot soldiers who will be willing to come back across the line, if you will, back into their villages. And the key is protect them against retribution by the 

Taliban and also find some way for them to support their families. 

That is already happening. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
62 

The numbers are relatively small, but we can already see increases in the number of those at that lower level. But I believe 

that for reconciliation to work, and it must be Afghan-led, but it 

must be on the Afghan government’s terms and it must be from a 

position of strength. And I think those were probably the concerns 

that General McChrystal was reflecting. 

Mr. ROGERS. So can we draw from your answer that there are 

certainly indications that this process will bear fruit? 

Secretary GATES. I think at the reintegration level the evidence 

is already there. My personal opinion is that in terms of reconciliation with the larger groups, it is probably early yet or the more 

senior levels, that the shift of momentum is not yet strong enough 

to convince the Taliban leaders that they are in fact going to lose. 

And it is when they begin to have doubts about whether they can 

be successful that they may be willing to make a deal. And I don’t 

think we are there yet. 

Mr. ROGERS. Would the threat that we pose to the poppy crop in 

the countryside have any bearing on this process that we are talking of here? 

Secretary GATES. I don’t know. I would be interested in Admiral 

Mullen’s view on that. I mean, the reality is that 98 percent of the 

poppy growth in Afghanistan is limited to seven provinces in the 

south and southwest. They happen to be where the Taliban is the 

strongest. But in terms of what impact it would have on reconciliation, frankly I hadn’t thought about that. I don’t know—— 

Admiral MULLEN. Just a couple of comments. First of all, I worry 

about the sort of hope that gets created immediately when you see 

a little light here that this is going to end rapidly. And I just don’t 

see that. This is a very tough part of process. 

Second, the Taliban is still the most unpopular people in that 

country. This is something the Afghan government is going to have 

to figure out with its own people. And thirdly, I do think that the 

opium, in the longer term, the money coming from that which fuels 

a significant part of the insurgency would have an impact. They 

have got a bunch stored. So having an impact on one crop 1 year 

or 2 years, but over a long period of time, it clearly will have an 

impact on, I think, I think in terms of their ability to execute their 

own strategy. 

I just think it is going to take some time. I know there is a desire 

for this to work as rapidly as possible. It is an extraordinarily complex part of the process. And the Secretary, I think, has accurately 

reflected what General McChrystal was concerned about. 

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman’s time has expired. I would like to 

make one comment on this. I think we are in a very difficult time 

right now with the operation in Marji and potentially in Kandahar. 

And I understand that there is a split of opinion on this poppy 

issue. I hope that we will, over time, be able to convince the people 

there that they have got to grow other crops. I know we have the 

Agriculture Department there. We are trying to work with them. 

I think it is even in their constitution that this is illegal. And I 

know maybe for the short term, we are not going to deal with 

eradication. But I do not see how just looking the other way is sustainable and I hope that we can deal with this over time. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
63 

Secretary GATES. Let me just say, Mr. Dicks, first of all, it has 

been about 18 months since the coalition changed its rules of engagements so that not only U.S., but our allied partners could go 

after drug labs and drug lords and the major traffickers. The challenge of eradication is that you have to be there with a substitute 

crop and enough money for a farmer to support himself over the 

year or so it takes to get other crops going. 

This is basically an agriculture country. This is a company that 

exported agricultural products until the Soviets invaded. Last year, 

the price of wheat for a period of time was on par with the price 

of opium or the price of poppy. So there is a way through this and 

there is a strategy in place for how we deal with this. But particularly when you are dealing with the small farmer, you go in and 

eradicate his crop, you have just recruited a family to the Taliban. 

You have got to give them an alternative source of living and 

they are open to it as long as they are not being intimidated by 

the Taliban who, as the Admiral says, use this as a source of revenue and they make some of these farmers grow this stuff. So we 

give them security, we will also give them some alternatives. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will the chairman yield briefly on this point? I 

would yield. 

I was over there 25 years ago, and we were trying to pay farmers 

to stop growing poppy and start growing something else, including 

tobacco. And they took our money and continued to grow the poppy. 

Frankly, I don’t have too much confidence in this scheme because 

we have been doing it for 25 years without avail. 

Mr. DICKS. I think the gentleman has made his point. I want to 

get finished here. We have two more members left. Mr. Hinchey. 

PRESIDENTIAL HELICOPTER

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, Under Secretary Hale, for all of 

the excellent work that you are doing and all of the complicated 

issues that you are involved in. We deeply appreciate it. I wanted 

to ask a simple question about the presidential helicopter. As you 

know, we were deeply disappointed in that the existing program 

was not going to be followed through. We thought that there could 

be some kind of solution to that existing program and apparently 

it might have happened in the way that the joint strike fighter 

issue was being dealt with. But in any case, let us look at what 

is happening now in the future. Can you assure the committee that 

the new VXX program is going to move forward to an open and fair 

competition? And what is the status of the department’s current efforts with regard to the VXX? 

Secretary GATES. I will answer the first part of your question yes 

and ask Mr. Hale to talk about—— 

Mr. HALE. We are reviewing options right now, the acquisition 

community for follow on VXX. It is important to get the requirements right here. It is a part of what happened with the VH–71. 

So I think we need to take time to do that. And I will answer for 

the record as to the exact timing of that. 

[The information follows:] 

The Navy is conducting an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), which will address all 

feasible material and non-material options with a holistic assessment of requireVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
64 

ments, capabilities, cost drivers, schedule implications, and risks. The AoA process 

is an independent and objective look across the entire helicopter industrial base, 

which is not expected to be completed until the 4th quarter of FY 2010. The Navy 

is confident this approach will result in a program that will benefit from lessons 

learned and leverage prior work where it is appropriate as we move to a more affordable program to meet this critical mission. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Okay. Great. We would like to stay in touch with you on this. We 

think it is a very important thing to do. One other brief question on this. Given the 

sum costs of the failed VH–71 program—and as I understand it, that sum cost was 

about $3.5 billion, can you give us an estimate—an estimation on what the total 

program costs of the VXX plus the VH–71 will be? 

Secretary GATES. Let us do that for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

The Navy is conducting an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), which will address all 

feasible material and non-material options with a holistic assessment of requirements, capabilities, cost drivers, schedule implications, and risks. This approach will 

result in a program that will benefit from lessons learned and leverage prior work 

where it is appropriate as we move to a more affordable program to meet this critical mission. Preliminary cost estimates will be an output of the AoA process and 

are not expected to be completed until 4th quarter FY 2010. In addition, estimated 

termination costs for the VH–71 program are a matter of negotiations between the 

Government and Industry and cannot presently be released. The Department will 

make the termination cost estimate available to the Committee when that information is releasable. 

CERP

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. I would like to follow up 

on a question that was asked by Mr. Moran with regard to the circumstances that are going on in Afghanistan with regard to the 

Taliban. We see that President Karzai announced this week that 

he is going to convene a peace operation, a jurga, beginning the end 

of next month to develop a plan for the reconciliation with the 

Taliban. So this looks like something obviously that is going to 

happen very seriously and the situation there is very questionable 

with regard to its outcome. He is going to make concessions to the 

Taliban and—— 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Hinchey, we just went into this question in some 

detail. If you want to follow up—— 

Mr. HINCHEY. This is in a different detail, Mr. Chair. I am just 

curious what the situation is going to be like over there with regard to this. And the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act authorized the use of CERP funds to support the Afghan 

reintegration and reconciliation process. How do you envision these 

funds being used and what do you think that they will be? What 

is the cite that will be used in determining who will be eligible to 

receive those funds and how much is going to be involved? Is there 

any understanding about that yet at this point? 

Admiral MULLEN. I think there is—there was an authorization of 

upwards of $100 million to the specific effort. It would be used 

similar to how we have used it both there initially as well as in 

Iraq, and when you think about individuals who are reintegrating 

as we have discussed, it would be to provide them a way ahead so 

that they can actually put food on the table, if you will. And in 

terms of support and reintegration, there are also additional CERP 

funds—or CERP funds which are tied to projects—development 

projects to support the development aspect of the overall strategy 

as well, similar to what we did in Iraq. And the other is we are 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
65 

going to great pains to oversee this money to make sure it is spent 

well and where we want it to be spent. 

AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE

Mr. HINCHEY. One last question on this. With regard to the Afghan national police, I understand that the training program for 

them now has been stopped. And I am just curious to know what 

the situation is going to be, what the intention is because that 

seems to be a very important part to maintaining the security and 

the strategy of that country. 

Secretary GATES. It has not been stopped and, in fact, is being 

expanded. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Is being expanded. We have information that it 

has been stopped. That is interesting. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Hinchey, we were just there. We met with General Caldwell. That is one of his highest priorities is dealing with 

the training of the national police. Mr. Boyd. 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, gentlemen. 

It is great to see all of you. I know that, Mr. Secretary, that Congressman Young earlier asked a question, you talked about the delivery time lines before I got here and I apologize for being late. 

But I would like to follow up on that and I know that the Department of Defense has reduced the F–35 procurement quantities by, 

I think, 122 aircraft over the next 5 years or so. 

And I know that the F–22 program has been capped at 187. You 

currently have plans being implemented to retire about 250 combat 

air fighters, Air Force fighters, about 50 from Tyndall Air Force, 

by the way. And Secretary Donley and General Schwartz have been 

wonderful in working with us to help us understand how that is 

going to work in mitigation and so on and so forth. But all of this 

seems to me it places the Air Force at some moderate risk. 

Those are not my words. What are your reflections on those decisions now? And anticipating the JSF problems, do you think that 

the JSF will come on—be operational in time to fill this gap or do 

you have a contingency plan in case the F–35 slips to the right 

again? 

Secretary GATES. First of all, the Air Force will begin to get F– 

35 aircraft in 2013. I think these things need to be put in perspective. In 2020, the United States will have—the U.S. will have 2,700 

combat aircraft. That is about thousand more than any potential 

competitor. Forty-two percent of our force will be fifth generation 

fighters. That is 20 times more fifth generation aircraft than the 

Chinese and 15 times more than the Russians we think will have 

by 2020. That doesn’t count the investment that we are putting 

into capabilities like the reapers, that just as an example, it would 

take 36 F–16s to provide the 24-hour persistent coverage that eight 

reapers provide with the same armament and the capabilities of 

the F–35 and the F–22 are significantly superior to the aircraft 

that they have replaced. So you don’t have to replace them on a 

one-for-one basis. 

So I am fairly comfortable with where we are with all these programs. If we carry out the buy of the F–35 which is 2,450 aircraft 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
66 

roughly and we go forward with the programs that we have in 

place, I think that we will be in a significantly superior position to 

any potential competitor and the airmen that you referred to, Mr. 

Young, worried about whether that is going to be an American aircraft rather than somebody else’s, that fellow on the ground is not 

going to have to worry. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I think all of us certainly understand that you don’t have to replace one for one because of the capability of these fifth generation aircraft. But what 

I hear you saying the bottom-line is that you do not consider that 

we are putting our Air Force at a moderate risk with these plans? 

Secretary GATES. The risk is the one the chairman alluded to before. And that is the Air Force, in order to be able to afford the 

modernization, is going to have to retire some older aircraft, and 

so that is just a fact of life. And so there will be some modest reductions. But when you take into account the overall capabilities 

of the F–22, the F–35 and the UAVs, I think we will have actually 

a significantly more powerful Air Force in the future than we do 

today. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. We have one last question from Mr. Moran. I promised him that we would give him a chance to finish his thought. 

SECURITY CONTRACTORS

Mr. MORAN. You are going to like this, Mr. Chairman. I will dispense with the pleasantries this time around. What I was getting 

at in the last series of questions, deals with the Afghan national 

police force, because that is the most critical aspect of being able 

to transfer, it has got to be transferred to the police, not the Army 

or anything else. They are the most visible representative of the 

government. And yet that is a contract, we contract out that responsibility. Now, General Caldwell is wonderful. Currently it is 

being done by a group called DynCorp, with State Department. Mr. 

Secretary, you took it over into the Defense Department. But in the 

process, you effectively made only two contractors eligible for that 

contract, Northrop and Blackwater. You know that Blackwater is 

responsible for wantonly killing a lot of Iraqi innocent civilians. 

You know it, the Iraqis know it, the Taliban know it, and al Qaeda 

knows it because they plan to use it as part of their propaganda 

program. 

What were you thinking in doing that, and can’t we fix that so 

that there is no real possibility of Blackwater having that contract 

where it might very well erode public confidence in Afghanistan as 

to the Americans’ mission? 

Secretary GATES. First of all, before the contract was implemented, it was protested. The protest was upheld by GAO. The 

contract is not being pursued at this time. DynCorp’s execution of 

that contract is continuing. We are making some changes in the 

contract. I would also point out there are an awful lot of U.S. and 

international police trainers as well. It is not all being done by contract by any means, and in fact, one of the things that we have 

been out there working hard on with our allies is to get more police 

trainers from places like the Carabinieri and the Guardia Seville 

and so on. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
67 

Mr. MORAN. That is all good. But that protest was held against 

your decision, and that it is what troubled me because it seemed 

inconsistent with otherwise very thoughtful decisions. We can talk 

about it later. 

Mr. DICKS. All right. The committee is adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow, at which time we will hold a hearing on the Army and 

Marine Corps ground equipment in room H–140. 

Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen, Mr. Hale, thank you very much. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions submitted by Mr. Obey and the answers thereto follow:] 

TRAINING AFGHAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCES

Question. The Afghan National Army has grown well in both size and capabilities, 

but the Afghan National Police has failed to keep pace. They lack discipline, are 

often ineffective and have failed to shake off their reputation for corruption. In addition, both the ANA and ANP are said to lack effective indigenous leadership. 

Please describe the program that the Department of Defense has in place to train 

the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP). 

Answer. 

ANA: The Afghan National Army Training Command (ANATC) is the primary 

training institution for the ANA. ANATC contributes to force generation through 

multiple programs and institutions designed to contribute to the fielding and subsequent development of an army with the skills and competencies needed to conduct 

effective COIN operations. Within NATO Training Mission Afghanistan/Combined 

Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (NTM–A/CSTC–A), the Combined Training and Advisory Group-Army (CTAG–A) has the mission of advising, mentoring, 

and monitoring the ANATC in order to establish a doctrine, education and training 

system capable of supporting the development of a professional ANA in a timeframe 

that supports growth targets. Major training initiatives include: • Basic Warrior Training: This recruit training process begins at the Basic Warrior Training Course (BWT) at Kabul Military Training Center (KMTC) or at one 

of six remote BWT (RBWT) courses in the corps’ areas. To ensure the ANA continues to meet its quality goals, NTM–A worked with the ANATC to add a U.S. 

Army marksmanship unit to instruct at KMTC and the remote training sites. This 

has increased the quality of the BWT program and improved operational readiness 

of fielded forces. In addition to this training, the extensive partnering between Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) and International Security Assistance 

Force (ISAF) units in the field is critical to improvements in the quality of the total 

force. • Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO) Training: The ANA Bridmal Academy in 

Kabul conducts much of the training and development programs for the ANA NCO 

Corps. The academy teaches the Squad Leader Course, Platoon Sergeant Course, 

Senior Sergeant Course, First Sergeant Course, and Sergeant Major Course. • Officer Training: The ANA conducts officer training and professional military 

training courses in partnership with coalition mentors. The current courses taught 

in the officer Professional Military Education (PME) program include: the Basic Officer Training Course, which provides basic branch specialty training for new lieutenants; the Company Commanders’ Course, which prepares captains for company 

level command; the Staff Officers’ Course, which provides captains and majors with 

basic staff officer skills; the Command & General Staff Course for majors and lieutenant colonels, which is the first officer PME course; the Kandak (Battalion) Commanders’ Course, which prepares lieutenant colonels for Kandak-level command assignments; and the Strategic Command & Staff Course, which is the culminating 

PME course taught to senior colonels and general officers. 

• Literacy and Language Training: NTM–A instituted a two-week pilot literacy 

training program during pre-basic training for ANA soldiers. In addition, literacy 

training is an integral part of instruction at the Bridmal NCO Academy and the 

BWT course. 

Additionally, the ANA set up a Foreign Language Institute, which Luxembourg 

has expressed interest in funding via the ANA Trust Fund. This program emphasizes the instruction of non-English languages such as European and Asian languages and Dari/Pashto to strengthen international military education opportunities 

for the ANA. 

ANP: One of the key challenges to building the capacity of the ANP to achieve 

their mission is training. In past years, due to the lack of program resourcing, 60– 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
68 

70% of the force was hired and deployed with no formal training, the ‘‘recruit-assign’’ model. While working to increase the throughput of new recruits, NTM–A/ 

CSTC–A has also had to implement plans, in coordination with the ISAF Joint Command (IJC) and the Ministry of Interior (MOI), to provide training to those already 

on the tashkiel (manning document). For basic recruit training, one of the major initiatives implemented in March 2010 is the establishment of a new model of ‘‘recruittrain-assign’’ rather than the previous model. ‘‘Recruit-train-assign’’ will ensure all 

new police recruits receive necessary training before performing official duties. 

Other training initiatives are detailed below. 

• Afghan Police Training Teams (APTT): NTM–A is working with the IJC and the 

MOI to develop APTTs that can work alongside ISAF Police Operational Mentor and 

Liaison Teams (POMLTs) and Police Mentoring Teams (PMTs) to extend the reach 

of training and development capacity into districts that lack training support. This 

effort can accelerate the ANP reform program and raise the quality of deployed police units. APTTs, located mostly at the district level, will consist of one officer, two 

NCOs and a civilian literacy trainer. Teams will be responsible for police training, 

literacy training, mentoring, administration (drug testing and accountability for personnel, weapons and entitlements), and anti-corruption. 

• Basic Training: Currently basic training of the ANP occurs at 18 training centers. Training of the Afghan Border Police (ABP) occurs at four training facilities. 

Several partner countries also conduct police training at or near their Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) sites, including the Czechs in Logar, the Turkish in 

Wardak, the Dutch in Tarin Kowt, the British in Helmand, and the Germans in several areas throughout the north. In order to meet growth goals and train the current force, the MOI extended the length of the duty day at basic training and decreased course length from eight to six weeks to improve student throughput. The 

six-week course contains the same program of instruction (POI) and actually increases the number of student/instructor contact hours compared to the eight week 

course with the addition of 64 hours of mandatory literacy training (actual POI 

hours thus increased from 265 to 329). 

• Leadership Training: The lack of trained and competent leadership is one of the 

largest problems within the MOI. NTM–A is working with the MOI to institute a 

competitive selection and promotion process that is transparent and merit-based. To 

further professional development, we are working with the international community 

to train ANP in specialized police schools and host talented ANP students in their 

own professional law enforcement academies. NTM–A is exploring ways to enable 

non-governmental organizations to provide training to the ANP in the areas of 

human rights and community relations. 

• Literacy: An important component of the revised POI is the inclusion of mandatory literacy training as it not only improves the quality of the force but has been 

shown as a recruiting tool. NTM–A/CSTC–A added 64 hours of mandatory literacy 

training to the basic training POI at all police regional training centers. In addition, 

the MOI expanded follow-on literacy training throughout the country by adding literacy trainers in 221 locations. 

Question. Would you describe the training program as successful to this point? 

Why or why not? 

Answer. The training of the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) has 

been successful over the past several years and the Afghan National Army (ANA) 

and Afghan National Police (ANP) have greatly improved their capabilities since the 

Department of Defense (DoD) began training in 2002 (ANA) and 2005 (ANP). Despite successes, considerable gaps remain. Until recently, the ANSF development 

has been largely under-resourced in both funding and manpower. 

There have been a number of new initiatives that have reshaped the ANSF development program with the goal of being able to quickly grow the size of the ANSF 

while simultaneously improving the quality of the overall force. The two most significant changes to the ANSF program include improved unity of command through 

organizational changes to the NATO command structure—including the ISAF 

(International Security Assistance Force) Joint Command (IJC) and NATO Training 

Mission—Afghanistan (NTM–A)—and the embedding of international forces to partner with the ANSF. 

One of the most significant challenges to successful execution of the ISAF plan 

for the growth and development of the ANSF is the shortage of NTM–A institutional 

trainers. Without sufficient mentors and trainers, our ability to effectively grow and 

develop the ANSF is at risk. 

The ANA continues to improve capacity and increase end-strength. The ANP currently is on track to meeting growth goals, but there is overall concern among the 

U.S. interagency and the international community regarding the ability of the ANP 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
69 

not only to grow but also to improve the quality of both basic police training and 

the quality of the fielded force. 

DoD will continue to work with the ANSF to grow and develop the force so they 

can eventually assume lead for security responsibility throughout Afghanistan. The 

Commander, ISAF will assess the new programs as they move forward, including 

a formal assessment this summer, to allow for course corrections and implementation of mitigation strategies. 

Question. Does the low literacy rate among Afghans significantly affect the content of training? 

Answer. The Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) training program of 

instruction takes into account the literacy rates in Afghanistan and uses appropriate training mechanisms (hands-on training and other mechanisms) to counter 

the low literacy rate of recruits. Additionally, to improve the overall quality of the 

ANSF, the current curriculum of both the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan 

National Police (ANP) basic training courses includes 64 hours of mandatory literacy training. Once the ANA and ANP personnel graduate, they will also have the 

opportunity to receive additional literacy training in the field with the goal of all 

ANSF achieving a 3rd grade literacy level. Combined Security Transition CommandAfghanistan (CSTC–A) has contracted with more than 200 literacy trainers in districts throughout Afghanistan to provide ongoing training for the ANP. 

Question. To what extent do Afghan security forces participate in military operations? To what extent do they lead these operations? 

Answer. All Afghan National Army (ANA) battalions are partnered with coalition 

forces. About 30% of Afghan National Police (ANP) units are partnered with Coalition forces and that number is increasing, especially in critical districts, as the U.S. 

force increase continues through August 2010. Recently, Afghan Army units have 

played a key role in nearly every dimension of the Central Helmand Campaign and, 

in many cases, though not the majority, led clearing efforts at battalion and company level. The trend of the ANA forces leading clearing operations has also increased in Regional Command (RC) East and is expected to increase throughout the 

country with increased coalition forces and partnering efforts. ANA Commando Battalions, partnered with U.S. Special Operations Forces, frequently lead special operations throughout the country. Afghan National Civil Order Police (ANCOP) are 

presently playing a mission essential role in Central Helmand as we transition to 

the hold and build phases, in which they have a leading role. 

Question. A September 2009 report by the Department of Defense Inspector General found that the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan, led by General Caldwell, 

only had about 51% of the field trainers needed to meet current requirements. Is 

this still the case? 

Answer: Since the release of the September 2009 Department of Defense Inspector 

General (DoDIG) report, the field training requirement for the Afghan National 

Army has increased to a total need of 180 mentor teams to meet the training needs 

of a 134,000-strong force by October 2010. There are currently 142 teams deployed 

against this requirement and an additional 24 offers that have not yet been deployed. The field training requirement for the Afghan National Police has increased 

to a total need of 475 mentor teams to meet the training needs of a 96,000-strong 

force by December 2010. There are currently 312 teams deployed against this requirement and an additional 20 offers that have not yet been deployed (only 14 

more teams are needed within priority districts). 

Since September 2009, SHAPE has made significant progress in filling the institutional and field training requirements for the NATO Training Mission—Afghanistan 

(NTM–A). Ensuring that NTM–A has sufficient institutional and operational trainers remains a top priority. The Department of Defense (DoD) is currently working 

with NATO to provide sufficient resources for NTM–A. A series of SHAPE-led force 

generation efforts have resulted in a significant number of international commitments to help meet the institutional and operational trainer shortfall. The U.S. Government continues to be engaged in very active diplomatic efforts to urge our coalition partners to provide additional trainers and mentoring teams for the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF). DoD is also examining its own contributions 

to ensure it is doing everything it can to fill the requirement. 

Question. Commanders in theater indicate that developing indigenous leadership 

is key to fostering unit cohesions, maintaining discipline, reducing corruption and 

promoting the operational success of Afghanistan’s security forces. What leadership 

development training is available for ANA and ANP? 

Answer. For the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Air Corps (ANAAC), the capacity to train leaders is expanding in the officer and enlisted career tracks. Both 

Afghan Army officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) are working to professionalize their career fields based on institutionalized military training, civilian eduVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
70 

cation opportunities, and experience gained from assignments of gradually increasing responsibilities and complexity. Courses to develop non-commissioned officers include the Tactical Leaders Course, the Non-Commissioned Officer Basic Course, the 

First Sergeant Course, and the Sergeant Major Course. Commissioning sources for 

the Afghan Army include the National Military Academy of Afghanistan, a four-year 

program similar to West Point that recently graduated 212 cadets as Afghan Second 

Lieutenants, and an Officer Candidate School. There is also a course of instruction 

that provides leadership instruction and re-integration training for former mujahedeen fighters desiring to join the ANA. Afghan officers attend the Officer Basic 

Course and the Counter-Insurgency (COIN) Course prior to deployment to the field 

units. Subsequent instruction includes the Junior Officer Command and Staff 

Course, the Operational Command and Staff Course, and the Strategic Command 

and Staff College. The Afghan Ministry of Defense is working to link the successful 

completion of leadership schools to promotion to key leadership positions. Another 

important component of the professional leadership development is the opportunity 

for literacy training and self-improvement throughout a soldier’s career. 

The Afghan National Police (ANP) is making progress toward establishing a professional development model for patrolmen and officers. Patrolmen can attend the 

Police Non-Commission Officer Course and the Senior Sergeant Course. Career police non-commissioned officers (NCOs) can attend functional training, including advanced shooting and survival, basic criminal investigations, and crime scene investigations. The Afghan Police Training Team (APTT) is an Afghan initiative where 

a small team of trainers, accompanied by a literacy trainer, travels to districts identified for poor police performance and provides leadership training for police leaders 

as well as literacy training for the local police force. Police officers are commissioned 

from Officer Candidate Schools or the National Police Academy, a three-year commissioning program that recently produced 586 graduates. New police officers can 

expect to attend an Officer Basic Course in their career field, then attend specialty 

training like the APTT course or become an instructor after a field tour of duty. In 

order to reduce attrition, reduce casualties, attack corruption, and make commanders more capable as leaders in the field, the Afghan Ministry of the Interior 

initiated an Afghan Police Commanders’ Course, a three-tier leadership training 

strategy to be instituted later this year. Police leaders at the district, provincial, and 

national levels will attend courses at their respective levels and will not be considered for promotion to the next higher assignment without completing the required 

level professional development course. 

The apex of the ANP leadership training program is the Afghan National Police 

Academy in Kabul. Currently a new National Police Training Center (NPTC) campus is being constructed in Wardak province that will become the new home of senior police officers and non-commissioned officers. Courses are projected to start at 

this new facility in September 2010. 

The Afghan Defense University (ADU) is also under construction in Kabul and 

will serve as the ANA strategic-level campus for both Army officers and senior noncommissioned officers (similar to the U.S. Army War College and the Sergeants 

Major Academy). The cornerstone for ADU was laid on April 6, 2010, and initial 

courses are projected to begin at this new facility in March 2012. Both ADU and 

NPTC plan to conduct an exchange program where both institutions can provide 

senior police and army leaders the ability to conduct joint and combined operations. 

The way ahead for the professional leadership development of the ANSF includes 

building enduring institutions, including brick and mortar structures, a professional 

military education system, and a career management structure capable of managing 

the force. We must and will continue to provide appropriate partner elements with 

ANSF units for training and modeling what right looks like. We will continue to 

encourage the Afghan leadership to address quality of life issues that are affecting 

retention—housing, equipment, training, and survivability. Most important, as coalition partners we must create a culture of self-development within the ANSF. The 

emphasis is on education (literacy) and self-advancement opportunities throughout 

a soldier’s or policeman’s career. 

Question. How long do you anticipate it will take to develop a self-sustaining leadership cadre for Afghanistan’s security forces? 

Answer. The current NATO Training Mission—Afghanistan (NTM–A) estimate is 

three to five years to develop a self-sustaining leadership cadre for Afghanistan’s security forces. 

Building a ‘‘self-sustaining cadre’’ takes years because of the time needed to develop a professional cadre that leads by example and has seasoned veterans in its 

ranks; to establish enduring institutions such as the Afghan Defense University and 

the Afghan National Police Academy, to serve as the strategic level training centers 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
71 

for Afghan army and police senior leaders; and to build refined programs of instruction (curriculum) to support and facilitate learning. 

NTM–A is assisting the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) develop its institutional training base to include training courses from six weeks (basic training for 

Afghan policemen) to four years in length (National Military Academy of Afghanistan). There has been significant progress in the past few years, as highlighted by 

the recent National Military Academy of Afghanistan graduation of 212 second lieutenants in what was only its second graduating class. In March 2010, NMAA inducted more than 600 young Afghans into the freshman class. 

Question. What level of capability will we need to see from ANA before we begin 

to transition responsibility for security in Afghanistan to their forces? How will we 

measure that capability? 

Answer. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is currently working 

with the Afghan government and international community on the ground in Afghanistan to develop the appropriate concept for the transition to greater Afghan leadership, ownership, and responsibility. This concept must be approved by the Afghan 

government and the North Atlantic Council to ensure full agreement on the conditions, process, roles, and responsibilities of transition. The U.S. Government believes 

that for transition to be meaningful and sustainable, benchmarks for transition cannot be measured simply by the number of Afghan security forces, their operational 

capabilities, or even the threat level. Rather, governance and development criteria 

must also be established to ensure that the appropriate conditions exist to achieve 

and sustain security in Afghanistan. We will not transition to full Afghan responsibility until the Afghans have the capacity in a particular district or province to manage the security situation on their own, with U.S. forces and allied forces initially 

providing tactical and eventually strategic oversight. Although conditions and 

benchmarks will be set within a national framework, they will also be responsive 

to the particular circumstances of each district and province. 

Question. What is the implication for our Counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy if 

the Afghan people continue to perceive the National Police as ineffective and corrupt? 

Answer. It is essential to our COIN strategy to have the Afghan National Police 

(ANP) trusted by the people and perceived as effective and not corrupt. NATO 

Training Mission—Afghanistan (NTM–A) is working to increase accountability and 

transparency as well as institutionalize processes within the ANP to counter corruption. 

A major concern of the international community is the lack of personnel accountability in the ANP. There have been varying accounts of ‘‘over-the-tashkil’’ 1 police 

in various districts performing police work while not being paid through the Law 

and Order Trust Fund Afghanistan (LOTFA), as well as accounts of ‘‘ghost police’’ 

who are on the payroll but are not actually present for duty. In October 2009, NTM– 

A/Combined Security Transition Command—Afghanistan (CSTC–A) and the Ministry of Interior (MOI) began conducting a Personnel Asset Inventory (PAI) to establish a database of all ANP, in an attempt to enhance accountability and transparency. The PAI will provide a baseline for the police force and help eliminate corruption. The process includes registration, drug-testing, vetting, weapons 

verification, and obtaining biometric data on all ANP personnel. The goal is to complete the PAI by early May 2010. 

Additionally, with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and 

the Department of Defense (DoD), a Major Crimes Task Force Afghanistan (MCTF– 

A) has been set up in the MoI. The MCTF–A will investigate corruption cases within 

the MoI and also will work closely with prosecutors and the judicial system to ensure that corrupt officials are brought to justice. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Obey. Questions submitted by Mr. Moran and the answers thereto follow:] 

Question. Recent congressional hearings focusing on a Xe subsidiary, Paravant, 

demonstrated that the Department of Defense continues to struggle with contractor 

oversight and management in Afghanistan. In the wake of the shooting death of two 

Afghan civilians by Paravant independent contractors in May 2009 what has the 

Department done to tighten its authority over armed contractors in Afghanistan and 

other theatres of operations? 

Answer. The individuals in question were hired by Paravant under a subcontract 

with Raytheon to train the Afghan National Army. They were not private security 

contractors (PSCs), nor were they authorized to be armed. 

Significant improvements have been made in the policy and management framework governing armed contractors employed by the Department of Defense (DoD) 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
72 

and their activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan. DoD Instructions, in particular, 

DoD Instruction 3020.50, ‘‘Private Security Contractors (PSCs) Operating in Contingency Operations,’’ and associated theater directives has established core standards 

for vetting and training all U.S. Government PSC and other armed contractor personnel. The U.S. Government also has adopted common standards for Rules for the 

Use of Force (RUF) and escalation procedures, as well as a requirement that all 

U.S. Government PSCs use only authorized weapons and ammunition. Finally, all 

U.S. Government PSCs must be licensed to carry arms in accordance with host nation law and must receive U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM)/Coalition Forces’ 

approval to carry arms. 

DoD contractors remain accountable under the law and are subject to a number 

of statutes governing their behavior, including the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and relevant provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Question. In a written response to Senator Levin’s 25 February 2010 letter, Secretary Gates pledged to investigate Blackwater subsidiary Paravant’s activities in 

Afghanistan, including allegations of misappropriating government weapons, carrying weapons without approval and hiring staff with serious criminal records including larceny and substance abuse. Which office in DOD is leading this investigation? Will the contents of this investigation be publicly released? Will the results 

of this investigation be considered for future contracting decisions? 

Answer. As I stated in my March 25 letter to Senator Levin, the Department of 

Defense (DoD) takes very seriously the allegations concerning Xe Services (the company formerly known as Blackwater) as set forth in recent press articles and congressional hearings. As information develops, we will continue to monitor the potential impact of that information, as well as any ongoing investigations on the execution of any future source selections to satisfy DoD program requirements. 

Allegations of wrongdoing by Xe Services and its affiliated companies are currently being investigated by multiple Government agencies for their review and action. In order to protect the evidence, witnesses and agents, and to avoid serious 

compromise of the casework, DoD will not comment on or release any information 

about the probes at this time. Any evidence of wrongdoing will be forwarded to the 

appropriate agencies for their review and action as appropriate. 

With respect to the shooting incident at the intersection of Jalalabad Road and 

Mosque Road in Kabul, Afghanistan on May 5, 2009, the DoD Office of General 

Counsel (OGC) received the case file from U.S. Central Command on May 28, 2009. 

On May 29, 2009, OGC transmitted the case file to the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

with DoD’s formal request that DOJ make its Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction 

Act (MEJA) jurisdiction determination in the case. On June 1, 2009, DOJ advised 

DoD that it decided to take the case as a MEJA referral, and the case was assigned 

to the former DOJ Domestic Security Section (now DOJ Human Rights and Special 

Prosecution Section). The case was presented to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the 

Eastern District of Virginia. Two individuals employed by Paravant LLC alleged to 

be involved were indicted on January 6, 2010 on charges of second-degree murder, 

attempted murder, and firearm offenses, and they were subsequently arrested. The 

currently scheduled trial date is September 14, 2010. I refer you to the Department 

of Justice for additional information. 

Question. Earlier this month the GAO sustained a protest by DynCorp International preventing the transfer of training for the Afghan National Police (ANP) 

from the Department of State to the Department of Defense. Prior to the GAO’s 

sustainment. DOD was going to use an existing IDIQ contract with 5 companies to 

compete and award a new contract to train the ANP. One of the 5 companies was 

Xe Services, the successor company of Blackwater. 

What is DOD doing to ensure that it can legally transfer the training of the ANP 

from the State Dept. to DOD? 

Answer. In April 2005, the Department of Defense (DoD) took over responsibility 

of the ANP program due to the need to train large numbers of ANP in a counterinsurgency (COIN) environment. At the time, the Department of State (DOS) had 

a contract in place with DynCorp International LLC to provide the basic police 

training skills to the ANP. DoD and DOS believed it would be most economical and 

most efficient for DoD to continue to fund this contract by providing Afghan Security Forces Funding (ASFF) to DOS and for DOS to continue to execute the contract. 

As part of our effort to improve the police training process, the U.S. Ambassador 

to Afghanistan (Ambassador Karl Eikenberry) and the Commander, U.S. Forces— 

Afghanistan (General Stanley McChrystal) recommended that management of the 

DoD-funded and DOS-managed police training contract used to hire civilian police 

trainers should be shifted from DOS to DoD to provide unity of control and command. DOS and DoD subsequently approved this recommendation. The recVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
73 

ommended effective date for the transition was January 2010, the date the existing 

DOS contract with DynCorp was scheduled to end. 

Due to the operational need to award a new contract quickly and the respective 

organizations’ subject matter expertise and experience in support of Afghanistan operations, the Commander, Combined Security Transition Command—Afghanistan 

(CSTC–A) selected the Counter-Narcoterrorism and Technology Program Office 

(CNTPO), through the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Forces Command (USASMDC/ARSTRAT), to oversee the development of an appropriate acquisition strategy for the ANP program. The new strategy called for procuring the required services through the issuance of task orders under existing Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (MAIDIQ) contracts with 

CNTPO. The task orders for the training of the ANP and ANP program logistics 

requirements were to be competed among the five existing MAIDIQ contractors. 

Before orders could be issued, on March 15, the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) sustained a protest by DynCorp International LLC. The GAO determined 

that the task orders for the ANP program were outside the scope of the MAIDIQ 

contracts. As a result, the ANP training effort will not be awarded under the 

MAIDIQ contracts. DynCorp will continue performance under the current DOS contract while DoD weighs options to ensure the ANP program requirements are met 

in an expeditious manner in consideration of this recent development. 

DoD currently is planning to conduct a full and open competition over the coming 

months for the ANP training contract. In the interim, the ANP training program 

has not stopped. DOS extended the current DynCorp contract until July 31, 2010. 

DoD and the DOS are exploring options on a bridging solution for the period from 

July 31 until the competition is complete and a new contract is in place. 

Question. If the DOD holds a competition for the ANP training contract, what 

steps is the department taking to ensure that the new contract recipient docs not 

in any way harm the overall U.S. effort in Afghanistan? 

Answer. Significant improvements have been made in the policy and management 

framework governing contractors employed by the Department of Defense (DoD) and 

their activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, the number of contracting officer representatives (CORs) in Afghanistan continues to grow. DoD is ensuring that 

CORs are appointed in critical areas and that they are performing worthwhile and 

timely audits of contractor performance. 

Contractors overseas remain accountable under the law. The Military 

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act applies to certain contractors, and Congress amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice to subject certain contractors to relevant 

provisions of military law. 

Question. Mr. Secretary, during the hearing you mentioned that uniformed U.S. 

and international personnel arc also involved in training the Afghan Army and Police. Can you please provide a breakout of the number of U.S. military, international 

military and private contractor personnel involved in training Afghan security 

forces? 

Answer. As of April 11, 2010, there were 1,151 U.S. military personnel training 

the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). This number includes 607 who are 

providing an interim solution to a shortage of international instructors. There are 

335 international military and police personnel training the ANSF. This number 

will increase as additional trainers arrive to fulfill pledges made by nations at various sourcing conferences held over the last five months. There are approximately 

2,800 contractors training the ANSF in various capacities. These numbers apply 

only to the formal training and instructors in the ANSF institutional training base. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Moran.] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(75) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010. 

ARMY AND MARINE CORPS GROUND EQUIPMENT 

WITNESSES 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM N. PHILLIPS, PRINCIPAL MILITARY 

DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY), UNITED STATES ARMY 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL GEORGE J. FLYNN, DEPUTY COMMANDANT 

FOR COMBAT DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION, UNITED STATES 

MARINE CORPS 

INTRODUCTION

Mr. DICKS. The Committee will come to order. This afternoon the 

Committee will hold a hearing on the status of ground equipment 

in the Army and Marine Corps. We are pleased to welcome Lieutenant General William N. Phillips, United States Army, Military 

Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology; and Lieutenant General George J. Flynn, 

U.S. Marine Corps, Deputy Commandant for Combat Development 

and Integration. 

General Flynn, you have testified previously before this committee. Welcome back. 

General Phillips, this is your first time to appear before the Subcommittee on Defense. We are aware of your experience in acquisition and your recent tour of duty as Commanding General of Joint 

Contracting Command in Iraq and Afghanistan. You bring a 

wealth of knowledge to our discussions and we will benefit from 

your statement and your answers to the questions posed by the 

members of the committee. 

Let me just say to each of you, thank you for being here and 

thank you for your many years of service in the defense of our 

country. 

Today we will talk about fighting vehicles, support vehicles, communications gear, and other ground equipment. This is the equipment used by our soldiers and Marines in the ground fight, down 

in the dust and dirt of Afghanistan. It needs to be of first quality 

in terms of capability, maintainability, and reliability. 

The units of the Army and the Marine Corps have great equipment, the results of past careful, but sometimes lengthy development and production efforts. We look forward to an update on ongoing acquisition programs and the associated budget requirements 

for systems such as Strykers, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, MRAPs, 

trucks and communications equipment. 

In recent years, a number of programs have not achieved cost 

and schedule goals. And after extended periods of time and many 

billions of dollars spent, the programs have been canceled as nonproductive and, in some cases, irrelevant to the current and proVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
76 

jected fight. The Army’s Crusader Self-Propelled Howitzer, the Comanche Helicopter, Future Combat Systems and the Presidential 

Helicopter programs are examples of failed efforts. 

The Committee will be interested to hear about initiatives in the 

Army and Marine Corps acquisition offices to improve program 

management and thus deliver equipment that meets the needs of 

our Soldiers and Marines in a cost-effective manner. 

The canceled programs mentioned previously have yielded certain advances in technology and useful items of equipment. The 

Army and Marine Corps are incorporating the new technology and 

equipment as modernization upgrades in existing organizations. 

For example, the Class 1 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Tactical and 

Urban Sensors, and Non-Line-of-Sight Launch system, all of which 

were developed in the FCS program, will soon be fielded to Infantry Brigade Combat Teams. 

The Committee wants to hear about the progress of testing that 

will ensure that the equipment will work as advertised when 

placed in the hands of our Soldiers and Marines. 

The Army and Marine Corps continue to procure medium and 

heavy trucks. The Army budget request includes no funding for 

procurement of HMMWVs, but does include nearly $1 billion in recapitalization of older HMMWVs. Additionally, the Marine Corps 

budget provides for procurement of only 74 HMMWVs. 

The Committee will also want to hear the logic of recapping older 

vehicles versus purchasing new ones. Furthermore, the Committee 

would like to discuss the mix of HMMWVs, MRAPS, MRAP ATVs 

and Joint Light Tactical Vehicles that, in the future, will compromise the set of Light Tactical Vehicles in Army and Marine 

Corps units. 

We will proceed with your statements in just a minute, but before we do, I would like to ask the distinguished Ranking Member 

and former Chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, for 

any comments that he might have. 

REMARKS OF MR. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And you have 

certainly adequately pointed out the interest that we have today. 

But I think the story you just told and the history of the 

HMMWV and the vulnerability to the IEDs, that this Committee 

moved quickly to provide funding for the MRAPs. And once we 

fielded the MRAPs, the enemy found a way to, with using the 

EFPs, to attack the MRAPs. 

We have to stay ahead of the enemy. We have to make sure our 

ground troops are able to be transferred, to be moved, to be in vehicles that will in fact give them protection. And that is a primary 

priority for this member and this Subcommittee. 

So we look forward to your testimony and want to do whatever 

we can to guarantee that our soldiers on the ground are going to 

have a safe way to travel around Afghanistan. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Young. 

We also want to welcome Major General Tom Spoehr, Army Assistant G–3, Force Development. Thank you, General, for being 

here to help us better understand these important issues. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
77 

General Phillips, you may proceed with—we will put both statements, and all your statements, in the record. And you may proceed as you wish. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL PHILLIPS

General PHILLIPS. Congressman Dicks and Congressman Young 

and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Defense, thank 

you for this opportunity to discuss Army ground equipment and 

other acquisition programs. 

I am pleased to appear along with Lieutenant General George 

Flynn and also Major General Tom Spoehr. I am pleased to represent here today over 40,000 members of the Army acquisition 

workforce and the more than 1 million Soldiers who have deployed 

in combat over the last 8 years and who have trusted us to provide 

them with the best world-class equipment and weapons systems 

possible, so that that can ensure their success on the battlefield, so 

that one day they can return home safely to their families and 

friends. 

Sir, I respectfully request that my written statement be made a 

part of the record for today’s hearing. 

Mr. DICKS. Without objection, so ordered. 

General PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, the Army continues to meet 

the equipping demands of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq and 

in the operations worldwide, as well as prepare for future challenges, because of the resources provided by this subcommittee and 

the Congress. 

And, sir, having spent almost the last year in Iraq and Afghanistan, I thank this Subcommittee for the work they have done to 

allow us the opportunity to build the systems, field them in Iraq, 

so that our soldiers—and watching our Marines as well on the field 

of battle—can execute the mission and return home safely to their 

families and their friends. 

We are grateful for what you do and we are grateful for the 

American taxpayer for what they have done to allow us the opportunity to build these systems. 

ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your support as well as that for the 

acquisition and contracting workforce to handle the increased 

workload in managing our acquisition programs. We thank you for 

authorizing us five additional general officer billets for Afghanistan. 

Most recently, I served as a commanding general in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today we have Brigadier General Camille Nichols from 

the Army serving as that commander in that capacity. Sir, as we 

grow the acquisition workforce, the Weapons Systems Acquisition 

Reform Act that you referred to earlier, of 2009, is helping us to 

ensure that our programs are healthy and that any problems that 

are identified are identified early, and program adjustments are 

made to keep them healthy. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
78 

MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

Sir, with regards to meeting the needs of our current and future 

warfighters, the Army has a comprehensive modernization program 

that leverages lessons learned from the last 8 years of war. At the 

center of our efforts are the Brigade Combat Team Modernization 

plan, which includes incrementally modernizing our networks over 

time to take advantage of rapid advances in technology, incrementally fielding capability packages to put the best equipment into 

the hands of our Soldiers as rapidly as it is available, and incorporating mine-resistant and ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs, 

into our force, and rapidly developing and fielding a new Ground 

Combat Vehicle that meets the requirements of the 21st century. 

Network modernization uses two primary transport programs to 

incrementally move the Army to a single and expanded Army battle command network: Warfighter Network Tactical, or WIN–T, 

and the Joint Tactical Radio System. Capability packages provide 

the Army a regular and timely process to enable our deployed units 

with the best available technologies based upon the threats they 

are likely to face. 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team systems were approved by 

the Defense Acquisition Executive for low-rate initial production. 

Our warfighters have used these systems in combat, many of them, 

and we are working hard to get them combat-ready. The Army is 

incorporating MRAPs throughout our unit formations. 

GROUND COMBAT VEHICLE

Mr. Chairman, the Ground Combat Vehicle is the Army’s next 

generation infantry fighting vehicle, designed from the ground up 

to operate in an improvised explosive device environment. The 

Army released the Request For Proposal (RFP) for technology development on the 25th of February. We intend to produce the first 

competitive prototype by 2015 with the first production vehicles by 

2017. 

Our comprehensive modernization program includes our combat 

platforms and is focused on standardizing 31 heavy brigade combat 

teams with two variants of our dominant combat maneuver platforms, M1 Abrams and the M2 Bradley. In addition, we have 

Stryker vehicles that we continue to produce and, at the same 

time, we are looking at upgrades to the Stryker program, to include 

the double V hull. 

An important cornerstone of our modernization strategy is the 

Paladin Integrated Management program, better known as Paladin 

PIM. This is a key part of our Army modernization program and 

it will be the first upgrade to the Paladin Howitzer in many years. 

Providing our soldiers with the best possible protection, payload, 

and performance includes continued modernization of our tactical 

wheel vehicle fleet. At the heart of our plans is the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, with the Marine Corps as our partner, to replace the 

HMMWVs. That will start in about 2015. 

Army unmanned aircraft systems are of vital capability to our 

deployed forces. They provide us tremendous intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Such platforms as Raven, Shadow, Constant Hawk and Persistent Threat Detection Systems are really 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
79 

combat multipliers for our warfighters on the field of battle, as well 

as the extended range multipurpose system. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee 

on Defense, on the field of battle today, we face a very adaptive, 

resourceful enemy. And I see it as my key role in the job that I 

now have to making sure that we develop programs, technology, 

drive those programs to a successful production, and field that capability to our soldiers in the quickest manner possible, so they 

once again—I will say it one more time—that they can perform on 

the field of battle efficiently, effectively, and then return home safely to their families and their friends. 

Sir, once again, thanks to your Subcommittee and Congress for 

what they do to allow us to execute our mission. Sir, that concludes 

my remarks. 

[The statement of General Phillips follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
80 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 153 here 65009A.031
81 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 154 here 65009A.032
82 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 155 here 65009A.033
83 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 156 here 65009A.034
84 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 157 here 65009A.035
85 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 158 here 65009A.036
86 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 159 here 65009A.037
87 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 160 here 65009A.038
88 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 161 here 65009A.039
89 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 162 here 65009A.040
90 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 163 here 65009A.041
91 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 164 here 65009A.042
92 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 165 here 65009A.043
93 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 166 here 65009A.044
94 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 167 here 65009A.045
95 

Mr. DICKS. General Flynn. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL FLYNN

General FLYNN. Sir, Chairman Dicks, Congressman Young, and 

distinguished members of the Committee. First it is a little bit different being in this committee room without the presence of Chairman Murtha, but I suspect that he is in overwatch, and I also suspect that he has inspired at least one hard question. So I will be 

prepared for that. 

Mr. DICKS. We will make sure of that. 

General FLYNN. Second, I want to thank you for the support of 

our servicemen and -women, and in particular for your support of 

our Marines. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss with you 

your Corps ground equipment requirements. In developing the requirements for these programs, we consider several factors to properly balance our adaptable and versatile force. We consider the 

threat, our naval character, our Corps’ competencies, and the need 

to be agile in order to respond and guard against surprise. Our 

view of the world is that we will need to have credible capabilities 

that assure access in time of crisis, that allow for the reinforcement 

of our allies, and provision of humanitarian assistance and disaster 

relief wherever needed. 

Compounding our response requirement is the reality that state 

and nonstate actors around the world will have increasingly sophisticated warfighting and anti-access capabilities. 

As both an expeditionary and sea-based force that is specifically 

designed to be an integrated combined arms force, we require 

equipment that enables us to execute and integrate the six 

warfighting functions across multiple domains: air, sea, land, and 

now cyber. We must also be able to execute a range of missions and 

swiftly respond among the four military tests and the capstone contest for joint operations: security, combat, engagement and relief, 

and reconstruction. 

In the development and validation of our equipment requirements, we are guided by our six corps competencies. These competencies are persistent naval engagement, integrated combined 

arms, service with the Navy, assured access from the sea, complex 

expeditionary operations, joint and multinational operations, and 

interagency activities. 

As recent events in Haiti and Afghanistan have proven, your soldiers of the sea are equally comfortable and capable of operating 

from a sea base or an austere expeditionary forward operating 

base. In these operations, we once again prove that we are no better friend or no worse enemy to those who wish us harm. 

The demonstrated agility of our general purpose amphibious 

force underscores the versatility of your Marines. Empowered by 

the education and training they receive, and enabled by the utility 

and flexibility of equipment sets that Congress has provided, your 

Marines continue to perform. 

The Marine Air Ground Task Force construct serves to amplify 

and highlight the effectiveness of task-organized Marine Corps 

units operating in vastly different environments across the spectrum of conflict. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
96 

As we look to the future, we understand the increasingly complex, challenging, and dynamic security environment. We acknowledge the likelihood of increased fiscal constraint. The bottom line 

is that we explicitly understand the need for utility, flexibility, and 

versatility in equipment requirements development at affordable 

costs. 

Some of the challenges we see include properly balancing payload, performance, and protection with transportability costs and 

energy efficiency. This challenge is causing us to look at how we 

develop the basic requirements for equipping our warfighting units. 

In the future, we may have units with a basic table of equipment 

augmented by mission or operating environment specific equipment 

sets. 

In light of exponential cost increases for modernized equipment, 

we must also examine new ways of managing costs in order to provide the right capability with the right capacity to operate in every 

clime and place. In short, in an era of increasing access challenges, 

the ability to be flexible and adaptable across the full range of military operations, coupled with our unique ability to operate from the 

sea, will continue to make your Corps of Marines a valued tool in 

the joint warfighting tool kit. 

I am confident that with your continued support, we will remain 

able to provide the Nation with what it expects from our Corps of 

Marines. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today, along with 

General Phillips and General Spoehr. I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

[The statement of General Flynn follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
97 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 172 here 65009A.046
98 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 173 here 65009A.047
99 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 174 here 65009A.048
100 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 175 here 65009A.049
101 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 176 here 65009A.050
102 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 177 here 65009A.051
103 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 178 here 65009A.052
104 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 179 here 65009A.053
105 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 180 here 65009A.054
106 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 181 here 65009A.055
107 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 182 here 65009A.056
108 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 183 here 65009A.057
109 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 184 here 65009A.058
110 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 185 here 65009A.059
111 

GROUND COMBAT VEHICLE

Mr. DICKS. General Phillips, after termination of the manned 

ground vehicles in the FCS program, the Army initiated a new program called the Ground Combat Vehicle program. The first vehicle 

planned for production in the Ground Combat Vehicle program is 

a new infantry fighting vehicle which would replace the Bradley 

Fighting Vehicle. How will the new Ground Combat Vehicle improve on the Bradley? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, thank you for your question. The Ground 

Combat Vehicle was developed after 8 years of learning about the 

war, our Army at war and lessons learned from FCS, as you just 

defined, sir. It is much different than what the Bradley provides 

us on the battlefield today. 

First and foremost and most obvious is the Bradley has a capacity for about nine soldiers today. The Ground Combat Vehicle will 

carry 12 soldiers. That is a requirement. And it would be a nineperson squad plus a three-person team that will operate inside that 

vehicle. 

Also we want this vehicle to be scalable in that we want it to be 

able to operate in all environments from low-threat permissive 

kinds of environment where you might even operate an HMMWV 

in, all the way up to major or full spectrum operations. We wanted 

it to be scalable to the point where you can add underbelly armor, 

that you can armor the sides of the vehicle as the threat increases, 

where you might want to operate within, much different than what 

the Bradley provides today. 

Mr. DICKS. Is the Bradley susceptible to IEDs? Does it have the 

same kind of defensive capabilities as the MRAP and the M–ATV? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, it has less than the MRAP. Let me say 

this, any vehicle is susceptible to an IED or an EFP kind of event, 

to a certain extent, some better than others. The Ground Combat 

Vehicle is expected to be much better than the Bradley is today, 

sir, and have MRAP capability protection or better, as well as 

Abrams kind of mobility as well. 

RAPID ACQUISITION

Mr. DICKS. The Committee understands that the new Infantry 

Fighting Vehicle is scheduled for first fielding in 2017. Given all 

the work done under the FCS program, the lessons learned in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, nobody knows that better than you, and the experience of rapidly fielding the MRAP vehicles, isn’t 7 years a long 

time? I mean, why can’t we use the model of the MRAP as a way 

to go forward on this manned ground vehicle? 

General PHILLIPS. A couple of points. The MRAP was a rapid acquisition. It didn’t go through all the testing that a normal acquisition program would, when you apply 5000.2, which is how we manage programs. It is a much different acquisition. 

We did limited testing. We simply went out to try to buy the best 

armored vehicle we could with the requirements as we knew them 

then. We made some mistakes along the way and we have seen 

that in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Mr. DICKS. But you fixed those mistakes, didn’t you, as you went 

along? ‘‘Serial development,’’ I remember that phrase. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
112 

General PHILLIPS. Yes, sir. We have done some of that with 

MRAP. That is a great response. Within the Army, this has been 

a great debate in my first 60 days on the job and we continue the 

debate. Some would want us to produce it quicker, some would 

think that is probably too quick. 

Mr. DICKS. You have done better on the quicker one, the ones 

that have taken—the ones that we have seen, the Crusader, Comanche and the—the ones where you have taken a long time to do 

it, the results haven’t been as good as when you expedited it and 

just said, here is what we need and go do it. 

Do you think the industry—if you did that—this approach, do 

you think the industry could develop for you a capable Ground 

Combat Vehicle that meets your requirements without going 

through this long development and costly development phase? We 

will spend billions before we get a single vehicle. 

General PHILLIPS. When you look at the requirements, we want 

this vehicle to have a network capability, mobility, efficiencies, 

force protection. It would be very difficult for industry to develop 

a vehicle that would meet all of those requirements. And the lessons learned from those 8 years of war and what we have learned 

through years of development from Future Combat Systems has led 

to us where we are today with this requirement. 

We think by 2015, we can have the initial prototypes ready for 

test and evaluation to make sure that we did get it right. And then 

2017, the first production. 

PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

Mr. DICKS. Are you going to have a narrowing down of competitors or are you going to have two people develop these—how 

many—tell us what your procurement strategy is. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, our strategy intent is doing the analysis 

of alternatives at the same time we have the RFP on the street. 

We will take up to three competitors, three industry partners, that 

will develop the vehicle. It could be two, it could be three, but we 

want at least two, potentially three. 

We will take them forward from September of this year for 27 

months for the technology demonstration phase. At that point, we 

would down select to two vendors for the engineering and manufacturing development. That is following weapons system acquisition 

reform of 2009 to carry competitive prototyping all the way through 

essentially to production. 

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

Mr. DICKS. And again, you are going to have nine plus three and 

the networking. This is an important part of what you learned in 

Future Combat Systems, is where you are and where the enemy is. 

Can you tell us a little bit about that? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, situational awareness for our Soldiers on 

the battlefield is key to the effectiveness they have. It is like the 

Abrams tank that we have today, the digital tank that gives the 

commander the situational awareness to be able to see what is 

happening around the battlefield. We would want this vehicle to 

have even greater capability than we have today, with their network and situational awareness that reaches down to the soldier 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
113 

level as well as to the sensors that we put on the ground and the 

sensors we have in the sky, UAVs and other sensors. Sir, that is 

absolutely critical to our capability for the Ground Combat Vehicle. 

Mr. DICKS. As I recall on the Bradley, we started with aluminum 

and we found that there was a real bad fire problem there and we 

changed the Bradley; is that correct? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I believe you are correct. I did not work 

that program, and I would have to do a little research. But I believe that is correct. 

Mr. DICKS. I believe that was finally changed, and I assume that 

would be a lesson learned in this development as well. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, absolutely. The lessons of the past, you defined them very well in your opening comments. We have to learn 

from those and we have to move forward and execute and deliver 

for Congress and for the American people, and especially our soldiers, that capability. 

Mr. DICKS. Because we can’t afford to waste a lot of money. You 

add it all up, it is a lot of money we put into these other programs 

that didn’t bear any fruit. 

Mr. Young. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I completely agree. 

MINE RESISTANT AMBUSH PROTECTED (MRAP) VEHICLE

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I share your 

concern about the length of time it takes to develop something. 

However, remember when Secretary Gates invited Mr. Murtha and 

I to sit with him and talk about the need for an MRAP-type vehicle? It seemed like once we agreed to fund, it was like within 2 or 

3 weeks we heard they were being deployed. It wasn’t that quick, 

but it seemed like it. But if I understand correctly, General, the 

MRAP-type vehicle had already been developed by other countries 

actually. So we didn’t have too much developmental problem to go 

to the MRAP. Was that accurate? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, that is an accurate statement. It was essentially a commercial off-the-shelf vehicle that we went to industry partners who could build a vehicle and then armor it up. Sir, 

part of the difference is the MRAP did not go through the normal 

acquisition process that we have and that we have to follow. Much 

of that was waived and it was essentially a commercial vehicle adding some capability to it and deployed into theater. 

What we do today with the major acquisition program and the 

discipline and rigor that we put into that, it takes a length of time 

to make sure we have the testing right and we have the vehicle 

right to meet the standards. 

Mr. YOUNG. Once the MRAP was very effective in being able to 

protect our soldiers in Iraq. Then when we began to use them in 

Afghanistan, we discovered that they were not the best vehicle for 

some of the areas in Afghanistan. So then comes the M–ATV, 

right? 

General PHILLIPS. Yes, sir, correct. 

M–ATV INGRESS

Mr. YOUNG. Why can’t the soldiers get back in the M–ATV once 

they get out? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
114 

General PHILLIPS. I was not aware there is an issue with soldiers 

getting out and getting back into it, unless I misunderstood your 

question. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, let me ask it further. We are told that there 

is an entry problem; that if the soldier leaves the M–ATV, oftentimes he cannot get the door open to reenter the vehicle. 

General SPOEHR. Sir, you are correct. There is a problem with a 

sticking door that we have recently been made aware of. And we 

found 20 instances of sticking doors on the M–ATV. The program 

office has come up with a fix to that, and I can’t tell you what that 

fix is. But it is in the process of being implemented in Afghanistan. 

Mr. YOUNG. So it is not a generic problem that affects all the M– 

ATVs, about 20? 

General SPOEHR. They have found 20 to this date that have a 

sticking-door problem. But there is already a solution that has been 

found. 

Mr. DICKS. Can they fix—they fix it in country, right? 

General SPOEHR. It is a door misalignment. If your car door was 

a little misaligned, it would jam once you closed it. 

EXPEDITIONARY FIGHTING VEHICLE

Mr. YOUNG. It sort of reminds me of the problem we had with 

the HMMWVs, where the soldier was having a difficult time to get 

his seat belt undone so he could exit the vehicle. Incidentally, the 

fix for that was created by a constituent in my district. So we are 

pretty excited about that, that they solved that problem. 

I want to ask you just about the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. 

When we talked about this last year and the year before, there 

were a lot of questions about whether or not this actually provided 

survivability because of the construction. We were getting really 

excited about the V hulls on the MRAPs and the heavy steel, and 

then I think this Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle has a flat bottom, 

an aluminum bottom. Is that correct? 

General FLYNN. Yes, sir. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is 

not designed to be an MRAP-like transporting vehicle. It is designed to be a fighting vehicle that can surf, can swim, and also 

conduct mechanized maneuvers on shore. And it is vulnerable, 

under the hull right now with the straight hull, to underbelly IED 

devices. 

We have just recently completed the testing for the EFV up at 

Aberdeen without the added applique armor, and it has tested vulnerable to the underbelly. In conjunction with the program, we are 

also developing applique armor to put underneath the vehicle. 

That, based on simulations, will probably give it at the bottom end 

of MRAP-like capabilities. But it is designed to be a maneuver vehicle. It is not designed to have the same use where we would use 

the MRAP in predictable transportation routes. And that is why we 

think, especially as we relook our ground tactical vehicle strategy, 

that we need different sets of vehicles to provide capabilities to 

allow us to do different things, to give us the flexibility to go where 

we need to go under a variety of conditions. 

Mr. YOUNG. General Flynn, this vehicle is intended to bring Marines from the ship to the shore? 

General FLYNN. Yes, sir. And to be fighting at the same time. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
115 

Mr. YOUNG. How far inland can that vehicle go? 

General FLYNN. Sir, if it swims in from 25 miles out, has about 

a 200-mile range once it gets ashore. 

Mr. YOUNG. What barricades would stop you from maneuvering 

or moving into an area? Can it go across a wall, for example, a 

stone wall? 

General FLYNN. Not necessarily. It would depend on the height 

of the wall, sir. And I can get you the specifics of what heights it 

can climb. But that some obstacles could do it, sir. But one of the 

benefits of being able to come from the sea, sir, you are not necessarily locked into a certain location or a certain beach to be able 

to do it. 

[The information follows:] 

As a tracked combat vehicle, the EFV is required and capable of crossing a 3-foothigh wall, and an 8-foot-wide gap. 

EXPEDITIONARY FIGHTING VEHICLE ARMOR

Mr. YOUNG. The Stryker will have a new hull that will be—so 

additional protection similar to MRAP. Would this expeditionary 

fighting vehicle be eligible for a new bottom, a new hull, other than 

the applique armor you were talking about? 

General FLYNN. Sir, I don’t think that would be possible because 

of the ground clearance underneath the vehicle. I think if we added 

a hull to it, we are not going to have the ground clearance that we 

would need without raising the height of the overall vehicle. So I 

think that would be an engineering challenge. 

HMMWV

Mr. YOUNG. Just one last question, Mr. Chairman. The HMMWV 

seems to not have a lot of use any longer; is that correct? 

General FLYNN. Sir, from the Marine Corps side, right now if, for 

example, in Afghanistan, even if you are an up-armored HMMWV, 

it takes the battalion commander to authorize that to leave the operating base. What we are seeing, though, is—again, this goes to 

our overall tactical vehicle strategy—is we do need some light vehicles to go to places where you can’t take heavier vehicles. We are 

experimenting right now with a way of possibly recapitalizing our 

HMMWV fleet. And we should have the results of that experimentation in May to see if we can—because we have 27,000 in the inventory right now. And if we could capitalize on that, give it some 

added protection, we may be able to save some money and provide 

that range and capabilities that we are looking for in an integrated 

ground tactical vehicle strategy. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, if I could answer also. You are referring 

to Afghanistan, and I would agree with your comments about the 

HMMWV. The Army has a requirement for about 152,000 

HMMWVs. We essentially already met that objective, but for other 

permissive environments and anywhere within CONUS, we have a 

great demand for the HMMWV that will remain in our inventory 

for some time. 

Mr. YOUNG. And if I understand correctly, there are overseas foreign sales of the HMMWV that—the manufacturer would come on 

line for? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
116 

General PHILLIPS. Yes, sir. We will be buying HMMWVs over 

this year and through the next year, upwards to about 8,995, 

through Foreign Military Sales and supporting other services. You 

are exactly right. 

MULE PROGRAM

Mr. YOUNG. General Flynn, how is the mule program going? 

General FLYNN. Do you mean real mule program, sir? 

Mr. YOUNG. Last year or the year before last, the Marine officer 

who testified was really excited about using the mules. And they 

thought it was really a modern way to go. 

General FLYNN. Sir, out at Bridgeport, California, sir, using experience that we gained in the small wars in the 1920s, we actually 

do training with mules. And we use mules in areas of Afghanistan 

where it is hard to get to. We actually use pack trains. So we do 

teach a course in how to do a mule transportation and how to care 

for and feed a mule and how to load it. And in certain situations 

we actually do use mules, sir. 

Mr. DICKS. Does the Army have a—the Army mule—— 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, not a formal program. We do use mules 

for—or employ our canon artillery at Fort Sill where they demonstrate the caissons from the early 1800s, sir, but that is our only 

use of mules today at least. 

General FLYNN. Sir, we are a joint organization and we have 

trained soldiers—the Marines have trained soldiers in Bridgeport, 

California on the proper use of a mule. 

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Hinchey. 

EXPERIMENTAL FORWARD OPERATING BASE

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you, Generals. Thank you very much for your service. 

General Flynn, I want to ask you a question about something in 

your testimony that struck me as being very interesting. It is the 

creation of an experimental forward operating base in Quantico, 

Virginia. And the purpose of it is to test and develop alternative 

power, water, and shelter solutions. 

Can you tell us a little bit more about that, what the obstacles 

are, what are the principal areas that are being developed? 

General FLYNN. Yes, sir. This is one of the major initiatives of 

General Conway and also the Secretary of the Navy. What we did 

in the last month, we created a forward operating base and we 

asked industry partners to come in and demonstrate existing technology that we could use to immediately apply in the battlefield. 

The idea is, we transport a lot of water in one area of the technology. So if we could find a way of purifying water at the point 

of origin, that would take trucks off the road, it would take Marines and Soldiers off the road in having to secure that, and it 

would also make us more efficient. 

On the energy side is, that we have so much power generating 

requirement; how could we generate power? We looked at everything from solar panels to modification of the truck transmissions 

to generate power to wind generation. We also looked at how we 

could better keep the environmentals in our shelters so that we are 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
117 

not using so much power to either keep them cool or keep them 

warm. And the other thing is how to design power grids. 

So we had an independent evaluator there. We actually contracted with the Army for them to do that. And then we are going 

to take the most promising technology and we are going to deploy 

them. One of the outcomes of this, one of the companies that came 

and demonstrated, donated eight solar-powered water purification 

pieces of equipment. And we sent them to Afghanistan. And one of 

our Marine units gave a couple of them to the local villages. And 

what they did is they initially weren’t using it because it looked 

pretty high-tech sitting out in the open, and they asked the Marines to move it behind the wall and they did. So that village is 

creating purified water and they are trading it with another village 

for bread. 

Mr. HINCHEY. What village is that? 

General FLYNN. I will get you the name, sir. But that is ongoing. 

So we are trying to save money. We are trying to save equipment, 

and we are trying to save lives by becoming more energy efficient. 

And we think there are going to be some of these technologies that 

are going to prove themselves. 

[The information follows:] 

Answer. The village who received the unit is Naw-Abad. Please see attachment 

for further details. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
118 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 204/500 here 65009A.060
119 

Mr. HINCHEY. Think that is a very effective thing to do. I think 

it is something that is very advanced and very necessary. We have 

a number of academic institutions, we have a number of colleges 

that have research in this. We have some companies that are engaged in this kind of activity. So I would like to know more about 

what you are doing and ways in which these operations might possibly be engaged with you, and maybe provide some things that 

could be useful. 

General FLYNN. Yes, sir. As part of this energy initiative, General Conway set up an Energy Office. So I can actually link you 

up with the lead for this, and we are looking for whatever we can 

get from university research organizations, or anybody who has the 

technology. We are all ears and all eyes and we are open to anything, sir. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Good. I would like to do that. Can you tell us beyond that what kind of technologies appear to be the most promising? Do you have any sense about that? 

General FLYNN. Sir, I think how to manage a power grid is one 

example of technology that I think is promising. How to use less 

energy and lighting, that is another one that looks pretty good. And 

water purification. There are a number of ones that seem promising right now that we could probably field. 

And then the generation of electricity. Solar power could be used 

for small requirements, but you really need a lot of solar panels to 

create enough energy for some of the larger requirements. But this 

on-vehicle generation of power is probably one that I am kind of 

excited about, and I also think wind technology is another one that 

is a good one, sir. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thanks. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

FCS ACQUISITION PROCESS

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, 

thank you all for your service. 

In the interest of transparency, I would like to put a special pat 

on the back to General Phillips, who was base commander at 

Picatinny Arsenal in my congressional district, before he went over 

to Iraq and Afghanistan. And we are enormously proud of the work 

you did there. Thank you all for being here. 

We had the Army Chief of Staff in the other day and we had our 

new Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, and I admitted in public 

I was a strong supporter of the Future Combat Systems. We spent 

about $15 billion on the Future Combat Systems, and I understand 

that we have retained things that are critical masses within that 

system for the future. 

The expression is if we are building the new—and following 

along with Chairman Dicks’ questions—if we are building a new 

Ground Combat Vehicle—we built the Future Combat Systems 

from the ground up too. 

I am sort of wondering here whether we—if it takes until 2017— 

and I assume this is a debate that goes on within the military, the 

Army, we could be building something that potentially could be obsolete. I am wondering what we are doing here. I am supportive 

of what we are doing. But I worry—and I would like to see a little 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
120 

more reassurance when you talk about the Army acquisition process and how things work outside it to expedite things—that that 

is a comment on the Army acquisition process. I would like to know 

how we can expedite what we are going to do here. 

General PHILLIPS. Up front, let me just say thanks for your years 

of service to our Armed Forces and to our families, and thanks to 

all of the Members of Congress and members here today for your 

service to our Armed Forces. 

Sir, FCS initially was going to just provide a capability for about 

15 brigades, not the entire Army. So from the very beginning it 

was sort of limited in nature. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It wasn’t limited in nature, because it was 

to replace the Abrams and the Bradley which was that legacy for 

us. There certainly was a concentration by the Army in trying to, 

shall we say, excite Members of Congress in why it was an absolute 

necessity that we proceed with it. But that was my take on it. Excuse me for interrupting. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, you are correct. And through spinouts and 

other technologies that we would get through FCS, we would obviously spin that into the current force that we have today as we 

build toward the future force. 

The termination or cancellation of the Future Combat Systems 

gave us a great opportunity to leverage what we knew at that time. 

What was terminated was the ground vehicle systems within the 

FCS construct. All of the other items that were there, the Tactical 

and Urban Unattended Ground Sensors, the Class I UAV, and 

many other systems provide us an opportunity to really fix what 

I see as a gap today, which is the Infantry Brigade Combat Teams. 

Sometimes, in my view, we neglect them. 

Now, with what has happened with the Future Combat Systems, 

how can we spin out those technologies quickly to upgrade those 

40 or so IBCTs? Twenty-nine by the year 2015 or so, we want to 

upgrade with this technology and these capabilities, spin those systems out so we can leverage what FCS has provided us through 

today. Sir, that is part of our intent. 

The hardest one that you mention is the Ground Combat Vehicle 

and it is not just the Army’s acquisition process, sir. It is really the 

Department of Defense acquisition process as we manage this system all the way through. We think that we have a program that 

is medium- to low-risk. 

GROUND COMBAT VEHICLE

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What will it look like? I saw a very good 

article in the Armed Forces Journal, entitled ‘‘Mother Ship or Battle Ship: Competing Visions of the Army Ground Combat Vehicle.’’ 

What is it going to be like? Is it going to be, as you said earlier, 

a troop deliverer, or is it going to be a battleship or is it going to 

be a combination of all of the above? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, really all of above. It will be a combat vehicle that we can use to transport troops, to soldiers, or to execute 

combat operations today. Which is a little bit different than what 

we use the MRAP or the M–ATV, which is essentially to get 

around the battlefield. And if those soldiers that are riding in an 

MRAP or an M–ATV today run into an IED, that would protect 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
121 

them; or if they are ambushed, that would protect them. It has limited capability to engage and defeat. This would be a Ground Combat Vehicle that will come into our inventory that will fight from 

day one. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And the scale of—the weight of these 

things—that is why we can’t use the big MRAPs in Afghanistan, 

is because there is no road system to support them. Would we be 

able to support in the Afghan theater this new Ground Combat Vehicle? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, from what I have seen today and the analysis from the TRADOC Doctrine Command that we just went 

through this week, the answer in my opinion is ‘‘yes.’’ Not all areas, 

but certainly in many areas today. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And within that article by Daniel Goure, 

the new President of the Lexington Institute—there is a rather 

alarming quotation here. It refers to Major General Robert Scales. 

And I quote, The only requirement Scales doesn’t include in the 

Ground Combat Vehicle that—Let me read this. ‘‘The only requirement Scales doesn’t include is that the Ground Combat Vehicle be 

heavily armored. Survivability would be achieved not by being 

where the IEDs are, but would be where IEDs would be deployed, 

and using information, speed, and maneuver to outfox the enemy 

or the adversary,’’ within quotes. I mean, we would be having a vehicle on the battlefield which would have an issue relative to survivability? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, we want this vehicle to give us scalable, 

armor, and survivability that you could, depending on the environment that you would operate this vehicle within, you could scale 

up to the threat that you would face. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So you would take issue with what I—— 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I am not sure what context General Scales 

had said that article in. But I just know that what we are asking 

for within the request for proposal that industry has today, that 

they will soon propose against, it has scalability of protection and 

survivability requirements within it. 

Mr. DICKS. So it would survive an IED attack? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, that is our intent. And it would have 

scalability in terms of what you would put underneath the vehicle 

itself, depending on the threat that exists in that theater. You 

could put different armor solutions underneath. It could be a V 

hull. I don’t know. That would be up to industry to propose their 

solutions for us as we look at what is in the art of doable. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We don’t have much time, I think. That is 

sort of why 2017 is a long way away. So we are going to rely on 

other types of vehicles. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Visclosky. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Phillips, 

what was it like being represented in Congress by Congressman 

Frelinghuysen? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, it was absolutely incredible, and he gave 

us great support at Picatinny Arsenal, which is a great place to soldier, sir. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
122 

HMMWV REPROGRAMMING

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would have anticipated that answer. 

General, I know that my good friend and colleague, Congressman 

Young, has asked a series of questions about the HMMWV. My 

only question would be to you as well as to General Flynn: Does 

the Army or Marine Corps have plans to reprogram 2010 dollars 

for HMMWV purchases? 

I know the question has been addressed. It is only on the reprogramming. That is my question. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, there is a plan to reprogram dollars, still 

within the Army, I believe today, to reprogram to some extent for 

a recapitalization program for HMMWVs. And I will just restate 

this: The HMMWVs have a place in our Army and we have a requirement for 152,000, so many of those HMMWVs that we want 

to bring back into the inventory through recapitalization and utilize them. 

A recapped HMMWV for us costs around $90,000. If we were 

going to go and buy a new one, it would be somewhere between 

180, probably, to 215 because of the differences in variance. So it 

is cost-effective for us to recap HMMWVs, sir. 

More to come on the reprogramming. It hasn’t left the Army yet, 

as far as I know, sir. 

General FLYNN. Sir, I am not the Marine Corps programmer, but 

I do know—I have commented on some shift of money, and I would 

like to, for the record, get back to you whether we actually reprogrammed money in this case for 2010, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

Answer. Yes. An above threshold reprogramming request has been developed and 

is in the internal review and approval process. Based on recent decisions, the Marine Corps intends to cease procurement of new HMMWVs, so unexecuted funds are 

available to meet critical Urgent Universal Needs Statements (UUNS), emerging 

OCO requirements, and Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) Equipment Density 

List (EDL) deficiencies based on what is determined to be a higher priority. 

TOWED HOWITZER

Mr. VISCLOSKY. General Flynn, on the Towed Howitzer, moneys 

were appropriated in 2010. And it was, I believe, the committee’s 

belief that there would be no further request for moneys for the 

Howitzer. But there is money in the Marine Corps 2011. Could you 

explain what that is for and how your needs have changed? 

General FLYNN. Sir, some of that money is being requested to replace some of the Howitzers that have been damaged, and also 

through utilization, and also to allow us to buy to the complete authorized allowance levels, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Would you assume, barring changes, that that 

would be it for the purchases at this point? 

General FLYNN. My understanding is that what money is in 2011 

will buy out the whole authorized allowance of that, sir. 

M4 CARBINE

Mr. VISCLOSKY. General Phillips, on the M4 Carbine, my understanding is the Army is looking for a replacement weapon. What 

are the significant drawbacks of the M4? And what are you looking 

to do with the next generation, if you would? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
123 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I must state up front that the M4 is an 

extraordinary weapon system for our soldiers. It is performing extremely well. We have about 400,000 of them. We have another 

38,000 with our special operators. 

Soldiers give us great feedback on the M4, but it is still not without its shortcomings. We executed 62 enhancements to the M4 to 

date. If you look at the mean rounds between failure for an M4, 

the requirement is 600. We are five times that today on the field 

of battle. 

But soldiers still complain somewhat. The last complaint I heard 

before I left theater was the magazine sometimes jams, and it jams 

because soldiers might leave the rounds in a magazine for 5 or 6 

days, and after that period of time the spring—something happens 

inside and it may jam in the weapon itself. We are fixing that. 

That will be the next series. 

So we have a dual strategy. We are going to continue to upgrade 

the M4. We expect to have an RFP in about 60 days. Then we are 

going to go out and ask for the next generation of carbine that may 

not, in fact, be a replacement, but it may be an additive to the M4 

today on the battlefield, sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Is part of it keeping the weapon clean? Do I understand—— 

General PHILLIPS. Yes, sir. I carried an M9 myself in Iraq, and 

I fired it often in training. And I cleaned my weapon very often to 

make sure that it was ready. Every soldier is taught to clean their 

weapon. And some of the things we find is when they don’t clean 

their weapon, sand and grit get inside there. It is a very dusty environment in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have to do that, sir, you 

are exactly right. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Kingston. 

RIFLE AMMUNITION

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, I wanted to ask a follow-up question to that. I understand there is a new green ammo. It is M855A1. When is that 

going to be available to test out in individual weapons? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, that is currently undergoing product qualification test. It is a very good round in terms of lethality. I have 

seen the performance results of it, and against the current M885 

round, it is vastly superior to what that round will provide us. It 

is also lead free. It has no lead inside the bullet itself; a little bit 

inside the primer. 

To answer your question, in June of this year we expect to have 

about a million rounds off the production line available to the 

Army, and they will tell us where they want to put it. My hopes 

will be that we can get this round into combat quickly, sir. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Is that part of the improvement initiative? 

General PHILLIPS. Yes, sir. Actually when we looked at this leadfree round green ammo, we looked at the complete weapons system. Soldiers have told us when we fired the M4, the flash, especially at night, could give them night blindness. We perfected the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
124 

powder along with the round itself, so when they fire at night they 

won’t get that flash. Yes, sir. 

FORKLIFT

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you. I want to ask you a question about 

the K5 forklift programs, the light capacity, rough terrain forklift. 

And I understand that the Marines put out the operational requirements document—well, actually both of you all did. But the Marines have stuck with a shield, I guess a bullet-proof shield, but the 

Army has taken that out of their requirements. And there have 

been three of these ORDs that have kept that requirement in, but 

the Army has taken it out and the Marines have left it in. And I 

was wondering—maybe both of you could comment on that. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I believe—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. And the concern that I have, General, you know 

back in the first part of the war when we had to go back and uparmor all of the HMMWVs—it would appear to me that we have 

learned the value of the up-armoring at the factory rather than 

going to a logistics center in Albany, Georgia or wherever and—— 

General FLYNN. Sir, our requirement is, we have the requirement 

for it to be shielded, sir. And it is just because of the expeditionary 

environment that we expect it to operate in. So that is why we are 

sticking with that requirement, sir. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I will take your question for the record, 

if I could, and review the program and make sure we get back with 

you on the exact status of where we are on that piece. I think part 

of it, though, as I recall, had to do with operations in a permissive 

environment and how we would utilize it. But, sir, I owe you a better answer than that. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—An answer was not provided by the Army.] 

HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR

Mr. KINGSTON. From a cost standpoint, or maybe you would want 

to split half of them or something like that. 

Another question, General, that has to do with—I guess this is 

for General Flynn. But on the HMEE, the High Mobility Engineer 

Excavator system, on the Army’s Web site, May 29, 2009, a soldier 

hit an anti-tank mine and exploded, but he walked away from it. 

Sergeant Adam Smith, Jr., the 9th Engineer Battalion, 172nd Infantry Brigade. He walked away and said, I am thankful it was a 

HMEE and not a SEE, a small excavator. And so my question is, 

the Marine Corps does not have the requirement for a HMEE, I 

don’t believe, but the Army is utilizing them. And I have driven 

one, it is a high speed backhoe, basically. It can really move equipment, lots of equipment very quickly. I think the Army is very 

happy with it in Iraq. I don’t know how many you have in Afghanistan, but the Marines I don’t think have a requirement for one yet, 

and I was just wondering about it. 

General FLYNN. Sir, if I could, I would like to get back to you 

on the record on that because I am not familiar with the vehicle, 

or I haven’t seen a requirement for that, sir, but I will get back 

to you. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. Mr. Chairman, that is it for me right now. 

Thank you. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
125 

[The information follows:] 

Answer. No, the Marine Corps does not have a requirement for the HEMTT. The 

Marine Corps’ medium lift capability is provided by the Medium Tactical Vehicle 

Replacement (MTVR), which has a 7-ton off-road/15-ton on-road payload; and the 

heavy lift capability is provided by the Logistics Vehicle System Replacement 

(LVSR), which has a 16.5-ton off-road/22.5-ton on-road capability. These vehicles 

also meet unique Marine Corps capabilities such as shipboard compatibility and increased fording depth (60-inch). 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Rogers. 

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, welcome. Let me ask you, General Phillips, about the 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle program. You are asking for $707 million 

for air vehicles, modifications and payloads. The UAV program has 

evolved rather rapidly, has it not? And now there is an eclectic variety of sizes and missions and the like. Could you give us a brief 

description of the UAV program that the Army has? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, absolutely. In May of this year, we think 

that we will surpass 1 million combat hours for UAVs. And the 

variants that we have, the Raven UAV, which is a very small, 

about three-feet wingspan, there are, I think, over 1,300 of those 

systems fielded. They are used by platoons and companies and 

sometimes battalions for FOB security and when they are actually 

conducting operations. That is inside a brigade. Also inside a brigade is the Shadow UAV system as well. There is about, I think, 

75 of those systems fielded today, going up to about 102 systems. 

Each system has three air vehicles. It provides a brigade commander and battalion commander on the field of battle intelligence, 

surveillance and reconnaissance capability through electro-optical 

and IR sensors and camera sensors onboard. 

Above that, sir, we have the extended range multipurpose UAVs 

that fly normally at corps and division level, that is like the Predator, but it is used tactically rather than strategically and operationally, which is how the Air Force uses it. So it is used by the 

Combat Aviation Brigade, flown by enlisted UAV pilots actually in 

the Army, to give intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability to our warfighters, brigade commanders and division commanders. 

And, sir, there are some other systems I could talk about, like 

Hunter, which there are very few of those, but that is military intelligence. Constant Hawk is not a UAV system, but it flies in support of them to give counter-IED defeat capability. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the Air Force obviously has missiles as well 

as UAVs. How are you able to deconflict the operation that you 

have with Air Force UAVs? 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

General PHILLIPS. Sir, we actually have a very disciplined and 

rigorous aircraft control capability, aircraft traffic control capability 

that deconflicts UAVs, fixed wing, rotary wing aircraft, and they 

have certain corridors and altitudes that they fly within. The Air 

Force obviously is flying at very high altitudes with their Predator 

and other aircraft systems. They are almost constantly on watch in 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
126 

Afghanistan to provide support for our Soldiers and our Marines. 

We have that ATC capability all the way down to the lowest level 

of UAVs. 

In the time that I have watched aviation operate in theater, I am 

only aware of one incident that was actually a collision between a 

UAV and a manned aircraft, and it was a Raven aircraft that actually ran into the back of an OH58D Kiowa Warrior, and that was 

many years ago. I share that with you because our ATC capability 

today that exists in Iraq and Afghanistan is very good to deconflict 

air, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. So are you now using UAVs in Afghanistan? 

General PHILLIPS. Yes, sir, very much so. 

Mr. ROGERS. Now, the Air Force operates their UAVs by 

reachback from overseas operating areas with pilots and intelligence specialists at crew stations in the U.S. The Air Force pilots 

are rated, they are officer aviators. You train enlisted personnel. 

What is your assessment of the performance of your UAVs compared with Air Force pilots? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I will speak from my perspective in the job 

I have, but also from 32 years of being an Army aviator. I have 

been out to where we train our UAV pilots at Fort Huachuca, I 

have watched them, I have watched the training. I have been to 

Creech Air Force Base and actually have sat with an Air Force 

pilot flying the Predator, and I have great respect for how they execute that capability, which is extraordinary. 

Our UAV pilots, our enlisted pilots and aviators, are very well 

trained through 34 weeks of rigorous training where they learn 

ATC procedures. Their safety record is phenomenal. I spoke yesterday to our safety officer for aviation, Brigadier General Bill Wolf 

and I asked him how our UAV pilots were doing. He, as a safety 

officer, is very impressed with the record of our young enlisted 

UAV pilots. And I am very high on what they are doing for our 

Army and the capability they are providing, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. In Afghanistan, are you using the UAVs as a weapon as opposed to surveillance? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, it is both, using them as a weapon and 

also in surveillance. I would say today in Afghanistan for the 

Army, a lot of what we do is intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance as opposed to actually using them to attack, even though 

they do have that capability. That ISR information gives our commanders on the ground great situational awareness so they can engage with various weapons and defeat the enemy. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

General PHILLIPS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Moran. 

SNIPER DETECTION

Mr. MORAN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to ask about two topics, one, sniper detection; the 

other, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. 

First of all, with regard to sniper detection. This Committee put 

language in both the supplemental—I will continue on for a couple 

of minutes so you can check your notes there, I didn’t give Gates 

enough time, though, apparently yesterday—the language in the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
127 

supplemental and in this past full appropriations bill regarding 

sniper detection. We wanted to know what your plan was, what is 

your procurement plan, and how you are planning to equip both 

Marines and Army. 

So we are wondering whether counter sniper equipment should 

be standard issue for Army units in Afghanistan and Afghanistan, 

and likewise for Marine Corps units, because as we go into these 

Taliban strongholds, in addition to IEDs, of course, land mines, 

they really are subject to sniper fire, and it is an increasing threat. 

Do you think the soldiers ought to wear it as standard equipment 

or vehicle mounted? I should probably hear from both sources. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, that really is a good question. In my view, 

I think we need that capability for our soldiers, but it depends on 

the threat that you might face. If there is a sniper threat in that 

theater where you go, we should field a capability to our soldiers, 

my view. But I am not sure every soldier needs one. What you really need is the capability to detect where that sniper is actually firing from. We have vehicle manned systems, and we have tested 

some individual gunner or sniper detection systems on the individual. I think we fielded about 2,100 of those. 

The $50 million that I believe you authorized for us to spend, we spent about $15 million of that already. We fielded, I believe, up 

to about 2,100 systems. And we are going through a formal process 

to determine what is the exact requirement we would want for the 

next generation, and we expect to have that on contract sometime 

this year, sir, but I can’t give you a specific date. I think that we 

need the capability for counter sniper. 

Mr. MORAN. But it should be up to the individual unit, depending 

upon where they are being deployed and what their mission is. 

General PHILLIPS. Yes, sir. And they would have the operation, 

through the Operational Needs Statement, to actually tell us I 

need this capability and I need it along these timelines, and then 

we could get them the best we could get at that time. 

Mr. MORAN. Does that apply to both services? 

General FLYNN. Sir, we are doing a number of different approaches, first of all, the technology. But one of the best countersniper pieces of equipment is a better sniper. So we are investing 

heavily in making sure that our snipers have the latest in optics 

equipment and also in sniper rifles to counter a sniper. Normally, 

the best weapon against an enemy sniper is our own sniper. 

Mr. MORAN. I understand that. But we do have the technology 

that has been refined to identify where the sniper is located. 

General FLYNN. Yes, sir. And where that technology has proven 

itself, we are employing it, sir. 

Mr. DICKS. All right. Good. So I guess that is a yes response in 

both, and you are going to use that money as fast as you can responsibly use it. 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. We seem to have a different attitude, if you will, perspective on the part of the Marines and the 

Army. The commandant suggested that the Marines ought to go 

back to their expeditionary roots rather than replicate a ground 

Army. He felt that several years of fighting in Iraq encumbered the 

Marines with too many heavy and cumbersome vehicles that were 

designed of course to survive IEDs. But this past December, he inVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
128 

dicated that he felt that a planned Joint Light Tactical Vehicle that 

would weigh nearly 22,000 pounds is too heavy for strategically 

mobile troops and that the Corps is actively considering a lighter 

version. Well, that is the kind of thing we need to understand, particularly in this hearing that is focused specifically on combatant 

vehicles, ground combatant vehicles. 

The JLTV is supposed to be a joint program. The Deputy Chief 

of Armor Capability says there is more work to be done in developing the concepts behind this vehicle. Is there a conflict between 

the commandant’s assessment and what the Army sees as the appropriate vehicle? 

General FLYNN. Sir, we see the requirement for a Joint Light 

Tactical Vehicle with the operative word being on ‘‘light’’ because 

we are finding in many cases that we do not have the transportability and mobility to go everywhere that we need to go. And we 

do understand the need to partner with the Army. The key elements of that, though, is it is part of us taking a comprehensive 

look at all our ground tactical vehicle requirements. 

And one of the things that General Conway told me to do by next 

month is to have a new ground tactical vehicle strategy that is affordable, that actually goes to creating a family of capabilities that 

will allow us to do different things. Part of that family of vehicles 

will be a giant light tactical vehicle. 

I work all the time with my Army counterparts at TRADOC, and 

they have a need for a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle in some of their 

airborne and air assault forces. So we are linked on the requirement. The key thing is, for lack of a better term, those capability 

sets that I think we need families of vehicles in the right numbers 

that would give us a range of capabilities to allow us to go everywhere. One of the challenges we are having now as a sea-base force 

is we could weigh down a ship before we cube out a ship, and we 

have never done that in the past. 

Mr. MORAN. You could weigh down a ship before you—— 

General FLYNN. We could have so much weight on it that there 

is actually more room to load it, but because of the weight of the 

vehicles, we are not becoming the ability to go to all the areas 

around the world where we need to go. So we are looking for a mix 

of capabilities in our Ground Tactical Vehicle Strategy. And as I 

told the chairman earlier, we will be willing to brief you on that 

strategy as soon as we get it done in the next month or two. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, this was an issue with the Stryker, but 22,000 

pounds is too heavy you feel, but it will be a jointly developed program. 

General FLYNN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MORAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Young. 

CRUSADER AND PALADIN HOWITZERS

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask, what is the difference, General Phillips, between Paladin and the system that we 

spent an awful lot of time before it was canceled, Crusader. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, great question. I would like to just go back 

to the previous question from Congressman Moran. We clearly are 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
129 

in sync with our Marine Corps brothers on going forward with 

JLTV. 

Sir, the Paladin is a howitzer that goes back to probably late 

1960s, early 1970s. It has been improved for very many years. And 

with the termination of the Crusader and now the NLOS Cannon, 

it is important that we improve our self-propelled howitzer capability. 

As a young artillery officer, I served on the M109, the first 

version of the howitzer—it was just called an M109 then, it evolved 

into the Paladin. It is very important that our Army move forward 

to be able to fund a strategy to upgrade the current Paladin utilizing some of what we learned from NLOS cannon, like the electric 

turret and other items, and put that into the Paladin PIM upgrade. 

And sir, that is exactly what we are pursuing. 

Another piece that is very difficult with that is obsolescence inside that platform that does date back to the late 1960s, early 

1970s, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. Isn’t that what Crusader was supposed to do before 

we canceled it? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, Crusader, I am not sure if I have the data 

right, but was very heavy, many tons and very expensive as well, 

sir, and obviously canceled. NLOS cannon was canceled. We will 

simply take the Paladin howitzer as it is today, identify the upgrades that we want to incorporate into it, and it will be a new 

self-propelled howitzer that our heavy brigade combat teams need 

for the future fight. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PALADIN BRADLEY CHASSIS

Mr. DICKS. Would you yield on that just a second? 

Mr. YOUNG. Sure. 

Mr. DICKS. However, the Army is proceeding with the Paladin 

Integrated Management Program which mounts a howitzer on a 

chassis that is derived from the Bradley. Please explain this apparent contradiction. In other words, why are we saying that Bradley 

is no good, but here we are going to use the chassis for this particular purpose? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I will let Major General Spoehr weigh in 

here, but my quick response is, obsolescence of all the parts, to include the engine, the transmission, and some of the torque converters that go into driving the tracks and so forth, obsolescence 

has driven us to try to get commonality with something that we 

have inside the Army today. 

Tom Spoehr. 

General SPOEHR. Sir, I would just add that there is a slightly 

mission set difference there, and that, normally speaking, a track 

howitzer would not be at the front pushing out into areas where 

you would expect to find IEDs. So the threat from an IED is a little 

bit lower for a track howitzer. 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. Going back to the new ground vehicle, is this 

going to be a tracked vehicle or a wheeled vehicle? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, we are not sure yet. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
130 

Mr. DICKS. That is going to be up to the alternative analysis and 

contractor development? 

General PHILLIPS. Roger, sir, exactly. The analysis of alternatives, AOA, in July will inform us, as will the proposals that we 

get back from industry. And we will probably have a host of solutions that we will propose again, sir. 

ABRAMS TANK

Mr. DICKS. Tell us what you are doing with the M1 tank. 

General SPOEHR. Sir, we have been moving towards a two-fleet 

strategy, and so we are seeking a strategy that has the M1A2 SEP 

and the M1A1 AIM SA tank. It is a two-fleet balance mix. It is a 

wonderful tank. 

We also have a program for some modest improvements over the 

course of the years to keep this platform relevant with digital upgrades and other things. As we have added more things, the platform has become burdened in terms of its ability to generate the 

necessary power and to communicate with the other vehicles in a 

heavy brigade combat team. So some of the modest improvements 

that we want to put on the M1 tank will keep it relevant for the 

foreseeable future because it will be part of our fleet at least until 

2025, and probably further. 

Mr. DICKS. What are the key advantages of each tank and what 

are the key differences? 

General SPOEHR. Sir, we have two primary types of tank, the 

M1A2 SEP and the M1A1 AIM SA. They are very similar, they are 

both great tanks. The M1A2 SEP is a fully digital tank and so it 

is able to communicate through all the modern technology and has 

a digital backbone. So as you add new black boxes to that tank, it 

can fully accept them. 

The M1A1 AIM SA tank is an analog tank. It is older technology, 

and so it doesn’t accept as readily a digital-type system that you 

would find today. 

The other major difference, sir, is that the newer tank, the SEP 

tank, has a commanders’ independent thermal reviewer, which 

gives the commander an ability to look separately from the gunner 

for other targets and other threats to his tank using a thermal site, 

which is a huge advantage. 

Mr. DICKS. The Army budget justification material indicates that 

the M1A1 situational awareness tank are for the Army National 

Guard and the M1A2 system enhancement package tanks are for 

the active Army. What is the rationale in providing one type of M1 

tank to the Guard and another to active units? 

General SPOEHR. Sir, we are providing both. The newest tank is 

going to both of our components, the Army National Guard and the 

active components. So shortly, it is the Idaho National Guard, their 

brigade combat team will be getting the SEP tank, which is the 

newest tank in our inventory. 

Mr. DICKS. So both the active force and the Guard and Reserve 

will get both tanks. 

General SPOEHR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DICKS. Well, maybe we ought to check your budget justification material and we can get that straightened out. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
131 

General SPOEHR. It could be a matter, sir, that the new tanks are 

not going directly to them; it could be a cascade, so it may not 

be—— 

Mr. DICKS. I see. What variety of Abrams tanks is the most capable, and what would be the cost to upgrade all Abrams tanks to the 

most capable model? 

General SPOEHR. Sir, the most capable tank is the M1A2 SEP 

tank. I do not have the cost, but I can get it to upgrade the entire 

fleet to that configuration. 

Mr. DICKS. Give us an estimate for the record. 

I voted, so I intend to keep going here. 

[The information follows:] 

The aggregate cost to convert all existing Abrams tanks for which we have requirements to M1A2 SEPs is ∼$5.9B. The current cost to produce an M1A2SEP v2 

is $8.4M. Currently 700 M1A2SEP v2 tanks are required to ‘‘pure fleet’’ the Army’s 

Active, National Guard Modular HBCTs, and prepositioned stocks. 

The Abrams M1A2SEP v2 is designed to operate in close partnership with the 

Bradley M2A3. In order to optimize platform interoperability and communication, 

the Bradley fleet would need to be upgraded as well. The cost to modernize the 

Bradley fleet is ∼$7.3B. Based on source vehicle, the current cost to produce an 

M2A3 Bradley ranges from $2.3M to $4.2M. 1,966 M2A3 Bradleys are required to 

‘‘pure fleet’’ the Army’s Active, National Guard Modular HBCTs, and prepositioned 

stocks. 

Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I just want to get a little clarity. While the 

Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon has been canceled, that program, we are 

using that technology, that is not escaping here. 

General PHILLIPS. Yes, sir, we are using that technology. Some 

of it inside the Paladin PIM improvement, yes, sir. 

PALADIN SCHEDULE DELAY

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How about the schedule for the Paladin? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, it is currently being reviewed. And we will 

brief our Chief of Staff on Tuesday on the strategy going forward 

for the Paladin PIM. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. There is a delay? 

General PHILLIPS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And that is not a signal of anything? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, the funding is still necessary for the Paladin pin program. We originally had a Milestone C scheduled in 

May, and we know that that milestone will slip some, I just can’t 

tell you the date that it will slip. Once we brief our strategy and 

get it through the Army, sir, we can certainly come back to you and 

this Committee and inform you on our strategy. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just getting back to the ground combat vehicle, I know it is in the future, how would it be transported? Will 

it be transportable, in your mind, in a C–130? 

General PHILLIPS. No, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So it would be C–17, or—— 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, it would be C–17. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That tells us a little bit about the weight 

issue. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, to transport inside a C–130—I am going 

back to my Stryker days—about 40,000 pounds, depending on the 

variant of C–130 that you are flying in. That was about the tip of 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
132 

a spear where you could get a vehicle inside the C–130. The Air 

Force can provide specifics, but that was our target originally for 

the Stryker program. With this vehicle, it will certainly fly onboard 

a C–17 or go on shipment via the U.S. Navy. 

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have a question for General Flynn. I deliberately didn’t ask about the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, I 

left you alone, I am going to let others do that. 

I understand you were using some low-cost generators on your 

logistics line for vehicles to sort of keep them running. Are you familiar with that, on your convoys? 

General FLYNN. Do you mean power generators? 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, power generators. 

General FLYNN. Sir, that is one of the technologies we looked at 

at that energy FOB. We have a prototype that actually, when you 

drive the vehicle, it creates energy and we are able to store it and 

use it. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In the interest of full disclosure, I have a 

company in my district that is very much involved in that. I am 

glad that the Marines are looking at it, which is a nice way of saying I think the Army might look at. I mean, we are huge consumers of fuel. And God only knows, it costs millions of dollars just 

to get a gallon of fuel over there. But you are actually proceeding 

to take a look at that and incorporate it into your supply lines. 

General FLYNN. Yes, sir. And exactly for the reason you say is 

one of the biggest things that we move in theater is fuel. And if 

we can reduce our fuel consumption, we can take vehicles off the 

road, convoys off the road, Marines off the road, soldiers off the 

road. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, in the absence of Ms. Kaptur, who 

would certainly drive that point home if she were here, I put in a 

plug for it, I think it is a pretty neat idea. They are small, but capable. So thank you very much. 

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. We are going to continue. 

Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. 

It is very interesting to be here with you and listening to all the 

things that you are doing and saying. We know that historically a 

lot of technological innovation and creativity has come out of the 

military and then eventually made its way out to the general economy and the general public. So I am very interested in a number 

of things that you are doing, including this experimental forwardoperating base that we talked about. I am wondering if there is 

anything in the context of that development that includes the development of a solar battery, a battery which would generate energy directly from the sun and hold on to it for a long period of 

time. Is there anything like that that is being done in the military 

anywhere? 

General FLYNN. Sir, I did not see that technology demonstrated 

down at the FOB, but that doesn’t mean that we are not looking 

at it, but I can get back to you on that. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
133 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I am not aware of any either. We can do 

some research on that and get back to you. 

JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM

Mr. HINCHEY. Thanks. It just seemed interesting if something 

like that could be done, including for vehicles that would be conventional, but then run out of power and stuck someplace, if they 

could click that on, that would be something that would be very 

significant. 

Also, the Joint Tactical Radio System, those radios, this is another fascinating operation. It says they are software defined, high 

capacity, multichannel tactical radios. The program was launched 

in ‘97 based on a Mission Needs Statement. The Department of Defense is developing multiple variants, including ground mobile, 

handheld, ManPAC, small, airborne maritime fixed stations—a 

number of things like that which seem very, very interesting. Do 

you want to tell us more about it? Thank you. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, it is really a key component of our network strategy that we are implementing all across the Army, not 

just for certain brigades, but we want to take the network and expand it all across the Army. JTRS is part of the backbone of that 

system, along with the system WIN–T that I mentioned in my 

opening comments. It is a software programmable radio that provides really the network and Internet-like capability down to the 

soldier level. Some of those radios like the HNS that you just mentioned, connects us, the soldier, to sensors on the battlefield. So you 

can have a soldier that has a radio and also a sensor that has a 

small form-fit factor radio that would communicate back to the soldier, who could communicate back to his leadership platoons and 

provides incredible situational awareness on the battlefield. It is a 

centerpiece of our network strategy going forward for our brigade 

modernization, sir. 

Mr. HINCHEY. That is very, very interesting. Can you tell us the 

timeline for fielding the JTRS, the ground mobile radio for the first 

three Army brigades combat teams? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, we are doing some testing now with 

ground mobile radio. We have some of the early versions in production. We have the—we call them EMD versions—engineering, manufacturing and development versions—that were tested in the actual limited user test last September. We expect the GMR radio to 

go into production in fiscal year 2011 so we can begin to field it 

in Brigades 2 and 3 down the path. It remains critical to our IBCT 

modernization strategy. 

If I could also add, we invested, all the services to date, about 

$5.5 billion into JTRS, and we want to leverage that investment. 

We are about 85 percent complete on development, and now we are 

ready to go into production, sir. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. 

General PHILLIPS. Thank you, sir. 

ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

Mr. DICKS. Let me ask you this; on the acquisition workforce, 

General Phillips, one of the tasks is to revitalize the Army acquisition workforce. What actions will you take to do this? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
134 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, that is a great question. In my years that 

I have in this job, that is going to be one of my top priorities is 

to continue to build our acquisition workforce. With your help, the 

help of this Committee, and Congress, we have the authority, 

through OSD, to hire 1,885 new workers into our acquisition workforce. That is on top of the already about 42,000 today. We are 

going to in-source another 4,041 workers that used to be contractors that at some time we decided they weren’t inherently government, and most of the work that we do in acquisition I believe is 

inherently government. 

So we are going to bring into the workforce almost 6,000 new 

workers through in-sourcing and new capability. 

Now, sir, of that 1,885 that I mentioned—contracting desperately 

needs new workforce inside our formation—about 1,650 of that are 

contracting officers that we will bring in. We have already promoted three generals, as I mentioned, sir, we will promote more. 

You gave us an allocation for a total of five, our work is not done 

in contracting. Sir, I hope that is helpful, but thanks to you and 

the Committee for what you have allowed us to do. 

HIRING PERSONNEL

Mr. DICKS. So how do you get these people? Is this off of a Web 

site, or do you just hire the way we used to hire people, you bring 

them in for an interview? How do you do it? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, it is a very disciplined process. We use 

Section 852 funding that goes along with this to recruit. And once 

we recruit them, we have to retain them. We have a lot of folks 

that go out and recruit among colleges and universities. When you 

talk about acquisitions, especially contracting, we have a requirement to have 24 business credits, we would like to for them to have 

a degree as well, that is helpful. If a degree in business, that is 

even more powerful. 

So we seek that kind of talent, and we do much of our recruiting 

for contracting and for acquisition in our universities and colleges 

around the United States, sir. It is a very disciplined program that 

we are following to go out and recruit these young men and women 

to join our ranks. 

Mr. DICKS. How many people have been brought on in the last 

year? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, I believe we brought on a little over 600. 

I will get you the exact figure, but it is around 650 folks that have 

been brought on in the last several years. 

[The information follows:] 

The U.S. Army has hired 2087 civilian acquisition personnel during Fiscal Year 

2010. Approximately 1800 of the personnel hired were as a result of growing the 

acquisition workforce. The rest were hired as part of the normal replenishment process. 

Mr. DICKS. General Flynn, what about the Marine Corps, is this 

a problem for you or not? 

General FLYNN. Sir, in recent times, General Rogen, at our systems command, we are in the process of a significant hiring effort 

to bring on new acquisition professionals. And also, based on the 

guidance we received last year from the Department, we are also 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
135 

in the process of converting many of our contractor positions to government employees. 

Mr. DICKS. What were these contractors doing? Were they managing the acquisitions? 

General FLYNN. They weren’t managing the acquisitions, sir. I 

think in many cases, what the contractors were hired for was to 

help in the requirements—or the documentation that went along 

with the requirements process is where, in my organization, that 

is where a lot of them work is in the actual writing of the requirements document, not necessarily defining the requirement, but 

doing all the supporting documentation that goes along with defining the requirement, sir. 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, that is true for the Army as well. They 

work some of the requirements generation pieces, and inside the 

Pentagon as well, they support some of our resourcing strategies as 

well. But some of that work, as I mentioned earlier, is inherently 

government; that is why we are going to in-source in the Army a 

little over 4,000 former contractor positions to be acquisition core. 

Mr. DICKS. Will the plan for improvement of the Army acquisition workforce include funding programs to the cost analysis improvement estimate, the CAIG estimate? 

General PHILLIPS. Yes, sir. As we go forward with our programs, 

one of our strategies for ACAT1 and ACAT2 programs is to make 

sure that we fully fund to—depending on which level it is, to either 

the Army cost position or the OSD cost position. If it is an ACAT2 

program, we will be using Army cost position. That is part of our 

strategy, sir, and part of acquisition reform. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Kingston. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I don’t have any questions, Mr. Chairman. 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT

Mr. DICKS. I have a few more. 

Over the past year, the Corps has emphasized the need to recapitalize these products, we are here talking about material handling 

and construction equipment, but instead, the 2011 budget request 

for material handling and construction equipment, including overseas contingencies operation, is only $83 million, $15 million less 

than last year’s fiscal year 2010 budget request, a 15 percent decrease for construction equipment, the request is a mere $18 million compared to $73 million last year. 

At this rate, the material handling and equipment will deteriorate and the flow of goods and equipment to the war effort will be 

slow. The equipment can mean the difference between life and 

death to units in the field. 

General Flynn, do you have a plan for recapitalizing these lines 

of equipment? 

General FLYNN. Sir, we have a plan for recapitalizing the lines 

of equipment, but the challenge that we have, sir, is making it all 

fit within the prioritization of the fiscal allocation that we do, sir. 

It is not that we don’t recognize the requirement, it is the 

prioritization that takes place among competing requirements and 

the cost that each of those requirements has. 

Mr. DICKS. Is this a serious problem at this point? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
136 

General FLYNN. Sir, the serious problem right now is being able 

to afford everything that we need, sir, in light of the cost growth 

of individual pieces of equipment. And the best example I can give 

you, sir, is for the last 30 years, our average of funding that we 

have had for ground procurement equipment has always been between $2.5 and $3 billion, that is the 30-year average. But what 

we are seeing is an exponential increase in certain levels of equipment. For example, about 8 years ago, it cost us about $1,000 to 

outfit a Marine; now it takes us about $7,500. That is a growth of 

seven times. 

So when we have to prioritize and we have to make choices, we 

are making choices, but we are making choices not to put the force 

that is at risk that is forward deployed. All our forces forward deployed have all the equipment that they need to do their job. And 

we have also expended our resources to recapitalize our maritime 

prepositioning ship program because we see that as a key part of 

the Nation’s strategic reserve. And what we have done is we have 

consciously taken risks in our home stations, and that is where you 

will see some of our supply readiness has suffered. So we have had 

to make choices, we have made choices, but those choices have not 

been at the expense of the Marines forward deployed. 

Mr. DICKS. In looking at some of this equipment, it appears to 

me that in Karachi, or wherever you are on-loading it, do you have 

stevedores, are there people there that do this kind of work? 

General FLYNN. Sir, we don’t have stevedores in places like Karachi. Our location is more where it is offloaded when it gets to us, 

but most of that is done commercially and brought in the country 

that way. Or if it is done through APOEs, we offload and load either way, and we also do some of the loading in some of our ports, 

sir. 

Mr. DICKS. How does the Army handle this, General Phillips? 

General PHILLIPS. Sir, for the MHE that you mentioned, we reset 

some of that equipment when it comes out. I am not sure about recapitalization, Major General Spoehr may be able to add some 

more to that. But the reset dollars that you allocate to us allow us 

to reset much of the equipment that does return to CONUS when 

those units rotate out. So I know we do reset some of the material 

handling equipment that comes back. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, did you discuss the radio issue? 

Mr. DICKS. Yes, we did, we got into that somewhat. If you want 

to—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. No, if you asked it, I just was wondering. 

ADVANCED DISTRIBUTED APERTURE SYSTEM

Mr. DICKS. General Phillips, what is the status of the research 

and development effort going on for—I think it is ADAS? 

General PHILLIPS. Yes, sir. That is a system that our Special Operations Command has been looking at, too. It is a Joint Capability 

Technology Development Program. It is still under review. We expect by the end of this fiscal year that SOCOM will have an analysis ready on how valuable that is to our pilots. Essentially, that 

is a capability that goes onboard the aircraft and allows our pilots 

to have 360 degree situational awareness in low light, nighttime 

situations. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
137 

Sir, the jury is still out on this in terms of what value it might 

add to our pilots and our air crews. We owe you that answer when 

SOCOM comes back with the final analysis by the end of this year, 

sir. 

Mr. DICKS. All right. Well, I think we have had a good hearing. 

The committee stands adjourned until April 14 at 1:30 p.m. in H– 

140, when we will hold a hearing on the National Guard readiness. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for a good job. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions submitted by Mr. Dicks and the answers thereto follow:] 

TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES

Question. Army and Marine Corps units depend on fleets of trucks—light, medium, and heavy—to transport Soldiers, Marines, supplies, and equipment. Prior to 

the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan trucks were rarely armored. As various insurgent forces in Iraq began using improvised explosive devices to attack unarmored 

trucks, the Army and Marine Corps began to add armor packages on light, medium 

and heavy trucks. The Committee is informed that the Army and Marine Corps may 

evolve to a mix of unarmored HMMWVs; armored HMMWVs; Joint Light Tactical 

Vehicles and various MRAP vehicles. General Phillips, please describe the Army’s 

plan for a competitive, ‘‘Open Market’’ effort to Recap HMMWVs. 

a. General Phillips, what is the estimated cost of a recapped HMMWV versus the 

cost of a new vehicle? 

Answer. At this time, the Army has not made any decisions on a competitive Uparmored High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) recapitalization 

(RECAP) program. A Request for Proposal (RFP) and supporting Business and Technical case analysis are being developed based on responses to a Request for Information/Market Survey. The Army’s goal is to use competition in order to provide the 

best value for the government. Competition also helps provide the Army access to 

a full range of industry (depot, private, or public private teaming) capabilities, processes and potential technical advances. 

Since planning is still in-process for a competitive Recap, validated cost estimates 

are not available to compare the cost between Competitive Recap and that of a new 

HMMWV. However, the unarmored and estimated UAH recapitalization costs are 

expected to be approximately 31% and 66% of the cost of new production, respectively. 

Question. General Phillips, what would be the logic of Recapping a 15 to 20 year 

old HMMWV if the cost is about 90% of the cost of a new HMMWV? 

Answer. The Army would not recapitalize a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled 

Vehicle (HMWWV) at a cost of 90 percent of the replacement vehicle cost. The recapitalization cost for an unarmored HMWWV is $55,000 and the estimated cost for 

an up armored HMMWV (UAH) is $105,000 to $130,000, which is variant dependent. The unarmored and UAH recapitalization costs are expected to be approximately 31 percent and 66 percent of the cost of new production, respectively. 

Question. General Phillips, Congress provided a total of $1.3 billion for Army procurement of HMMWVs in the fiscal year 2010 Defense Appropriations. What is the 

Army’s obligation plan for those funds? 

Answer. The Army has obligated $431 million of the $1.3 billion (FY) 2010 funding, by placing 2,122 High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) on 

contract. Of the remaining funding, approximately $913 million, the Army is planning to reprogram approximately $560 million for the existing HMMWV Recap and 

use the remaining funds to support other Army priorities. 

Question. General Phillips, does the Army intend to reprogram fiscal year 2010 

funds that were appropriated for the purchase of HMMWVs? 

Answer. Yes, though all actions associated with the (FY) 2010 High Mobility 

Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) reprogramming are pre-decisional at this 

time. The Army is in the process of requesting approval from Office of the Secretary 

of Defense and Congress to reprogram a portion of the FY 2010 procurement funding for the existing HMMWV recapitalization and other priority Army uses. 

HMMWV PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

Question. General Flynn, this year the Marine Corps requested only $17.8 million 

for HMMWVs ($4.8 million in the base, and $13 million in the OCO) for a total of 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
138 

94 vehicles. Funding from last year’s appropriation still remains open for obligation. 

What is the thinking behind the small number of HMMWVs to be purchased? Will 

funding from last year’s appropriation be obligated soon? 

Answer. The Marine Corps is not procuring additional HMMWVs in their current 

configuration. However; we do procure Marine Corps Transparent Armor Gun 

Shields (MCTAGS) for all Tactical Wheeled Vehicles (TWV) using the HMMWV 

funding line. The Marine Corps requests that it receive the full $17.8M to fund Afghanistan MCTAGS requirements for Light Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR) 

and Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR). 

Fiscal Year 2010 HMMWV funding will be fully obligated within the next two to 

three months in support of Urgent Universal Need Statements (UUNS), MCTAGS 

and survivability upgrades to existing HMMWV vehicles. Because the Frag-Kit was 

not viable, $122M of FY09 OCO funding, originally intended for Frag-Kit 4, is in 

the process of being reprogrammed to meet other, high priority service needs. 

JLTV DELAYS

Question. General Flynn, the Committee understands that further delays of the 

JLTV have changed the forecasted need for tactical wheeled vehicles, but could you 

explain the path forward to fill the JLTV void? 

Answer. Review and update of the Marine Corps’ ground vehicle strategy has underlined the critical need for about 5,500 light combat support vehicles that provide 

the payload and mobility of the original HMMWV, with all the protection we can 

get in an expeditionary, fully transportable and maneuverable, vehicle. 

To mitigate the risk of a JLTV delay, we’re evaluating a modified Expanded Capacity Vehicle (ECV) design. This modified ECV is a lightweight highly protected 

system currently under development as part of experimentation activities at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL). This vehicle will replace existing 2 and 

4 door vehicle cabins of the HMMWV ECV Fleet with a capsule cabin design, incorporating best practices survivability design concepts such as v-shaped blast-deflecting hull forms. If the experimentation activities continue to produce positive results, 

a modified capsule-like recapitalization, along with other needed upgrades, could be 

used by the Marine Corps as a low-cost recapitalization ‘‘bridge’’ to JLTV-level capabilities. The Marine Corps will focus our JLTV development efforts on the lightest 

JLTVs, the four and two passenger prototype’s built for the current Technology Development phase. We are very active in this phase, focusing on modular protection, 

with the empty weight close to an empty Up-Armored ECV, but capable of full payload. 

WHEELED VEHICLE STRATEGY

The Marine Corps’s mix of wheeled vehicles appears to be in a state of flux. With 

many light tactical vehicles currently in the mix, to include, HMWWVs, MRAPs, 

MRAP–ATVs, and the R&D program to develop the Marine Corps Personnel Carrier—the Corps needs to develop an updated and more complete wheeled vehicle 

strategy. 

The Committee has asked for briefings on the current state of the wheeled vehicle 

strategy and is told that the documents will not be final until June 2010, possibly 

too late to affect the fiscal year 2011 markup. 

Question. General Flynn, given the increased mix of wheeled vehicles available to 

the Corps, surely you understand the difficulty in determining which mix of vehicles 

the Committee should fund. Will you be able to provide a wheeled vehicle strategy 

to the Committee prior to our markup of the fiscal year 2011 bill? 

Answer. The Marine Corps understands the time constraints for the FY11 markup, but also has an obligation to maximize the investments made in existing platforms and is looking at every available option that may meet the requirement. As 

we move forward in the formulation of this plan, it will be presented to Marine 

Corps and DoD leadership. When the plan is finalized, it will be provided to Congress. 

Question. General Flynn could you describe your thoughts regarding a possible 

wheeled vehicle strategy? 

Answer. Any strategy that addresses the mobility of our Marines will account for 

performance, payload, and protection, and focus on providing versatile equipment 

sets that allow for maximum operability without regard for geographic terrain and 

weather conditions. There are many potential courses of action at this point, and 

the Marine Corps is looking to capitalize on its previous investments. 

MRAPs and M–ATVs were not originally part of our strategy, but these assets 

provide for significant capability within specific mission sets. With this in mind, one 

way we are looking at accounting for the significant investment is to equip our units 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
139 

with standard training and garrison allowances, and depending on operational 

tasking, provide appropriate equipment sets to augment established equipment allowances. 

Other significant pieces to this strategy are weight and sustainability. Any technology pursued has to contribute to the Marine Corps ability to project force via the 

sea. It must be interoperable with amphibious shipping, capable of operating within 

the littorals, and be sustainable—with respect to fuel consumption and energy generation. 

As the Marine Corps develops our Ground Combat Tactical Vehicle Strategy, 

maximizing the utility of the equipment sets Congress has already provided remains 

in the forefront—as does remaining postured to be ‘‘most ready when the nation is 

least.’’ 

MRAP/M–ATV BALANCE

With the shift of forces toward the conflict in Afghanistan, and because of the terrain—a lighter, smaller and more agile form of the MRAP was needed. This new 

MRAP is referred to as the MRAP All Terrain Vehicle, (M–ATV). The current requirement for M–ATVs is 8,104 vehicles. 

To date, Congress has appropriated $34.937 billion (plus an additional $5 billion 

reprogrammed from the within Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO funding) for 

MRAP vehicle procurement funding (nearly $40 billion in total). The FY 2010 Supplemental request includes another $1.123 billion, plus $3.415 billion in the FY 2011 

OCO. This totals almost $45 billion. The total MRAP requirement is approaching 

27,000 vehicles. 

Question. General Flynn, realizing the urgent need for a lighter, more agile form 

of mine resistant transportation required for the upcoming growth in our forces in 

Afghanistan, Congress acted and has steadily funded the M–ATV, as it did to fill 

the original MRAP requirement. However, recent reprogramming requests show 

that the Marine Corps Systems Command, on behalf of the services, including the 

Marine Corps, has contracted to purchase additional larger models, like those purchased for Iraq. Has the balance of MRAPs to M–ATVs been determined? 

Answer. Yes, the balance between MRAP and MATV has been determined by the 

Marine Corps. The recent reprogramming requests made by Marine Corps Systems 

Command for additional larger models have been on behalf of other Services and 

do not include any additional requirements for the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps’ 

original requirements determination for both MRAP and MATV have actually been 

adjusted downward based on Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP) and Lessons 

Learned (LL) post initial vehicle fielding. Since these initial adjustments the Marine 

Corps requirement numbers for the entire MRAP Family of Vehicles (FOV) (to include the MATV) have remained stable. The JROC has approved all changes to the 

Service vehicle requirements prior to MCSC action. 

Question. General Flynn. The Department was given authority by Congress to use 

up to $5 billion from the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. This 

fund has been used solely to procure and fund additional MRAPs and M–ATVs— 

with little opportunity given to the Committee for oversight. Has the total revised 

quantity of MRAP and M–ATV vehicles been determined? Will the Joint Requirements Oversight Counsel (JROC) update the current requirement in the near future? 

Answer. The Joint Requirements Oversight Counsel (JROC) Memorandum 

(JROCM) 001–10 dated 29 January 2010 approves the current quantity of MRAP 

and M–ATV vehicles requested by the services and SOCOM. The MRAP Joint Program Office (JPO) is not aware of any additional pending requests to revise the 

quantity of vehicles. The Joint Allocation Decision Board (JADB) is a governance 

body formed by the Joint Staff when the initial MRAP production/fielding began and 

remains in place. The JDAB has successfully worked the re-allocation between services of vehicles on occasion and in doing so, met all requirements without the need 

to increase the overall requirement. 

Question. General Flynn, these vehicles have been a life saver for our Service 

members in combat zones. Congress was, and is, willing to make this happen. But 

with nearly $40 billion previously appropriated for the MRAP fund, and an additional $5 billion requested, is there an end in sight? 

Answer. We believe we are nearing the end of production. The vehicle quantities 

are identified by the Services and the US Central Command (CENTCOM) and are 

approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). The $1.123 billion 

requested in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Supplemental request completes requirements for the procurement of the current JROC acquisition objective for vehicles. 

It also provides transportation, sustainment, maintenance, repair, and engineering 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
140 

changes/safety enhancements for all previously procured vehicles. The $3.415 billion 

in the FY 2011 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) will provide transportation, 

sustainment, maintenance, repair, and engineering changes/safety enhancements for 

previously procured vehicles. 

The uncertainty of the duration of OCO may force the Services to buy additional 

vehicles, to replace combat and service life losses. It is also possible that the fleet 

will need engineering changes, modifications and upgrades to continue meeting the 

needs of the warfighter. 

MEDIUM AND HEAVY TACTICAL TRUCKS

Question. The Army budget request proposes approximately $2.1 billion for medium and heavy tactical trucks. The total amount requested for fiscal year 2010, including the pending 2010 supplemental is $2.9 billion. The Army contract for the 

production of the Family of Medium Tactical Trucks was recompeted and the award 

went to Oshkosh in Wisconsin in August 2009, with protests resolved in February 

2010. The FMTVs had been assembled in Sealy, Texas since 1991. What is the acquisition objective for FMTVs? 

Answer. The Army Acquisition Objective (AAO) for the Family of Medium Tactical 

Vehicles (FMTV) is 83,185. 

Question. General Phillips, what is the on hand inventory of FMTVs? 

Answer. As of March 22, 2010, the on hand inventory of the most modern vehicles 

of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles fleet is 42,525. 

Question. General Phillips, describe how the Army allocates the shortage of 

FMTVs? 

Answer. The Army allocates Family of Medium Tactical Vehicle (FMTV) shortages 

based on operational priorities. For example, units entering the Available Pool of the 

ARFORGEN model receive a higher level of fill of their authorized quantity of 

FMTVs. 

Question. General Phillips, what is the shortage of trucks in the Army National 

Guard, and the Army Reserve? 

Answer. Currently, the Army National Guard is short 13,017 Medium Tactical Vehicles (MTVs) counting both M939s and Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles 

(FMTVs) on hand. That is 38 percent of the Modified Table of Organization and 

Equipment (MTOE) authorization on hand. The Army Reserve is short 2,658 MTVs 

(22 percent of the MTOE authorization). 

The Army National Guard is short 1,344 Heavy Tactical Vehicles (HTVs) counting 

Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks, Palletized Load System, Heavy Equipment Transporter and Line Hauls on hand (10 percent of MTOE authorization). The 

Army Reserve is short 1,086 HTVs (17 percent of MTOE authorization). 

The shortages in each of the components are being addressed through the distribution of new production and programming in the future program. 

Question. General Phillips, what percentage of the medium and heavy truck fleets 

is armored? 

a. Are armored trucks assigned to units other than in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Answer. Currently, 10 percent of the medium truck fleet is armored and 22 percent of the heavy truck fleet is armored. In the Army’s Tactical Wheel Vehicle Investment Strategy, the modernization path forward is to acquire all armor-capable 

(or armor installed) vehicles, such as the new Long-Term Armoring Strategy vehicles currently being procured for the medium and heavy fleets and the Low Signature Armored Cab for the medium fleet. 

a. Yes. The Army also has Armored Medium Trucks in Kuwait, Army 

Prepositioned Stocks, and at various locations in the United States for training purposes. 

Question. General Phillips, should units in high threat areas, other than Iraq and 

Afghanistan have armored trucks? 

Answer. Yes. We intend to put armored and armor-capable vehicles in other theaters through the investment and modernization process. In the Army’s Tactical 

Wheel Vehicle Investment Strategy, the modernization path forward is to acquire 

all armor-capable (or armor installed) vehicles. As the fleet is modernized with those 

vehicles, all theaters will become armor-capable. 

Question. General Phillips, very briefly, describe the Reset and Recap programs 

for tactical trucks? 

a. Is there a backlog? 

Answer. A Reset program restores vehicles that were deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan to their pre-deployment condition. No upgrades or product improvements are 

made. A recapitalization program upgrades an older model vehicle to a more modern 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
141 

configuration and capability. Currently both Medium and Heavy Tactical Vehicles 

go through a Recap or Reset program depending on the model and type of vehicle. 

a. No. There is no backlog in terms of being behind schedule for either the medium or heavy fleet. 

JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) WEIGHT

In response to an operational need and an aging fleet of light tactical wheeled vehicles, the Defense Department developed a requirement for a new tactical wheeled 

vehicle platform that would provide increased force protection, survivability, and improved capacity over the existing up-armored HMMWV (UAI–I) while balancing mobility and transportability requirements with costs. Since the initiation of the JLTV 

program the military departments have procured nearly 27,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and MRAP All Terrain Vehicles (M–ATVs) for duty 

in Afghanistan. 

Question. General Flynn, in recent press statements, the Commandant expressed 

his determination to return the Marines to their expeditionary roots, rather than 

replicate a ground Army. He commented that seven years of fighting in Iraq encumbered the Marines with too many heavy and cumbersome vehicles designed to survive IED blasts. In December, it was reported that he felt the planned Joint Light 

Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), projected to weigh nearly 22,000 pounds, is too heavy for 

strategically mobile troops, and that the Corps is actively considering a lighter 

version. Is this true? 

Answer. Yes. A 22,000 pound vehicle is not light. Yet, the JLTV is needed to preserve the Marine-Air Ground Task Force’s (MAGTF) expeditionary capabilities while 

remaining responsive to missions across the spectrum of expeditionary operations. 

The JLTV must be expeditionary; light enough to be employed as part of an assault 

echelon, tough enough to fight when it gets there and mobile enough for austere environments. The Marine Corps Combat Development Command is working closely 

with the Army Joint Program Office (JPO) to continue to work JLTV weight down 

by identifying non-essential requirements, thereby reducing the vehicle weight without creating risk in the program. We are confident our efforts will provide the best 

balanced capability set for the MAGTF, providing a Light Vehicle liftable by both 

services Rotary Wing aircraft. 

Question. General Flynn, given that the JLTV is a ‘‘joint’’ program, the deputy 

chief of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, says ‘‘there is more work to be 

done in developing the concepts behind the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.’’ Given his 

comments, and the Commandant’s assessment, do you think the JLTV program 

should be continued on behalf of the Marine Corps? 

Answer. Yes. We understand the missions required by the vehicle and where it 

fits into our formations. We also appreciate the challenge of providing adequate protection and transportability in a light combat support vehicle, but it is necessary 

for our future Marine-Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). At this point, we have the 

concepts and requirements correct and are confident that this will be accomplished, 

but we need the weight and cost of the vehicle to meet our requirements. We are 

pursuing a realistic Acquisition Program Baseline at Milestone (MS) B next fall that 

will obtain the right solution at an affordable cost. 

MARINE PERSONNEL CARRIER (MPC) SCHEDULE SHIFT STRATEGY

The Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) is envisioned as a new wheeled armored vehicle, medium weight personnel carrier. It will comprise a part of the Marine Corps’ 

ground mobility portfolio and will have ballistic, mine, and IED protection. The vehicle will have the capacity for ten Marines and two crew members and be transportable by C–17 aircraft. Additionally, it will have a fording capability. The fiscal 

year 2011 budget request for research and development for the MPC is $26.8 million. However, in April last year, the Marine Corps chose to delay the initial operating capability (IOC) by two years because the program was characterized as ‘‘outprioritized in the near years in terms of budget.’’ The new IOC would move to beyond fiscal year 2017 and with no forecast as to when the vehicle would reach full 

operational capability. 

Question. General Flynn, other than financial constraints, the Committee understands that the Marine Corps believes that a shift to the right for the Marine Personnel Carrier program could better synchronize it with the fielding of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Is this the real reason, and if so, how many years would 

you slide it to the right? 

Answer. As the Marine Corps modernizes its vehicle fleet, we are mindful of resources, the timeline involved to production and the impact of new equipment on 

operating units. The MPC will complement the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
142 

(EFV) in the future Assault Amphibian Battalions to accomplish their mission to 

provide maneuver support to combat units across the spectrum of operations in expeditionary environments. These vehicles will replace the current Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV). The 2017 IOC timeline stressed both our budget and the operating forces who will be faced with concurrent fielding of the two systems. Given 

the alternatives to phasing EFV and MPC, we concluded that the better approach 

is to equip an Assault Amphibian Battalion with EFVs first, and once EFV New 

Equipment Training is accomplished, begin introduction of the MPC into that Battalion. This method provides a resource informed approach to phasing new equipment within an affordable procurement profile for combat vehicles. It will result in 

the MPC IOC slipping three years to 2022. 

Question. General Flynn, General Brogan stated that ‘‘The Marine Corps wants 

that vehicle, (referring to the MPC) the requirement is definitely there.’’ What 

amount of time is reasonable for Congress to extend such programs? 

Answer. General Brogan was right, we understand the requirement, the concept 

of employment for the vehicle, and where it will fit in our Marine Air Ground Task 

Force (MAGTF). The 85–90% solution for a swimming, well protected, mobile APC 

is available today, and we believe it is appropriate to maintain a low level of funding to ensure we can procure the best solution for the MAGTF when conditions permit investment in that capability. 

Question. General Flynn, the Committee understands that in the interim, the Marines will continue to use MRAP vehicles and older assault amphibious vehicles. Realizing that the Marine Corps did an analysis of alternatives over a year ago, and 

considering the research and development costs, and by your admission, the MPC 

was ‘‘out-prioritized in . . . terms of budget,’’ did the Marine Corps consider the 

Army’s Interim Armored Vehicle, the Stryker, a vehicle with very similar requirements? 

Answer. Yes, the Stryker was evaluated in the MPC Analysis of Alternatives and 

we found it did not meet the protection or the mobility requirements of the MPC. 

We continue to monitor Army plans for Stryker upgrades and remain open to joint 

solutions that meet the required MPC capability. 

Question. This year’s request for R&D for the Marine Corps Personnel Carrier is 

$26.8 million. Now that the program will move to the right, how much will be required in this account? 

Answer. The Marine Corps budget request of $26.8M for MPC R&D is consistent 

with the low level of funding required to ensure we can procure the best solution 

when conditions permit investment in that capability. Our relatively small R&D request is structured to ensure we continue system design and integration work to 

procure the most effective mobility, protection and payload combination available in 

a wheeled armored personnel carrier while mitigating cost and schedule risk. 

EXPEDITIONARY FIGHTING VEHICLE (EFV) SCHEDULE

The Marine Corps has been developing the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) 

since the mid-1990s. According to the Government Accountability Office, total estimated research and development costs jumped from $1.5 billion in 2000 to $3.6 billion last year, and the vehicle unit cost has risen from $8 million to $23 million 

(given lower levels of production and including research costs). 

In an April 6, 2009 news briefing, Secretary Gates stated: ‘‘In today’s environment—for acquisition and contracting reform, maintaining our technological and 

conventional edge requires a dramatic change in the way we acquire military equipment. I believe this needed reform requires three fundamental steps. First, this Department must consistently demonstrate the commitment and leadership to stop 

programs that significantly exceed their budget or spend limited tax dollars to buy 

more capability then the nation needs. Our conventional modernization goals should 

be tied to the actual and prospective capabilities of known future adversaries—not 

by what might be technologically feasible for a potential adversary given unlimited 

time and resources.’’ Since that time, the Department has cancelled many programs 

that meet these criteria, however, the EFV which appears to meet all of Secretary 

Gates’ cancellation criteria, continues to be funded. 

Question. General Flynn, the budget submission shows that the Marine Corps 

made a decision, in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy and the Department 

of Defense, to slide procurement of the EFV one year. Since its inception, a major 

program review cut the number of EFVs to be purchased from 1,013 to 573—and 

there is a suggestion that a new reduction would take the numbers down to 480. 

The original cost estimate for program completion was $7.1 billion, and has now 

increased to a projected $16 billion. To date, the program has spent $3 billion, not 

including the FY 2011 request at an additional $243 million. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
143 

The program was conceived in 1987 and the initial contract was awarded in 1996. 

The program incurred a Nunn-McCurdy breach in 2007, has been re-baselined numerous times, is at least eleven years behind schedule, and is not planned to fully 

field until 2026 (at the reduced quantity). 

Question. General, do you dispute any of these facts? Surely this isn’t a typical 

development program? 

Answer. The reduction from 1013 EFV to 573 was implemented in response to 

2008 Strategic Planning Guidance to maintain a 2 Marine Expeditionary Brigade 

(MEB) forcible entry capability and propose a set of vehicles better balanced to meet 

the Irregular Warfare (IW) environment demands. Likewise, suggestions to reduce 

the quantities below 573 are centered around changes to the Maritime 

Prepositioning Force Future (MPF(F)) program, not internally generated USMC 

modifications to needed capabilities. 

The technical challenges to assured access from 25 nm off a foreign coastline are 

significant, and the program has worked tirelessly to bring the capability for high 

water speed, lethality and protection to the MAGTF in a timeline commensurate 

with the MV–22. 

This is not a typical development program, as it must integrate aspects of marine 

architecture, combat vehicle design, lethality, survivability and long range C2 into 

a single platform, a platform that must be suitable to the maritime environment, 

but retain high reliability due to the distance it must travel from ship to shore. 

From our perspective, numerous analyses of alternatives, conducted through the 

history you’ve cited conclude the EFV concept is the most cost effective way to conduct the missions in the environments for which it is designed. We appreciate the 

support provided to our Marine Corps on the program to this point, and look forward to its completion and fielding. We remain confident the program will deliver 

the capability on cost and schedule as stated in the Acquisition Program Baseline 

Agreement (APBA) today. 

Question. General Flynn, the Commandant has been a consistent advocate of the 

EFV, even through some of its most difficult developmental challenges. Secretary 

Gates was extremely critical of the Department’s acquisition process in general, in 

the budget statement he gave on April 6th last year. In the question and answer 

session that followed he stated that several programs had significantly exceeded 

their budgets and that program goals should be tied to actual and prospective capabilities of future adversaries. On May 1st, Secretary Gates was quoted as saying 

that the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle in particular had not embraced combat lessons learned such as V shaped bottoms. After so much criticism, cut backs, and restarts, why does your budget still contain funding for the Expeditionary Fighting 

Vehicle? Should this program be continued at all costs? 

Answer. The Marine Corps has a commitment to our Nation and a Title X responsibility to execute amphibious operations. We live in a maritime world and amphibious capability will be more relevant tomorrow than it is today. Our Marine Corps 

has executed more than 100 such operations in the last 25 years alone and the recent Haiti earthquake reaffirmed our need to be most ready when others are least. 

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) reviewed and affirmed the need 

for a high-speed amphibious assault capability that provides the Joint Commander 

with an effective amphibious assault capacity. The ability to rapidly employ combatloaded Marines ashore from ships positioned 25 or more nautical miles off-shore provides increased force protection. The ability to conduct operations in the littoral 

using the sea area as a secure maneuver space will allow the optimized use of force 

against irregular/terrorist targets and maintain a strong presence in an area with 

minimal impact upon the local populace. The EFV’s lethality, mobility, survivability, 

and robust command and control capabilities will make it an effective platform in 

any environment. We stand behind the success criteria for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle stated in previous testimony, the Program must pass the planned SDD– 

2 Operational Assessments, demonstrate the ability to meet Key Performance Parameters and stay on cost and schedule within regulatory guidelines. 

Question. General Flynn, do you believe this program will ever complete development and become operational? 

Answer. EFV is on track to demonstrate system reliability and growth potential 

for production decision in January 2011 which is Knowledge Point–2. Demonstration 

of all Milestone C (MS C) exit criteria will be met as projected in the program baseline. We remain committed to ensuring the EFV meet our requirements, as it provides the ground maneuver centerpiece of our future Marine Air Ground Task Force 

(MAGTF). 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
144 

EFV DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) is a keystone for both the Marine 

Corps Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare and Ship-to-Objective Maneuver 

watfighting concepts. The EFV represents the Marine Corps’ primary means of tactical mobility for the Marine Rifle Squad during the conduct of amphibious operations and subsequent ground combat operations ashore, but is the program really 

justified? 

During the recent Navy rollout briefing, an inquiry was made regarding the slip 

in the EFV schedule. The response was, ‘‘The Marine Corps made a decision, in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy and OSD, to slide procurement of the 

EFV one year so that we (the Marine Corps) can: (1) Receive delivery of the seven 

System Design and Development (SDD) test vehicles, which will be used to validate 

the reliability and mean times between failure of the vehicle, and (2) Conduct a series of QDR directed war games to look at trade-offs in alternative concept of operations for employment.’’ 

Further, the written response said, ‘‘The EFV program is executing on time and 

on schedule but the Marine Corps wants to thoroughly assess the results of the 

R&D efforts before moving forward with full rate production. We believe the nation 

still requires a range of capabilities to gain access to contested areas, thereby ensuring theater access for the larger joint force. We feel the EFV is critical to this requirement—but we are committed to getting it right.’’ 

Question. General Flynn, if the EFV is on time and on schedule, how then is this 

possibly the longest systems development program in the history of the Department 

of Defense? 

Answer. There is no question; the EFV has taken far longer time to develop than 

was expected. However, the restructured EFV program continues to perform well 

technically as seven new prototypes prepare for operational testing at Camp Pendleton this summer. The design efforts and reliability growth planning efforts that 

have been put in place are for other programs. The contractor has continued to perform within the cost and schedule parameters. The performance of the program 

since 2007 has been very positive by any objective measure. We are asking a lot 

of the EFV. Over the last few years the Marine Corps has demonstrated our commitment and remain committed to getting it right. 

Question. General Flynn, given the many years and billions of dollars invested in 

the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Committee has serious reservations whether the program will ever meet a standard for completion. With initial operational 

capability now projected at 2015, and full operational capability now projected at 

2025—isn’t this an excessive development cycle for a program of this magnitude? 

Answer. Although EFV reliability performance fell short resulting in an extended 

development period, many other vehicle performance capabilities have been demonstrated at their required values due to the significant amount of effort performed 

during the development phase. These capabilities include firepower, water speed, 

land speed, carrying capacity, and interoperability performance. 

Efforts during the development period include the complex engineering and design 

efforts associated with developing a combat vehicle that can not only match the M1 

Al tank’s land speed but can also launch from naval ships 25 nautical miles (nm) 

offshore and transition to the shore within one hour (at approximately 20 knots). 

In comparison, the currently-fielded vehicle, the Assault Amphibian Vehicle (AAV) 

launches from ships approximately 2 nm offshore and has a peak water speed of 

approximately 5 knots. The EFV program is required to meet a challenging requirement and demonstrate its suitability to the expeditionary environment. We are asking a lot of the EFV. Over the last few years the Marine Corps has demonstrated 

our commitment to this program and remains committed to getting it right. 

Question. General Flynn, it has been suggested that the fleet might need to operate at least 100 miles from shore, far beyond the EFV’s range. What is the possibility of this occurrence? 

Answer. Marines and embarked Sailors in the amphibious force operate as part 

of a Naval and Joint force. Although the proliferation of longer range weapons is 

a growing concern to the fleet, we are confident that the 25 nm range provides our 

amphibious fleet the needed response time to counter such weapons. The reach and 

accuracy of rogue missiles will continue to improve and so must our counter measures to these threats. With the capabilities inherent in the rest of the force, we are 

reasonably assured that threats to the amphibious force will be manageable despite 

increased adversary capabilities 

Question. General Flynn, granted there are scenarios that would justify any program, but given that the United States has not conducted a beach assault landing 

in the past 59 years, is it possible that the EFV is no longer necessary? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
145 

Answer. Since 1991 the Navy and Marine Corps have conducted amphibious operations twice as frequently as during the cold war. Amphibious forces are not required to only assault a defended beach. The withdrawal from Somalia and evacuation of non-combatants from Lebanon in 2006 are prime examples of the use of amphibious forces in an uncertain environment. Had the Hezbollah elected to threaten 

U.S. forces with cruise missiles—the evacuation of over 10,000 Americans from Lebanon would have been conducted very differently. When EFV becomes available we 

will regain the capability to conduct amphibious operations without placing ships 

at risk of loss by cruise missiles. 

EFV FLAT BOTTOM DESIGN

The Research and Development for this amphibious vehicle has advanced slowly 

and does not appear to address land mine and IED hazards. Its ability is far greater 

than the current Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) introduced in 1972, but even 

with years of extensive research, the new vehicle has its liabilities. The program development has not incorporated changes to account for its inadequacy to address 

land mines and IEDs (the vehicle has a flat aluminum bottom) and some in Congress are concerned that the flat-bottomed EFV, with an 18-inch ground clearance, 

would be highly vulnerable to IEDs that detonate under vehicles. The House Armed 

Services Committee (HASC) has stated that they are ‘‘concerned that the current 

EFV design does not provide adequate personnel protection against IED and mine 

threats.’’ 

Question. General Flynn, according to the EFV website: The EFV design mitigates 

the damage caused by IED and RPG threats similar to those encountered by U.S. 

forces in Iraq. The Commandant recently testified that the Expeditionary Fighting 

Vehicle in some ways outperformed Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles in 

blast tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground. This is still a flat bottom tracked vehicle 

with an 18′′ clearance. Please elaborate on the Commandant’s testimony. How is 

this possible given the flat bottom design? 

Answer. The EFV outperformed the MRAP in a number of areas, including direct 

fire, and indirect fire. It met the side IED protection of the MRAP. The EFV Program Manager is pursuing the development of an applique ́ armor kit that will be 

available when the EFV reaches IOC in 2015. While the applique ́ armor panels have 

not yet been developed or tested, engineering analysis and design modeling predict 

the structure of the vehicle will accept the impulse of the underbelly IED shot and 

the applique ́ panels will preclude penetration. So we are optimistic that the vehicle 

will have the structural strength to accept the underbelly applique ́ and survive, 

even at the lower clearance, much as the M1A2 underbelly applique ́s. We do not 

yet know the impact of the applique ́ on other performance attributes of the EFV. 

This will be the subject of future testing. 

Question. General Flynn, your plan proposes that once ashore, armor could be applied to the underside of the EFV. How will the armor get to a beach during landing? Who is going to stop, crawl under that narrow clearance and bolt on armor 

while under fire? Is this a realistic scenario? 

Answer. Each of the Services is organized differently to achieve different missions. 

The Navy, Army and Air Force are organized to dominate their respective domains 

(Sea, Land and Air) while the Marine Corps is optimized to respond quickly to the 

unknown across these domains. To achieve this capability the Marine Corps accepts 

risk in the capabilities needed for long duration operations. 

This trade-off is evident when comparing capabilities. Marines operating with the 

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (EFV) and the MV–22 Osprey from amphibious 

ships allow the nation to rapidly respond to the unknown. Marines arrive quickly 

on the scene and will require reinforcement if the operation requires forces for a 

long duration. 

The concept underpinning the EFV is to prioritize speed in moving the Marines 

ashore to increase the survivability of our ships and this comes at the risk of sustained operations ashore. To ameliorate this risk, we complement the capabilities 

of the EFV with a mix of air and ground vehicles. If the EFV borne force becomes 

vulnerable to road side mines the commander has a number of options. Initially the 

force will move off the roads—using the increased off-road capability a tracked vehicle brings to mobility—and vary their routes to reduce the enemy’s effectiveness in 

targeting the force with anti-vehicle mines (or IEDs). At the earliest opportunity 

and when operationally appropriate, the commander can call forward and install the 

additional armor for the EFVs—similar to successful armoring efforts conducted on 

numerous combat vehicles during the past years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Concurrently, the commander would also hold additional options to transfer the Marines 

to more mine/IED protected vehicles arriving from Maritime Prepositioned Forces 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
146 

(MPF), or choose to operate the EFV in waterways to counter mine threats. Most 

commanders will use a combination of these means to react to the new situation, 

but great commanders will use this mix of capabilities to place the enemy in a dilemma caused by our flexibility. 

Your Marine Corps manages tradeoffs to ensure we can challenge adversaries as 

part of the integrated joint force. 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT RECAPITALIZATION

Material Handling Equipment is used for lifting and moving supplies with greater 

ease and economy. These items of equipment generally refer to but are not limited 

to forklifts, motorized pallet jacks (hand trucks), tractors, and other specialized industrial trucks. The Marine Corps is failing to invest appropriately in these types 

of Material Handling and Construction Equipment, thus putting the mobility of the 

force, at large, at risk. 

Question. Over the past year, the Corps has emphasized the need to recapitalize 

these products, but instead, the FY 2011 budget request for Material Handling 

Equipment, including Overseas Contingency Operations, is only $83 million, $15 

million less than last year’s FY 2010 budget request—a 15 percent decrease. For 

Construction Equipment, the request is a mere $18 million, compared to $73 million 

last year. At this rate, the material handling equipment will deteriorate and the 

flow of goods and equipment to the war effort will be slowed. This equipment can 

mean the difference between life and death to units in the field. General Flynn, do 

you have a plan for recapitalizing these lines of equipment? 

Answer. The Marine Corps understands the importance of Material Handling 

Equipment (MHE) and Construction Equipment (CE) to successful operations. Unfortunately, we have had to make some difficult prioritization decisions within our 

budget requests. However, additional Light Rough Terrain Forklift and Extended 

Boom Forklifts will be procured to support readiness until new replacement programs are initiated beginning in FY 2012 and FY 2013. 

Question. The Marine Corps’s fleet of Material Handling and Construction Equipment is not glamorous. When Material Handling Equipment is not available to unload, stack, load and distribute goods—repair parts, food, and services do not make 

it to Marines in the fight. For example, in Desert Storm the cranes, forklifts, and 

container handlers unloaded and distributed over 37,000 ISO (Independent System 

Operator) containers and 500 thousand tons of ammunition. General Flynn, where 

does the fleet of Material Handling and Construction Equipment fit in the Corps 

list of priorities? 

Answer. The criticality of Construction Equipment (CE) and Material Handling 

Equipment (MHE) is fully appreciated. The Marine Corps recognizes both of these 

investment components as a key element of our overall maneuver and sustainment 

capabilities, especially within the Ground Combat Element and Logistics Combat 

Element of our Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). 

The adequacy of the CE and MHE requirement has been adjusted upward based 

on lessons learned and modified tactics, techniques, and procedures. The Marine 

Corps is confident that we have accurately identified the total requirement and is 

taking appropriate action. The demands placed on these equipment items in theater 

are unprecedented, and have required a significant examination and planning effort 

to ensure an appropriate balance between the rehabilitation/recapitalization of currently held assets and the procurement of new items. By carefully affecting this balance we are able to capitalize with the greatest result on current physical asset, as 

well as available fiscal resources. 

RAPID EQUIPPING FORCE (REF) 

Question. The Rapid Equipping Force process is designed to meet the warfighter’s 

immediate needs. Key elements of the process are speed and flexibility. Funds are 

made available to the Army to provide for a rapid response to an adaptive enemy. 

The fiscal year 2009 funding for the Rapid Equipping Force was $212 million. As 

of the January report to congress, $38 million of the fiscal year 2009 funding remained to be obligated. What is the current status of fiscal year 2009 funding for 

the Rapid Equipping Force? 

a. Has there been a decline in requirements or requests for Rapid Equipping initiatives? 

Answer. The REF had FY09 Other Procurement Army (OPA) funding carryover 

of $36M and received $17M additional OPA funding for a total of $53M. Currently, 

the REF has committed $37M with $25M obligated. The remaining $27M unobligated OPA is projected to be committed by 3rd Quarter FY10 and obligated shortly 

thereafter. The REF had a FY09 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation carryVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
147 

over of $1.2M. $1.1M has been committed and is projected to be obligated in 3rd 

Quarter FY10. The balance will be committed in 3rd Quarter for a projected 4th 

Quarter obligation. 

a. There has not been a decline; to the contrary, there has been a continuous increase in REF requirements from 2008 through the present. In 2008 REF received 

115 requirements. In 2009 the number of requirements received by REF increased 

to 440. Year-to-date in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 (reporting the first two quarters October 1, 2009–March 31, 2010) REF has received 326 requirements; at this pace the 

REF will have over 650 requirements for this FY. 

Question. The fiscal year 2010 appropriation for the Rapid Equipping Force is $6 

million in the base and $7 million for Overseas Contingency Operations, a total of 

$13 million. The fiscal year 2010 supplemental request submitted to Congress with 

the fiscal year 2011 budget request is $125 million. The fiscal year 2011 request is 

$42 million in the base and $59 million for Overseas Contingency Operations. Key 

projected uses of funds include force protection, medical, intelligence, and logistics. 

General Phillips, what additional details can you provide to the Committee on the 

requirements for funding of the Rapid Equipping Force for the remainder of 2010 

and for 2011? 

Answer. FY10 Funding: As of April 7, 2010 the REF has $25M in (REF Director) 

validated requirements for projects that require Operations and Maintenance Army 

(OMA) funding; this figure will increase as the year continues. The REF submitted 

a $27.8M OMA Unfunded Requirements to the Army Staff for projected OMA shortfalls. The REF has $11M in validated requirements for projects that require Other 

Procurement Army (OPA) funding with a balance of $15M OPA remaining. The REF 

has $21M in validated requirements for projects that require Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDTE) funding with only $5.3M RDTE remaining. We 

expect requirements to increase between now and fiscal year end as we continue to 

support the Warfighter. 

FY11 Funding: Historically, REF funding has remained relatively constant at current level, between $185M and $200M during the past 5 years and REF does not 

foresee any significant changes from FY10 to FY11. In an era of persistent conflict 

we will find ourselves employed globally against asymmetric threats (un-programmable in nature). The Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) drawdown will allow the REF 

to better meet urgent and evolving needs of commanders in Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF). A year ago the requirements received from OEF to OIF was a 2:1 

ratio. Today the ratio is 5:1, OEF to OIF requirements. As the requirements and 

footprint in OIF have decreased, conversely there has been an increase in enemy 

attacks and the effectiveness of those attacks in OEF. This can be measured by increased casualties and a corresponding increase in REF 10 liners from OEF. Attacks 

in OEF have increased roughly 90% from this time last year. Comparing January– 

March 2010 to the same time period in 2009, there has been a 105% increase in 

the number of US Killed In Action, and an increase of 315% for Wounded In Action. 

The REF has received 147 OEF requirements during the period from January 

through March 2010, as compared to only 31 OIF requirements during the same period. In the same three month period a year earlier, the REF received 56 OEF requirements to 25 OIF requirements. This represents a 260% increase in OEF requirements for the same three month period a year ago. OEF is a less mature theater than OIF and now the REF has a greater opportunity to focus efforts on OEF. 

Afghanistan has unique geographical and counterinsurgency challenges that present 

us with many new requirements. 

Question. Does the Army have a process to review the performance of equipment 

purchased under the Rapid Equipping Force program to determine if some items 

should be fielded Army wide? 

Answer. The Capabilities Development for Rapid Transition (CDRT) is a quarterly 

Army process that identifies the very best Non-Standard Equipment for consideration as Programs of Record and enduring throughout the force. The CDRT process 

is managed by the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command’s (TRADOC) Army 

Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC), in partnership with Headquarters, Department of the Army’s (HQDA) G–3/5/7 Capabilities Integration Division (DAMO–CI). 

Equipment identified as enduring is accelerated in transitioning to a new or existing 

acquisition program within the Army Material Command. 

Question. Are unit commanders and supply personnel trained on the Operational 

Needs Statement process, and the Rapid Equipping Force? 

Answer. The Operational Needs Statement and Equipment Common Operating 

Picture (ECOP) application training is not formally conducted by, or directed to be 

conducted by subordinate commands down to the lower level unit commanders and 

supply personnel. Training is provided via online User’s Guides, Training Slides and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
148 

Computer Based Training materials. Furthermore, the ECOP Help Desk personnel 

are available to conduct Video Telephone Conference training sessions as requested. 

REF makes every effort to train units on the REF process. REF identifies units 

projected to deploy into Theater (currently Iraq and Afghanistan) six months out to 

arrange a pre-deployment visit with the Brigade Commander and Staff. The REF 

Director and Sergeant Major travel to the unit’s location to give a REF overview 

briefing. This briefing covers all pertinent information including what the REF is, 

its mission and role, how to submit a requirement, the REF process, and contact 

information. Many of the Brigades appoint a Commissioned Officer or a senior Non 

Commissioned Officer to be the single point of contact with the REF. This individual 

travels to Fort Belvoir (REF location) where he/she receives training from the REF 

on its process and capabilities and meets key REF personnel. Units also receive a 

list of REF equipment that they will receive from the unit they are replacing. REF 

maintains forward deployed Operational Support Teams (OST) that interact with 

deployed units on a regular basis. OSTs assist deployed units as much as possible, 

assessing capability gaps, training on REF equipment and guiding them in the REF 

process. REF also maintains a website which Soldiers have access to. Soldiers have 

the opportunity on the website to offer ‘‘good ideas’’ as possible solutions for perceived capability gaps. 

STRYKER VEHICLES

Question. The Quadrennial Defense Review notes that the Army will convert one 

Heavy Brigade Combat Team to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team by 2013. Several 

more may be converted as resources are available. The Army has deployed one 

Stryker Brigade Combat Team to Afghanistan. Funding for Stryker vehicles in fiscal 

year 2010 is $513 million, including a congressional increase of $150 million, to procure 93 vehicles plus survivability enhancements. The fiscal year 2011 request proposes $300 million to procure 83 vehicles. The budget request adds a new line for 

Stryker modification with proposed funding of $146 million for survivability enhancements. The Overseas Contingency Operations request includes $445 million 

for Stryker survivability kits referred to as ‘‘Operation Enduring Freedom’’ kits. 

General Phillips, please discuss in more detail the numbers of Stryker variants that 

will be purchased with the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 procurement funding, and the 

key points of the survivability enhancements. 

Answer. The current Army plan is to procure 17 Stryker Reconnaissance Vehicles 

(RV) and 76 Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles (ICV) in fiscal year 2010 (FY10). The 

Army plans to purchase 29 RVs and 54 ICVs in FY11. Additionally, pending a successful test of the Double-V Hull design, the Army may choose to reprioritize FY10 

and FY11 funding to procure Double-V Hulled Strykers for use in Afghanistan. 

Question. What is Army’s concept of the proper number of Brigade Combat 

Teams, and what is the proper mix of Infantry; medium weight or Stryker; and 

Heavy Brigade combat teams? 

Answer. Our goal is to build a versatile mix of tailorable and networked organizations, operating on a rotational cycle, to provide a sustained flow of trained and 

ready forces for full spectrum operations and to hedge against unexpected contingencies at a sustainable tempo for our all-volunteer force. Army analysis balances 

the array of ongoing force requirements in support of OEF and OIF, extant war 

plans, contingency plans and future contingency requirements as reflected in Office 

of the Secretary of Defense’s planning scenarios. The 45 Active Component (AC) and 

28 Reserve Component (RC) Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) meet the needs for sustained operations and potential surges. The 7 STRYKER BCTs (6 AC/1 RC), 26 

Heavy BCTs (19 AC/7 RC) and 40 Infantry BCTs (20 AC/20 RC) all possess great 

versatility which enables full spectrum operations. The ongoing force mix analysis 

has indicated the need to increase the number of STRYKER BCTs available to Combatant Commanders; the Army is converting one AC Heavy BCT to an AC 

STRYKER BCT beginning in FY11. 

Question. Have units in the field gradually changed the role of the Stryker from 

a troop carrier vehicle to a fighting vehicle? 

Answer. No, by design, variants within the Stryker Family of Vehicles are considered carriers (except MGS and ATGM) which enable rapid transport of the Stryker 

Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) formation on the battlefield. Several of the variants 

do have direct fire weapons; their primary purpose remains to provide direct support to the 108 infantry squads and the twelve reconnaissance platoons in the execution of combat tasks. While the Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) and the Mobile 

Gun System (MGS) have long-range, direct fire weapons capable of destroying 

enemy armored vehicles, both variants are designed to support infantry combat operations and are not used as fighting vehicles for stand-alone long-range engageVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
149 

ments. In fact, the Soldiers and leaders within the SBCT refer to the Stryker as 

trucks, acknowledging they do not consider them fighting vehicles like the Bradley 

or Abrams. The intent of providing more accurate and capable weapon systems on 

the various Strykers is to increase the overall force protection level of the formation 

by enabling SBCT Soldiers to be more lethal, capable and effective on the battlefield 

through more rapid identification and reduction of threats. The use of the Strykers 

in an SBCT in combat reflects Tactics, Techniques and Procedures developed during 

home station training and live fire qualification exercises. The capstone qualification 

event in an SBCT is a combined exercise that incorporates vehicles, weapons systems and dismounted squads, as opposed to vehicle-focused gunnery in the heavy 

formations. 

Question. Compare agility, mobility, and IED protection of the Strykers and 

MRAP–ATVs in use in Iraq. Please discuss the battle losses experienced by the 5th 

Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division shortly after the Brigade arrived in 

Afghanistan in July 2009. 

Answer. The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) All Terrain Vehicle (M– 

ATV) and Stryker were acquired to provide unique capabilities. The M–ATV is designed to meet theater needs for a smaller, lighter MRAP and will be used in roles 

similar to the Up Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) 

in Afghanistan. The M–ATV is only designed to carry four passengers and one gunner. The Stryker is primarily an Infantry Combat Vehicle, designed to transport 

nine infantry Soldiers and their equipment quickly across the battlefield in relative 

security. In addition there are eight other Stryker variants that provide a Stryker 

Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) with an organic combined arms lethality and enhanced operational flexibility. Stryker variants include Medical, Engineer, Command and Control Vehicles, NBC Reconnaissance, Mobile Gun System, Mortar Carrier, Fire Support and TOW Anti-Tank variants. The services have only been fielding M–ATVs for a few months; therefore not enough data has been collected on the 

M–ATV to make a comparison between that vehicle and the Stryker Family of Vehicles. However, initial feedback indicates both vehicles are performing very well in 

their assigned roles. 

Stryker vehicles have continually improved survivability as the enemy threat has 

evolved. Examples include Hull Protection Kit, Mine Roller Adapter Kit and Blast 

Mitigation Kit. The Army is currently focusing this effort by enhancing fire suppression and mitigating lED blasts while strengthening suspension and drive line components and designing and testing an improved driver’s seat allowing easier egress 

of the occupant. 

During the period 10 August to 27 November 2009, 5/2 SBCT reported 61 engagements against Stryker vehicles during its deployment to Afghanistan in support of 

Operation Enduring Freedom. A review of reports from the theater revealed approximately 85% of the engagements involved improvised explosive devices and approximately 15% of the engagements involved complex attacks. Reporting on the 61 

engagements revealed approximately 84% of the Strykers received some form of 

damage ranging from minor damage to catastrophic loss. A total of 9 Strykers were 

lost by 5/2 during this period. 

Question. The Committee is aware that a ‘‘Double-V’’ hull has been developed for 

the Stryker vehicles, which may offer blast protection against IEDs that is similar 

to that of an MRAP–ATV while maintaining speed and agility off-road. Please explain the advantages of the Stryker with the double-V hull. 

a. What are the plans for testing and potentially fielding Strykers with doubleV hulls? 

b. What are the production plans; time lines and funding requirements for fiscal 

years 2010 and 2011? 

Answer. The Army has requested and received approval from OSD to build and 

test a limited number of prototype Stryker vehicles with an integrated Double-V 

Hull design. As these test vehicles become available, which is expected to begin in 

early 1st Quarter Fiscal Year 2011, robust independent testing concentrating on Soldier survivability will occur, overseen by the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. At the conclusion of this testing which is expected to take approximately 60 

to 90 days, the Army Acquisition Executive will chair a Configuration Steering 

Board with appropriate Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint staff participation to review test data and determine whether or not to recommend additional 

Stryker vehicle procurement with Double V hull. The Defense Acquisition Executive 

has informed the Army that if further procurement is requested, he would consider 

authorizing, with Congressional approval, production and limited fielding of up to 

450 modified Stryker vehicles to support urgent operational needs in Afghanistan. 

a. The projected increase in protection against Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) 

is expected to double the current protection level available on Stryker vehicles curVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
150 

rently operating in Afghanistan. This increased protection is expected to greatly increase survivability. 

b. Although initial testing of the Double-V Hull design has been promising, only 

independent testing of the design integrated onto the Stryker vehicle hull will determine how good it actually is compared to MRAP. 

LW155 REMAINING REQUIREMENT

Congress has strongly supported the purchase of 155mm lightweight towed howitzers (155LW) to help transform the Marine Corps artillery into lighter, more mobile 

elements. 

For fiscal year 2010 Congress supported the President’s Budget request of $7.4 

million in the base bill for the lightweight 155 mm howitzer, and added an additional $54 million for lightweight howitzers in the fiscal year 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) appropriation for 155LW that were not formally requested 

by the Marine Corps. 

The Committee understood that the fiscal year 2010 Congressional plus up would 

have purchased the remaining requirement and end the line. However, the fiscal 

year 2011 base request calls for $10.3 million for 155LWs, and an additional $103.6 

million in the request for Overseas Contingency Operations, for an additional 22 

howitzers. 

Question. General Flynn, what is the remaining requirement for 155mm lightweight towed howitzers? 

Answer. The FY10 Congressional plus up has helped us close the gap in funding 

needed to attain our Authorized Acquisition Objective (AAO). The funding requested 

in the FY11 OCO will procure 22 additional, guns, aiding the Marine Corps in 

achieving its AAO of 511 howitzers. The funding requested in our FY11 Baseline 

($10.3M) will provide Towed Artillery Digitization (TAD) Refresh & Upgrades. 

As for why OCO funding is appropriate, there are two reasons: 

(1) We have already seen some transportation accidents that have damaged guns 

in theater, and expect we may have to replace some for that reason. 

(2) More importantly, the LW–155 was projected to have a useful life of 20 years, 

firing a total of 15,000 rounds over that time. We currently have 20 howitzers in 

Afghanistan firing an average of 5,000 rounds per year. At that rate, we can expect 

that these guns will be washouts by 2011. The FY11 OCO request provides for combat replacements and sustains the AAO. 

Question. Has the Marine Corps artillery requirements increased as a result of 

the mission in Afghanistan? The surge? 

Answer. No. The current Authorized Acquisition Objective (AAO) is 511. The 

FY10 funding will get the Marine Corps to 489 of the 511 howitzers. The funding 

requested in the FY11 OCO will procure 22 additional guns, aiding the Marine 

Corps in achieving its AAO. The funding requested in our FY11 Baseline ($10.3M) 

will provide Towed Artillery Digitization (TAD) Refresh & Upgrades. 

2ND INFANTRY DIVISION EQUIPMENT IN KOREA

Question. The 2nd Infantry Division is forward-based in South Korea. It has one 

heavy brigade combat team in Korea, plus communications, logistical, intelligence, 

and other assets. That brigade has M1A1 Tanks, and M2A2 Operation Desert Storm 

series Bradley Fighting Vehicles. However, the Army has newer and more capable 

versions of the Abrams Tank and the Bradley Fighting vehicle. Why not provide the 

most capable variants of the Abrams Tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and 

other items to the U.S. Army forces in Korea? 

Answer. Currently, the Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT) on the Korean peninsula is scheduled to receive the M1 Abrams AIM SA (Abrams Integrated Management—Situational Awareness) variant and M2 Bradley ODS (Operation Desert 

Storm) variant in the second quarter of fiscal year 2001. 

Based on potential force mix changes pursuant to the Quadrennial Defense Review and equipment available as other HBCTs undertake directed missions in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, the Army is assessing the feasibility of providing the newest M1 

Abrams SEP (System Enhancement Program) and M2A3 Bradley to the HBCT forward-stationed in Korea. 

Question. Tactical wheeled vehicles operating in Iraq and Afghanistan were initially unarmored, but force protection efforts in response to enemy tactics have resulted in wheeled vehicle fleets that have fully armored passenger cabs. Many of 

them have remotely operated weapons stations. Should U.S. Army units in Korea 

be equipped in a similar fashion? 

Answer. Yes. We intend to put armor-capable vehicles in Korea and have already 

placed some armored vehicles in Army Prepositioned Stock 4 (in Korea) through the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
151 

investment and modernization process. In the Army’s approved Tactical Wheel Vehicle Investment Strategy, the modernization path forward is to acquire all armor-capable (or armor installed) vehicles. As the fleet is modernized with those vehicles, 

Korea will be equipped with armor-capable vehicles. 

Question. Are you aware of other equipping upgrades that, based on lessons 

learned in Iraq or Afghanistan, should be applied in Korea or elsewhere? 

Answer. Yes. The Army has identified equipment upgrades and new capabilities 

battle tested in Iraq and/or Afghanistan that warrant inclusion in Army units deployed in other theaters and CONUS. Many have already been fielded to Korea and 

elsewhere such as improved helmets, body armor and individual weapons (M4 Carbine) for soldiers, enhanced command and control systems such as Command Post 

on the Move (CPOF) and Warfighter Information Network—Tactical (WIN–T) Inc 1, 

Raven Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Aircraft Survivability Equipment upgrades. 

Question. When will the brigade combat team in Korea receive Brigade Modernization spin outs from the FCS program? 

Answer. The Army has not yet determined when the brigade combat team (BCT) 

in Korea will receive Brigade Modernization spin outs from the Future Combat Systems program. While the Army will field these technologies in Capability Packages 

to all BCTs by fiscal year 2025, the unit fielding schedule for Capability Packages 

will be determined by multiple factors including deployment and procurement 

schedules. 

MAGNETO-INDUCTIVE REMOTE ACTIVATED MUNITIONS SYSTEM

Question. The Magneto-Inductive Remote Activation Munition System (MI– 

RAMS) provides command and control of land based ordinance, including tactical 

demolition, for U.S. Army Combat Engineer Forces. It provides the ability to remotely initiate and/or control target neutralization through buildings, concrete, 

metal, subterranean structures, tunnels, caves, and under water which current 

radio frequency devices cannot accomplish. It provides Explosive Ordnance Device 

forces an unjammable remote firing device capability for clearance and IED neutralization operations. The system reduces the amount of time a Soldier is exposed 

while employing demolitions, and significantly lightens the load the Soldier has to 

carry. What is the status of the Army’s MI–RAMs program? 

Answer. The MI–RAMS program (M156, XM40 and XM331) is currently unfunded 

after Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10). The M156 kit is in low rate initial production. A Type 

Classification Standard/Full Rate Production (TC/FRP) decision is planned for June 

2010 and would be subsequently followed by a Full Materiel Release (FMR) in September 2010. The XM40 and XM331 have successfully completed all developmental 

testing and are completing all necessary documentation required for a Milestone C 

production decision. 

Question. No funds are requested in the fiscal year 2011 budget for production of 

MI–RAMS system. What happens to the production line once IOC is achieved, if no 

production orders are placed by the Army? 

Answer. If no additional orders are placed, the Army anticipates that the vendor 

will evaluate its commercial opportunities, workload and strategic plans for this 

product and make a decision concerning the disposition of its production line. 

Question. What percent of Army Combat Engineer Force inventory objectives for 

MI–RAMS systems will be met by the end of fiscal year 2010? 

Answer. By the end of fiscal year 2010, the Army inventory for the Magneto-Inductive Remote Activated Munitions System M156 kit will be 310 systems, which 

is approximately 6 percent of the objective requirement. 

Question. What is the Army doing to ensure that now that all the R&D has been 

done the MI–RAMS system is fielded to combat forces to meet their need for a safer, 

lighter, and more capable detonation device which can contribute to our frontline 

forces in the fight against IED’s? 

Answer. The existing systems will be fielded primarily to deploying Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal units. Any additional systems will be fielded in accordance with 

Army Force Generation Model and the Dynamic Army Resource Priority List. 

Question. Given the high priority of MI–RAMS on the Army Engineer Schools’ priority list and the importance of providing the most capable equipment to out frontline Army EOD and special forces, does the Army intend to budget for MI-RAMS 

in its upcoming fiscal year 2012 internal (POM) budget as a common service item 

for the Army Combat Engineers, EOD, and Special Forces? 

Answer. This requirement will compete for funding along with other priority programs as the Army develops its Future Years Defense Program. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Dicks.] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(153) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010.

NATIONAL GUARD AND U.S. ARMY RESERVE READINESS 

WITNESSES 

GENERAL CRAIG R. McKINLEY, CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL HARRY M. WYATT, III, DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

MAJOR GENERAL RAYMOND W. CARPENTER, ACTING DIRECTOR, 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JACK C. STULTZ, CHIEF, U.S. ARMY RESERVE 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN DICKS

Mr. DICKS. The committee will be in order. This afternoon the 

committee will hold a hearing on the National Guard and U.S. 

Army Reserve readiness. We will focus primarily on near-term 

readiness issues related to personnel, training and equipment repair, reset and battle loss replacement. 

Because the senior services have consistently underfunded the 

Reserve components, Congress has provided funding for the National Guard and Reserve equipment account for over 30 years. 

And at times, this funding has made all of the difference in the 

ability of units to perform critical missions. 

We are pleased to welcome several distinguished general officers 

as witnesses. 

From the National Guard, General Craig R. McKinley, the Chief 

of the National Guard Bureau and the first four-star Chief of the 

National Guard. And he is accompanied by Lieutenant General 

Harry M. Wyatt III, Director of the Air National Guard; and Major 

Raymond W. Carpenter, the Acting Director of the Army National 

Guard. 

Additionally, we are pleased to welcome the Chief of the U.S. 

Army Reserve, Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz. 

General Stultz, we will discuss Army Reserve requirements and 

help the committee to better determine their needs. 

Gentlemen, welcome. We are eager to hear your testimony on 

better determining the needs of guardsmen and reservists deployed 

around the world. These officers are very well qualified to answer 

the questions of the committee. Thank you all for testifying before 

this subcommittee. 

Gentlemen, the committee is concerned about the readiness of 

the National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve. Your soldiers and airmen are performing magnificently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other 

hot spots around the globe. The committee would like to commend 

the soldiers and airmen of the Guard and Reserve for their dedication throughout these years in Iraq and Afghanistan. We look forward to your testimony. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
154 

Now before we hear your testimony, I would like to call on the 

Ranking Member, my friend Bill Young and former Chairman of 

this subcommittee, for his comments. 

REMARKS OF MR. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want to add 

my welcome to yours to our very distinguished guests. I think no 

other committee in Congress understands the strain that is placed 

on our military, including our Guard and Reserve forces. It is good 

to have the leaders of those who manage and direct and control 

these very, very important segments of our overall national defense. 

In fact, the old ‘‘weekend warrior’’ saying I think has sort of 

faded from everybody’s vocabulary when we see the amount of time 

that our Guard and Reserve forces are deployed to the region. 

So we appreciate what you do and understand the importance of 

your manpower and woman power, but we also understand that 

the best forces in the world really have a hard time doing their job 

if they don’t have the proper equipment. 

Today we need to hear some of the heartburn issues that you 

might have on equipment that is absolutely necessary, number one, 

for you to train your troops; number two, for them to have the tools 

to perform their mission; and number three, to be able to protect 

themselves while they are doing that. 

So, small order, but we are looking forward to hearing from you 

just what it is you need to make sure that these three components 

are very well covered. You will have some interesting questions 

from the committee. This committee has always been a very strong 

supporter of our Guard and Reserve forces. Thank you for being 

here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. General McKinley. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL MCKINLEY

General MCKINLEY. Chairman Dicks, Mr. Young from my home 

State of Florida, it is great to see you all, Mr. Lewis, Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to 

be here today. 

This is my second year as Chief testifying, and I would just like 

to say how proud we are to be here collectively as a group. I know, 

as you all do, we miss Chairman Jack Murtha. He was a staunch 

advocate for all of the National Guard and Reserves. We miss him. 

Today we have about 460,000 members of the Army and the Air 

National Guard. Our strength is good, and our retention is even 

better. We have introduced Bud Wyatt and Ray Carpenter. They 

are my staunch advocates on the Army and Air Force side, and 

they work with the services. And as you know, the National Guard 

is comprised of members from the Army and from the Air Force. 

Without General Casey and General Schwartz supporting us, we 

would not be in the state we are in today. So I commend both services. 

I am also accompanied today by General Tim Lowenberg, who is 

the Adjutant General of Washington State. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
155 

And Jack, it is a pleasure to sit with you on the same panel. We 

are very close friends. All of the Reserve Component Chiefs are, so 

it is great to be here with General Stultz. 

Sir, we have submitted our statement for the record. We want to 

get right to your questions. If I can take less than a minute to just 

say one thing. 

Mr. DICKS. We really want to hear from you, so take as much 

time as you want. 

General MCKINLEY. Thank you. 

As the United States Armed Forces continue to conduct operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as you all well know from your visits over there, and elsewhere around the world to include here at 

home, units of the Army and the Air National Guard are participating as total force partners in the effort. 

The National Guard has repeatedly proven itself to be ready and 

a very accessible force. And we validated the total force concept by 

showing that the men and women in our formations are ready to 

answer the call to be mobilized, to deploy overseas, to return home, 

and then become prepared to do it all over again. 

The citizen soldiers and airmen of your Air National Guard are 

adding value to America every day. The capabilities they bring to 

bear would not have been possible without the strong support of 

this committee, and we thank each and every one of you for that 

support. 

The most critical part of that proven capability, however, is our 

National Guard men and women. Today’s men and women volunteer to join and stay in the National Guard, fully expecting to be 

deployed. This shift in expectation is a central aspect of the National Guard shift to being a fully operational force and no longer 

merely a strategic reserve, as the Chairman mentioned. Indeed, the 

soldiers and airmen of your National Guard now serve with that 

expectation and are proud of it. They want to remain central players in the Nation’s defense and would indeed be resistant to any 

move to return to a role limited to being strictly a strategic reserve. 

Overall, we can say that the budget request for fiscal year 2011 

meets the critical needs of the Army and Air National Guard in 

this era of persistent conflict overseas and ongoing threats to 

American lives and property here in the homeland. Of particular 

importance to us is the request for operations and maintenance 

funds. This money is critical. We use it to buy the fuel, the spare 

parts, building maintenance and other things essential to being effective Reserve components of the Army and the Air Force. We ask 

the committee to fully fund that request, and thank you in advance 

for that. 

All of us in the National Guard are highly mindful and deeply 

grateful for the strong support of the National Guard which this 

committee has shown to us in the past. And in return, we try to 

be good stewards of the funds you appropriate for us and use that 

money to make your National Guard as strong as it can be. We are 

particularly grateful for the additional funds which this committee 

has provided to the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. We have used these funds to fill critical shortages in the 

Army National Guard and to provide technological modernization 

in our Air National Guard capabilities. We are especially grateful 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
156 

for the flexibility in which those funds are provided to us, allowing 

us to apply that money to our most critical equipment needs. 

Funding for our Counterdrug Program is included in the fiscal 

year 2011 budget request, and we ask for your full support of that 

request. As we have seen with recent incidents along the Southwest border, the scourge of drugs migrating across our borders constitutes a real threat. Consequently, our National Guard 

Counterdrug Program fills a very vital need. We are well aware 

that last year, as it has done in previous years, this committee supported significant additional funds for that Counterdrug Program 

to fund capability enhancements. Nearly a quarter of the capability 

of the National Guard Counterdrug Program exists today because 

of additional funding provided in the past by Congress. 

In order to move quickly to your questions, I would now like to 

ask General Wyatt and General Carpenter to make a couple of 

brief remarks. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL WYATT

General WYATT. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the 

committee, first of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity 

to testify before you today on behalf of the extraordinary men and 

women of the Air National Guard, some 106,700 strong. Many of 

our folks have been deployed multiple times in recent years, yet 

they continue to volunteer at unprecedented rates, not only for 

worldwide contingencies, because they strongly believe in what 

they do in defense of our country, but also in their local communities on behalf of our Governors and our Adjutants General. 

They leave home, they leave their families, and in most cases, 

they leave civilian employment for months on end, so we greatly 

appreciate the continued support that this committee has provided 

to them over the years. 

During this past year, the Air National Guard has deployed over 

18,000 service members to 62 countries and every continent, including Antarctica. 

Additionally, America’s Air National Guard continues to protect 

our domestic skies, with more than 16,000 members supporting 

missions at 16 of the 18 Air Siren Alert sites across the country. 

Our men and women are also ready and capable of responding 

to all manner of natural and man-made disasters. And the backbone of our force, our traditional Guard members, continue to provide critical surge capability for the United States Air Force. 

Needless to say, this past year has been another busy one for us, 

so the Air National Guard remains very visible at home and 

abroad. We continue to be full partners in the Aerospace Expeditionary Force, and a vital part of our total Air Force. 

We have three basic priorities, and I will just outline those 

broadly: The most important one is to develop our adaptable airmen; secondly, modernize our warfighting capabilities; and lastly, 

secure the homefront and defend this nation. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I look forward to 

your questions. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
157 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL CARPENTER

General CARPENTER. Chairman Dicks, Ranking Member Young, 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am honored to represent the more than 361,000 citizen soldiers in the Air National 

Guard. 

As I speak, over 52,000 of our soldiers are mobilized, deployed, 

and on point for the Nation. These soldiers joined our force knowing they would deploy. They are willing to make a difference in the 

world and defend our country. 

Army National Guard soldiers are part of an operational reserve. 

Your Army National Guard is accessible, and it is important that 

we fully resource those formations and ensure that they maintain 

the highest levels of readiness. The sacrifices of those soldiers and 

families and employers is something we must not only acknowledge 

but certainly appreciate. 

The National Guard of today is dramatically different than the 

one I joined nearly four decades ago. The last eight years have seen 

the Guard transform from a strategic reserve to an operational 

force. The enablers for the Army National Guard, especially the 

National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account, have been provided and sustained by congressional initiatives. We thank you for 

your continued support. 

Today we would like to emphasize the key initiatives presented 

in our 2011 Posture Statement. In accordance with the theme of 

adding value to America, we highlighted several overseas and domestic operations as well as several innovative training and family 

programs. The National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account 

(NGREA), as General McKinley mentioned, has been especially 

supportive in our pursuit of equipping the force. 

Last year you appropriated almost $800 million for the Army National Guard in that account. And over the last 6 years, you have 

appropriated almost $5 billion. We now have equipment in our 

units at the rate of 83 percent of the critical dual-use equipment, 

wartime equipment that is also vital for use by our Governors to 

respond to domestic emergencies; 66 percent of that equipment inventory is now on hand and in the States and available for the 

Governors, should they have to use it even tonight. 

An important benefit of NGREA funding is transparency in accounting. In fact, every dollar can be tracked and accounted for in 

that process. With NGREA, we are able to show Congress exactly 

what equipment the Guard received for the money spent and where 

the equipment is located. Thanks to NGREA, we will retire the M– 

35 (many of you may know that as the venerable deuce and a half) 

this coming year. That truck has been in our inventory for over 40 

years, and we will replace that vehicle with a new family of modern tactical vehicles. 

I also request your support in the budget for the growth of the 

non-dual-status technician program. As you may know, those technicians are the ones who do not deploy because they are not soldiers. They are part of the civilian workforce. They provide the critical support back home while soldiers are deployed. They maintain 

the pay accounts, the equipment accounts, and perform administrative duties in the absence of the dual-status technicians, the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
158 

deployable soldiers. The budget request increases the number of 

those non-dual-status technicians to 2,520. 

As General McKinley emphasized, we ask that the operations 

and maintenance accounts presented in the President’s budget be 

approved intact. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and 

look forward to your questions. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The National Guard Posture Statement is printed at the end of this hearing.] 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. 

General Stultz. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GENERAL STULTZ

General STULTZ. Chairman Dicks, Chairman young and other 

distinguished Members, it is an honor to be here today. 

As Ray just alluded to, when I entered the Army Reserve back 

in 1979, having left active duty, it was a one-weekend-a-month, 2- 

weeks-in-the-summertime—and that is all we asked—force. It was 

under-resourced, under-trained, under-equipped and not really ever 

expected to be ready when they respond. 

Mr. DICKS. What year was that again? 

General STULTZ. 1979, sir. 

Mr. LEWIS. Where did you enter? 

General STULTZ. I entered the 108 Division in Charlotte, North 

Carolina, as an infantry officer, sir. 

But today, I am happy to report that your Army Reserve is a national treasure. It is a tremendous return on investment for this 

Nation. Today, I am authorized 205,000 soldiers. I have almost 

208,000 on duty; 3,000 in excess of what we are authorized. Each 

one of those soldiers has either enlisted or reenlisted since 9/11. 

They know what they got into. They know what they stayed in for. 

Today, we have 30,000 soldiers on active duty in the Army Reserve, in addition to our 16,000 full time AGRs, so we are giving 

this Nation 45,000 full-time service strength on an ongoing basis. 

Since January of this year, I have visited ten different countries 

around the world, visiting Army Reserve soldiers who are on duty 

in those countries providing security cooperation as well as fighting 

combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is an operational force, 

not the old strategic force that I entered in 1979. 

Our focus in the Army Reserve is, just like the focus that the National Guard has already said, it is taking care of our soldiers to 

make sure that they are properly trained, to make sure that they 

are properly equipped, to make sure that they have everything 

they need before we ask them to go in harm’s way, and to focus 

on taking care of their families back home and, to a great extent 

also, to make sure that we have the support of their employers for 

this Nation. 

We are still short equipment. We have come a long way, thanks 

to your support, thanks to the appropriations you have given us, 

and thanks to the National Guard and Reserve equipment account, 

as was mentioned earlier. Today we are about 80 percent equipped, 

but we are only about 65 percent modernized. So we still have a 

lot of old equipment in our ranks that we are using. 

The other challenge we have is, as we move forward toward fiscal 

year 2016, within the Army Reserve we are reorganizing to create 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
159 

capabilities that we have realized in this war that the Nation 

needs, more military police, more civil affairs, more engineer capability. And we are taking down a lot of legacy structure to the tune 

of about 16,000 additional operational capability. That comes with 

a bill also for equipment because, as we stand up more military police or more engineers, I have to equip them. So we still have about 

$6 billion in unfunded requirements, and if you couple that with 

the modernization, about $11 billion in total requirements to be 

fully modernized for our fiscal year 2016 structure. We ask for your 

continued support for those equipment needs and continued support for the NGREA funds, which give us the flexibility to prioritize 

where we spend the equipment versus the Army prioritizing it as 

one lump group. 

Sir, I look forward to your questions today. But without a doubt, 

I can say your Army Reserve is in great shape, great morale, and 

thank you for your support. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The United States Army Reserve Posture statement is printed at the end of this hearing.] 

WORKING WITH EMPLOYERS

Mr. DICKS. General Stultz, tell members about this program you 

worked out with employers. I think that is something I want everyone to hear about. 

General STULTZ. Yes, sir. As some of you may know, my background is a traditional Reserve soldier. I worked for 28 years for 

Proctor & Gamble while I was in the Army Reserve, being called 

up on a repetitive basis for Desert Storm in 1990–1991, for Joint 

Endeavor in Bosnia in 1997, and this most recent Operation Iraqi 

Freedom (OIF) back in 2002. 

And so when I got into the position as chief of the Reserves, one 

of the things I said is, we have to have our soldiers, we have got 

to have our families, and we have to have our employers. If we 

don’t have the employers, we can’t sustain the operational reserve. 

I set up a series of meetings through Chambers of Commerce and 

business executives through national security and other groups to 

sit down with employers and talk about how we are going to do 

this together. How are we going to maintain this operational tempo 

and keep their support? 

What I found, however, is they wanted to talk about talent. They 

wanted to talk about meeting their needs, and it really kind of 

caught me by surprise because I had come to them to talk about 

taking employees away to be soldiers, and they wanted to talk 

about bringing soldiers to be employees because the employers of 

America recognize the challenge they have is to find someone, and 

I met with the American Truckers Association, they said, here is 

our challenge: We have to find somebody that is drug-free, physically capable, has the aptitude, that is morally fit; they don’t have 

anything in their background that is going to get us in trouble; all 

of those kinds of criteria to drive our trucks through this Nation. 

I said, we are already doing that, because between the Army Reserve and the Army Guard and some of the other reserve components, we recruit, train experienced truck drivers and test them 

under fire. We put them in Iraq; we put them in Afghanistan driving trucks for us. What we need to do is come together and say, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
160 

how do we do this? So it really turned into more of a human capital 

strategy for the Nation versus for the reserve components. And 

that is, how do we produce the workforce we need for tomorrow, 

the workforce we need in the Reserve, in uniform, and the workforce America needs in her communities? 

So we started partnering with the medical communities, where 

they are short technologists, such as x-ray, respiratory, ER, and 

surgical techs. We are recruiting them for our hospital units and 

reserve. 

We started partnering with law enforcement agencies that are 

trying to fill their needs, Customs and Border Protection, sheriffs’ 

departments. We are fulfilling our MP ranks. 

Right here in D.C., Kathy Lanier, the Chief of Police, came to us 

and said, I will give them credit for the training they have had in 

the military, and I will give them credit for their supervisory experience as a noncommissioned officer if you will bring them to me 

to be law enforcement officers for the District of Columbia. 

Today we have over 1,000 employers across America that have 

partnered with us, everything from Al’s Body Shop in Slidell, Louisiana, who probably has five or six workers but says, I like to hire 

soldiers; to companies like General Electric, Wal-Mart, Conway 

Trucking, JB Hunt, Cleveland Clinic, Pittsburgh Medical, and a variety of others, where we are now filling the ranks. 

Our latest foray is with the Federal Government. 

Mr. DICKS. That will be your toughest challenge. 

General STULTZ. Ray Jefferson is the Assistant Secretary of 

Labor for Veterans Affairs, and he is now bringing his people in to 

partner with us to say, how do we tap into that resource we call 

our Guard and Reserve to fill the ranks of our Federal workforce 

that we need, everything from the FAA to TSA to you name all of 

the different entities that are out there. So it is a great program. 

We are taking soldiers coming back from war in the Guard and 

Reserve who are saying, I left, I was flipping burgers, but I have 

been given responsibility. I have a different level of confidence. I 

want something better, and we are opening the doors for them and 

putting a better person back into the communities of America. It 

is working. We have brought the National Guard and the other reserve components in with us. 

STRATEGIC RESERVE

Mr. DICKS. I think it is a great initiative. You told us about it 

on our recent trip. 

General McKinley, you said something about an operational reserve or a strategic reserve. Does the country still need a strategic 

reserve? 

General MCKINLEY. I think the debate, Mr. Chairman, will take 

place in the post-QDR world we live in. In the Pentagon, there are 

different opinions, obviously, on this subject. I am a believer, personally that we need a strategic reserve and we need an operational reserve. We don’t need one of any one kind, but we need 

to have members who can float in and out of all of those statuses 

because when a member comes back from a deployment, everyone 

needs a decompression time. That is where strategic reserve comes 

in handy. But this operational reserve is a world treasure that this 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
161 

Congress has funded and the National Guard and Reserve have exercised. 

HOMELAND SECRITY

Mr. DICKS. I can remember, a few years ago, General Powell saying that he wasn’t sure the National Guard could deploy. He had 

questions in his own mind. That certainly has been answered, and 

I think very decisively that they can and are doing it as we speak. 

So this question of how many forces do we have, and I understand everybody likes the idea of being operational and deploying 

and having real responsibility, et cetera, but I do think there still 

needs to be a debate about, should there be additional reserve people to create a strategic reserve? 

Let me ask you a question I have been troubled by, I was on 

Homeland Security and I mentioned this previously to you, under 

this relationship of Northern Command with the National Guard 

Bureau and with the Department of Homeland Security and 

whether there needs to be an additional effort to do planning and 

between these three entities to take care of homeland security 

issues, and we know that the Guard and the Reserve, to some extent, are handling these crises that come up in the country, the 

Hurricane Katrinas and the other events that we have had. But 

the role of how you work this and coordinate with the Department 

of Homeland Security and Northern Command still doesn’t look as 

clear to me as it should be. And this idea of a planning effort between the three entities to deal with various contingencies, what 

do you think of that? 

General MCKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way 

since the tragic events of 9/11. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. 

I think Secretary Gates and Secretary Napolitano have met, and 

I have not been privy to their discussions, but I know that they 

want to create this atmosphere which lets us tear down these 

stovepiped bureaucracies, that lets us organize better, plan better, 

and exercise our options better. I know the National Guard, 

through the Adjutants General, through their Governors, have a 

very sound program which we in the National Guard fully subscribe to and fully support. But I commend your question in that, 

is there room for improvement and more synchronization required? 

I would totally agree with your premise. 

CIVIL SUPPORT TEAMS

Mr. DICKS. Also, explain the Civil Support Teams. They are supposed to come in, as I understand it, if there is a chemical, biological or nuclear event to be, I guess, with FEMA or whoever the lead 

Federal agency is. Explain how this is going to work in those kinds 

of contingencies? Would NORTHCOM come in to back up the 

Guard at some point if necessary? 

General MCKINLEY. There is not a day that goes by in your 

States, the territories or the District, where we don’t call out our 

small, 57-person Civil Support Teams. Every State, territory and 

the District has one. Florida and New York have a second, based 

on their size and population base. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
162 

These small teams are your first responders to go in as a military unit to identify any kind of chemical, biological, or radiological 

incident that may need to be up-channeled to a higher state of response. Those were done by the National Guard. My predecessor, 

Steve Blum did that, and we took it basically out of hide, and with 

the support of committees, we have been able to have these small 

person units that are really the scalable first military response in 

a State or a territory. 

CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE

ENHANCED RESPONSE FORCE PACKAGE

That then led to our (CERFPs). These are response elements that 

would then build on top of the Civil Support Team to provide local, 

scalable support to the Governor and to the first responders in the 

cities, to build on top of that. And the new proposal will be through 

planning that has been done by the Department of Defense to create the Homeland Response Force, HRF. That will allow the Army 

National Guard along with the Air National Guard to work a package up to a larger response force, and then the seam line is created 

by which if the President needs to call up more forces, he can turn 

to the United States Northern Command and bring those additional forces on. 

So these are all new features since September 11, 2001, that are 

part of our Department of Defense response. Secretary Napolitano 

and Secretary Gates have worked this, and I am very comfortable 

with those response plans. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, another former chairman of this subcommittee has an appointment with the King of Jordan, and I 

would like to yield my time to him. 

Mr. DICKS. That is perfectly understandable. 

Mr. Lewis, former Chairman and Chairman of the full committee 

and ranking member. 

ROLE OF GUARD AND RESERVE IN DISASTERS

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want to say that, as leaders of the Guard and Reserve 

we are more than thrilled with the cooperation and the work you 

provided for us, the security you provided over the years, our recent experience as observers with earthquakes in Haiti, the problems in Latin America that relate to control of our border, et 

cetera, suggest there is many a challenge that you face. I would be 

very interested to know what role the Guard and Reserve may 

have played in a place like Haiti and what that portends to potential challenges like earthquakes and otherwise, fires and so on, in 

southern California. So that general area is of interest to me. 

And there is one other subject. As you patrol the border, it takes 

us directly to an Air Force role. Reporting indicates that a very 

high percentage of our Air Force, formal force, recruits our people 

who are interested in UAV training and work, and I presume that 

the Guard and Reserve is interplaying there as well. So both of 

those areas, comment if you would. 

General MCKINLEY. That is a great question, and I know General 

Stultz has some comments on Haiti because Army Reserve was inVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
163 

volved there, and I will let my colleagues talk about the Army and 

the Air Force on the other parts of your question. 

The tragedy in Haiti points out to us that at any time, any place, 

we could have a major natural disaster that we all need to be very 

prepared to respond to. In California, as you know, sir, we are very 

concerned with the fault line that runs through the State, and I 

have worked with your former Adjutant General, Bill Wade, and 

now with Mary Kight to make sure that the National Guard forces 

in California are ready to respond, and I am very confident that 

they are. But sometimes the scale of the incident is so large, we 

need to have a whole of government approach. 

In the case of Haiti, quite frankly, the President reacted very 

quickly. Our Southern Command out of Miami, Florida, with General Doug Fraser as the commander, took full responsibility of that, 

to provide support to USAID as the lead Federal agency. And military response force fell in, as you all saw and observed. 

We were prepared as a National Guard to support the request 

for forces from General Fraser. We were not asked to provide a 

large-scale effort because of the international nature of the disaster. That certainly would be different if it was one of our States, 

our territories, or the District of Columbia. 

So I will let General Stultz talk about his Army Reserve contributions because they are many, and I think they are ongoing. 

General STULTZ. I was just in Haiti a week ago visiting the soldiers I have there. I have the 377th Theater Sustainment Command, which is out of New Orleans, Louisiana. That headquarters 

actually was deployed to Kuwait in 2002 and was there for six 

years on a rotational basis, came home, is now remissioned against 

Southern Command to support them. And so when the situation in 

Haiti occurred, they were one of the first units that we called and 

said, get ready to go, since that is your area of operation now. 

What we have learned, though, is we do need some flexibility. As 

General McKinley indicated, it took a Presidential call-up for us to 

get access to that unit to use them in Haiti when in fact they were 

ready to go right away. That unit is comprised of 55 active component soldiers and 64 full-time AGRs, in addition to the troop unit, 

the soliders there, the traditional Reserve soldiers. Yet we weren’t 

able to get access to them until the President signed the Presidential call-up. 

Even after that occurred, it took some time through our bureaucracy to get the orders cut and get them in place and get them 

ready to go. It illustrated to us that we have to streamline this capability, and we need some new, I think, authority for short time 

call-ups without having to go to the President for these types of crisis situations. 

I think they are putting together a legislative proposal now for 

giving the Secretary of Defense maybe a certain level of authority 

to call up for short durations for crisis. 

That being said, I can tell you, on the ground, they are doing a 

great job. While I was there last Monday, I spent time on two of 

our Army watercraft. We have four in the theater operating, bringing ship-to-shore relief supplies. While I was there, they were moving rice around the island from one port to another to feed the 

locals. So the Reserve soldiers that are there feel good about what 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
164 

they are doing, and they are confident about what they are doing, 

but it illustrates the fact that we don’t have the proper authorities. 

That is magnified, I think, when we talk about the homeland situation where in certain States, just like the State of Florida, for 

instance, I have engineers, and I have medical capability. I have 

logistics capabilities with truck units. I have aviation capability 

with medivac helicopters, yet if something happens in the State of 

Florida, without a Presidential call-up, those forces really are not 

available. We have to break those barriers down to serve this Nation better. 

General CARPENTER. Sir, to reference a couple of your comments 

and questions, the Puerto Rico Army National Guard deployed 

three UH–60s into Haiti within two days after the earthquake. 

They spent 17 days there with those three helicopters, logged in almost 300 hours and are credited with saving 12 lives. So, inside of 

the Caribbean environment, Puerto Rico looks at Haiti kind of like 

my home State of South Dakota looks at Minnesota. And It was an 

emergency. They responded and did a great job. 

We also had about 2,500 soldiers, a task force, organized to deploy down into Haiti, and because of the situation that General 

Stultz just identified in terms of the authorities, we were unable 

to deploy those, but we were ready to do that. 

Beyond that, your comments on the California fires, every time 

we have a fire event in California, we in the Army National Guard 

organize, at least from the aviation perspective, a Rotary Wing 

Task Force that is set to respond if they are called. And luckily, 

to this point, most of the fires have been supported through California assets and Nevada assets. 

C–130J

Mr. DICKS. Some people talked about using C–130Js for firefighting. What do you think of that? 

General WYATT. We are currently exploring that possibility with 

the Department of the Interior and working with the Department 

of Defense and the United States Air Force. 

Mr. DICKS. Don’t forget agriculture. That is where the Forest 

Service is. 

General WYATT. Yes. We currently have some C–130Js in California that do have the mobile firefighting system available to 

those jets. And we also have some H model units across the country that have the mobile system. 

But there is a need in the country, as I understand it, from the 

firefighting business that the civilian fleet that supports the mobile 

firefighting system is in decline, and something needs to be done 

to recapitalize that fleet. We think there are some possibilities 

there. We continue to work with the Air Force. 

RPA

Mr. LEWIS. You need about 12; is that right? 

General WYATT. There would be a significant need for additional 

airplanes. 

A couple of responses to your earlier questions, Mr. Lewis, briefly 

on Haiti, the Kentucky Air National Guard Contingency Response 

Group, this is a group that goes in and assesses damages to airVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
165 

fields and then opens the airfield; they were on the ground right 

after Special Operations Forces had done an initial assessment. 

They did such a good job that General Johns, Air Mobility Command, who is the command of that formation, has directed additional resources to help fully equip that unit. That is good news 

there. 

Also the Puerto Rico Air National Guard supporting the Coronet 

South Mission in Southern Command out of Puerto Rico, C–130s 

were available immediately to help with some of the airlift. 

Regarding your RPA question, the Air National Guard is heavily 

involved in UAS, Unmanned Aerial Systems. Now we have 

transitioned to remotely-piloted aircraft, is the term we are using 

in the Air Force. We have five units in the Air National Guard: 

Fargo, North Dakota; Syracuse, New York; a unit in California; a 

unit in Nevada; and a unit in Texas. Four of those units fly MQ– 

1s. The Syracuse unit flies MQ–9s. We fly nine of the 40 Combat 

Air Patrols for the United States Air Force worldwide. We see opportunity to increasing the number of RPA units in the Air National Guard as we climb to meet that 65 cap build that Secretary 

Gates has set. 

Mr. LEWIS. It sure seems to me that UAVs and their radar capability could be major assets in our war against not just terror but 

drugs across the border. I would look to a time when we have 

major coordination between Guard and Reserve personnel who are 

involved in these activities and local law enforcement as well as 

our homeland security people. 

General MCKINLEY. As you know, our C–26s, which the State of 

California had and the State of Florida had equipped for local law 

enforcement to interact through our counter drug and counter narcotics programs, were very effective, and we are also now 

partnering with Administrator Kostelnik, who is the air wing director of Customs and Border Protection, to put our sites similarly located together so we can use the synergy of a guardsman working 

during the day possibly for Customs and Border Protection along 

the border and maybe being a member of the National Guard. 

Those are the kind of synergies we were talking about earlier 

today, and we just need to keep getting better every day at it. 

General WYATT. I might add, Mr. Lewis, there was for the first 

time in the Haiti situation an RPA that was assigned to go down 

and assess and actually launched out of Port-au-Prince airport, a 

great news story there. And to kind of highlight your recognition 

of the importance of RPAs, this year, for the first time, the Air 

Force will train more pilots for RPAs than it will for manned aircraft. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Visclosky. 

EQUIPMENT SHORTFALL

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That is a fascinating statistic. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your service. I appreciate 

both the Reserve and Guard. We have an incredible Guard unit in 

the State of Indiana, and General Umbarger has just done a terrific job, and we appreciate it very much. They have been great to 

work with. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
166 

The question I have on the Guard is if they received the full 

amount of the President’s budget request as well as the full 

amount currently planned for future year defense programs, how 

much additional funding will still be needed in order to bring the 

Guard here and the Army up to 100 percent of the equipment requirements for domestic and operational purposes? 

General MCKINLEY. Sir, thank you for your comment. I would 

agree that the State of Indiana has some magnificent facilities, and 

General Umbarger is doing a great job. 

I would turn to my colleagues, both Air and Army, to kind of give 

you a wrap-up summary of what their additional requirements 

would be to get to 100 percent. 

General CARPENTER. Sir, I would tell you first of all that the success we have had in filling the accounts and the equipment we 

have on hand right now is terrific. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, 83 percent of the critical dual-use equipment is now in place. We think that we have a 

shortfall right now of around $19 billion or $20 billion. But that 

really is just to complete the task here in terms of what has been 

accomplished to this point. 

General MCKINLEY. I think General Stultz brought up a great 

point earlier, that not only do we need equipment, we need the 

modernization money to make the current equipment we have reliable and fully functional in the capacities we need it in. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. General, would that be included in the $19 billion to $20 billion estimate you gave us? 

General CARPENTER. Yes, sir. This is a combination of the modernization piece as well as filling the shortfalls and filling the gaps 

we have inside of our formations. 

General WYATT. We do have an air piece. This is the importance 

that NGREA plays in the Air National Guard. Our problem is not 

so much shortages of equipment, with the exception of ground support equipment. Our trucks are getting extremely old. We are looking at about $200 million for primarily ground support equipment. 

But our problem is not necessarily the aircraft fill rate. The problem is the status of those airplanes and the age of the airplane and 

the modernization that we need to do. 

The importance of the NGREA account cannot be overemphasized when we talk about the modernization of our equipment. We 

take a look at identifying those pieces of equipment that support 

not only the Federal war fight but the State mission, and we concentrate the bulk of our NGREA expenditures on that dual-use 

equipment. The particular items that I am talking about are 

brought to the attention of the Air National Guard through a process called we call weapons and tactics analysis center, where the 

ground level, the war fighters, bring their need that they have 

identified from their experiences in combat and in supporting the 

Governors and the State mission to identify those pieces of equipment and resources that they need to do both missions. And we 

concentrate the use of our NGREA accounts in those regard. 

HUMVEES

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Gentlemen, if you have a list of your unfunded 

requirements, we would appreciate that very much. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
167 

One last question I would have is the Department in their submission for 2011 has not requested any additional funding for the 

purchase of Hummers. My understanding is that, for 2010, the 

Army is going to, if it has not already, is going to submit a reprogramming request in excess of half a billion dollars. In the 

Army National Guard, is the readiness rate of the equipment on 

hand such that additional new Humvees are not needed? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, I would tell you two things about the 

decisions that the Army made about Humvees. First of all, if you 

look at the equipment that is being used in Iraq and Afghanistan 

right now, up-armored Humvees are no longer the vehicle of choice. 

Most of the units that are deployed and operating in that environment use the new MRAPs because it provides greater protection to 

the soldiers who are out there conducting operations. 

So when you look at that, plus you look at the fill rate that we 

have got inside the Army National Guard, we have a requirement 

for 48,000 Humvees. By the time we get what has been purchased 

delivered to our formations, we will have the 48,000 Humvees that 

were required. 

Now the question is the modernization piece that has been talked 

about here earlier; 30 percent of those vehicles will be modernized 

at that point. The effort for us inside the Army National Guard is 

to recap these vehicles, nearly half a billion dollars you just mentioned, with the idea that we are going to extend the life of those 

older model Humvees and basically take them back to zero miles, 

zero hours. 

The great story about those Humvees is they are probably one 

of the most compatible vehicles we have got out there for the homeland defense, homeland security mission that we use in terms of 

emergency response. 

So the decision that was made by the Army is probably the right 

decision as far as we are concerned from the Army National Guard 

in terms of the modernization. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. If you on a numerical basis are going to be at 

your 48,000, if I remember your statistic, why did the Army ask 

for the 560 that now they feel they don’t need? If you were at that, 

why did they ask for that money in the first place? 

General CARPENTER. I would guess, you would have to direct that 

at the Army, but I think what happened is it changed in the way 

operations are being conducted overseas in terms of looking at 

MATVs, MRAP vehicles for those kinds of operations versus the 

up-armored Humvees. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. If they said they needed whatever the number is 

and they were added, why did they ask for the 560 in the first 

place? If you could answer for the record. 

It is my understanding that HQDA submitted a request to reprogram $560M of 

FY10 overseas contingency operations funds to Recapitalize Un-armored Legacy 

HMMWVs, of which approximately 3,000 vehicles will be ARNG vehicles. 

Although we will achieve 100% of HMMWVs equipment on hand, by FY11, only 

32% of our authorized fleet is currently deployable to Operation New Dawn or Operation Enduring Freedom. Over 20,000 of our HMMWVs have already passed their 

Useful Economical Life. The original plan was that these vehicles were going to be 

replaced through HMMWV procurement. However, the HMMWV Contract was terminated and we expect to receive our last lot of new HMMWV this Fall. Recapitalizing ARNG legacy fleet is the solution to overcoming the decision to terminate the 

HMMWV Contract. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
168 

There is also a request to reprogram FY11 overseas contingency operations funds 

that would Recapitalize an additional 3,000 ARNG HMMWVs. The remaining 6,000 

HMMWV Recap requirement is currently (unfunded) in the FY 12–16 Program Objective Memorandum. 

With the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) not likely to begin fielding to the 

ARNG units in significant quantities until at least FY2020, it is critical that the 

ARNG legacy HMMWVs be modernized beginning with the FYs10 & 11 overseas 

contingency operations reprogramming request. 

General STULTZ. I will say, kind of along the same line as Ray, 

currently in the Army Reserve, we are short Humvees, but across 

the Army, we are in excess. So a lot of what the Army is trying 

to do is redistribute what is existing in the Army to get it into the 

right places. 

The concern I have is I have about 85 percent of the Humvees 

that I am authorized right now, but only 13 percent are armor capable. So they haven’t been modernized. They do need to be recapped or reset in order to be able to accept the armor should we 

need to take them into Iraq, Afghanistan or some other theater 

where we need that armor capability. 

The Humvees that I have in my organizations are what we call 

thin-skinned. They have never had the upgrades for the armor. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Gentlemen, thank you very much. 

Mr. DICKS. On that question, if you would yield, would they deploy those, or would you have Humvees in country that would be 

there that you would utilize? 

General STULTZ. That is part of the challenge right now, sir. As 

we have gone through or still are in the process of drawing down 

or potentially drawing down in Iraq but surging in Afghanistan, we 

are remissioning units that we had lined up to go to Iraq, but now 

we are changing direction and saying, let’s send them to Afghanistan. Part of the challenge is the equipment that those units were 

going to use was positioned in Iraq. They were the up-armored 

Humvees and the RG–31s for the engineer route clearance units, 

the Buffaloes and the Huskies. When we defer them and say, now 

we are going to send them to Afghanistan, they will tell us, well, 

they need to bring their equipment. Well, their equipment is not 

armor capable. 

Mr. DICKS. But we are moving a lot of equipment from Kuwait 

to Afghanistan. 

General STULTZ. And that is what caused that to have to happen. 

When they started remissioning our units, we said, unless you 

bring that equipment that is positioned in Iraq and Kuwait, we 

don’t have the equipment at home. We have never been modernized 

to that point. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Young. 

EMPLOYMENT

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

The comments one of you made, I am not sure which one, about 

the employers working with the Guard and Reserve, I had the 

privilege of attending quite a few deployment ceremonies for Guard 

and Reserve units in Florida and also welcome home ceremonies, 

and I am really impressed by the number of employers who actually attend those same functions to indicate their support for the 

troops who are being deployed. Of course, their real pleasure is the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
169 

fact that they have come back home, at least for awhile. So that 

was a good comment, and I appreciate that, and I think working 

with the employers is really crucial to making our Guard and Reserve work so that the troops can actually do their job in the military without having to worry about where they might be when they 

come back home. So I really appreciate that effort. 

Probably no military unit ever reaches 100 percent of everything 

that it needs. We in the committee would love to make sure that 

happens, and I know Chairman Dicks would probably like to be 

110 percent of whatever you need, and I would share that as well. 

Mr. DICKS. And all modernized. 

EQUIPMENT SHORTFALL

Mr. YOUNG. Right. But since you do have a shortfall, and all of 

your statements indicate shortfall and not necessarily so much for 

the aircraft but for ground vehicles and ground equipment, what is 

critical? If we can only help you bring your numbers up, what 

would be the most important thing for us to do to bring that force 

to where you needed to be? 

General MCKINLEY. I will let the Army and the Air talk for their 

respective enterprise, but I would think Congressman Young, as 

you know, in Florida, we almost have to tailor it to the State requirements that are needed. In your home State, with the number 

of storms you have and are projected to have this year, we need 

to have certain equipment for General Burnett and the Governor 

that will help them in case of a hurricane relief operation. 

I am sure General Lowenberg has similar requirements in Washington State for different reasons. 

Mr. DICKS. We have the potential for a huge earthquake up 

there. We could have a nine at any point. 

General MCKINLEY. Absolutely. So each part of our country has 

certain requirements. That is why these emergency assistance components between our States are so important, so we can share 

equipment that may be deployed overseas or may be short of supply. 

Ray, would you prioritize some of the things and Bud and Jack 

for yours, too. 

General CARPENTER. Sir, I think our most critical shortfall yet 

out there is modernized trucks. We saw the problem first in Hurricane Katrina when we had vehicles that were not high-water vehicles that we tried to transit into the areas where they needed to 

be to provide the support to the populations, and they could not do 

that because they were not high-water vehicles. 

We continue to champion the cause for modernized truck fleets. 

The industrial base, however, has not been able to produce them 

in adequate quantities for us to be able to assess them into our organization. 

FAMILY MODERN TACTICAL VEHICLES

Mr. YOUNG. Are these different sized trucks? Are they one specific type of truck? Be a little more specific, if you could. 

General CARPENTER. They are what we call FMTVs, Family Modern Tactical Vehicles. They replace the M–900 series trucks and 

the M–800 series trucks that we have in our inventory right now. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
170 

The Army is in the business of buying and modernizing the fleets 

across the Army, but the industrial base has not been able to support the requirements that are out there at this point. 

Mr. YOUNG. I remember visiting with General Schwarzkopf during Desert Storm, and we basically asked him that same question: 

What do you really need? And the answer was trucks, trucks and 

more trucks. The answer was trucks. How much of a shortfall do 

we have in trucks in the Army Guard? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, as I mentioned earlier, we are going to 

retire the ‘‘deuce and a half’’ out of our fleet this year. The M–800 

series trucks, which is the next oldest version trucks, we are going 

to retire out of our fleet probably by 2013 or 2014. But the 900 series trucks, which is the newest one separate from the modern 

FMTVs that I just described, we are not going to retire those out 

of our fleet for an extended period of time, and we are busy recapping those trucks because we know we will have them for a while. 

I would like to take your question for the record in terms of the 

actual number of FMTV shortfalls. I don’t have that right at my 

fingertips. 

[The information follows:] 

The current status of the wheeled vehicle fleet in the Army National Guard is 

94% on-hand. All the trucks authorized and on-hand are important to potential domestic response emergencies as they provide capabilities for an array of missions. 

These trucks serve to transport people, equipment, or supplies. Earlier model vehicles are capable of serving in most roles required by domestic response; however, 

these same vehicles are generally not deployable due to a lack of armor protection. 

High Mobility Multi-Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) make up a portion of less than 

1% of these shortages, but are projected to be 100% on-hand by the end of 2010. 

Only 21% of our HMMWV fleet is currently armor capable and deployable to theater. Based on Army distribution projections, this number will grow to 32% by the 

end of FY 11. Termination of HMMWV production stops further improvements to 

deployability. 

The Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles contains the largest share of the shortages, 5,900 vehicles. We are just starting to receive the newest medium tactical 

truck, the Long Term Armor Strategy vehicle. The Long Term Armor Strategy is 

the first production of medium vehicle designed to accept armor. Current projections 

show Long Term Armor Strategy vehicles increasing to 15% of the ARNG medium 

fleet by the end of FY 11. We continue to divest older medium trucks as soon as 

practical, with an objective of divesting the M35 by the end of FY 11 and the M809 

series by the end of FY 12. 

Mr. YOUNG. Would you also include in your response for the 

record a breakdown on which of the trucks are important to potential at-home emergencies versus deployed to a military war zone? 

General CARPENTER. Yes, sir, I will do that. 

Mr. YOUNG. General Stultz. 

General STULTZ. Trucks, trucks, trucks. I will do the same as 

with the National Guard. I will submit for the record a list, and 

we do have it broken down. 

[The information follows:] 

As we transition into a fully modernized operational force we continue to encounter and successfully tackle many challenges, among them equipping a fully modernized Army Reserve. As a predominantly Combat Support (CS) and Combat Service 

Support (CSS) force, we must equip out formations with the required quantities of 

equipment and strive to equip them with the most modern and capable version 

available to effectively accomplish our mission. Among the key pieces of modern 

equipment we require to complete our transition and meet operational challenges 

are the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) at approximately $1.3B 

unresourced and Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks (HEMTT) at approximately $1.0B unresourced. With respect to which of our trucks are critical for potenVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
171 

tial Homeland Defense (HLD) and natural disaster related emergencies, both the 

FMTVs nd HEMTTs provide that capability and are part of the Army’s critical dual 

use (CDU) inventory. Additionally, our HMMWV fleet represent another key enabler 

of HLD/HLS and disaster relief missions. Among them our HMMWV ambulances, 

currently at 80% equipment on hand (EOH), are an example of essential vehicles 

during an at-home emergency situations. 

But just to give you kind of a snapshot, the family medium of 

tactical vehicles that General Carpenter mentioned, those are the 

replacement for the deuce and a half’s five ton cargos that you can 

use for troop transport. You can use them for carrying just about 

anything. You have various types of shelters that you can put on 

the back of them. I am authorized 7,000 of those trucks in the 

Army Reserve. I currently have 2,000 on hand. I am short 5,000. 

Now, I do have some old in-lieu-ofs, but I actually have a requirement for about 5,000 FMTVs in the Army Reserve. 

The HEMTT that you are familiar with, the HEMTT truck that 

has everything from fuel capability to wrecker capability, I am authorized about 3,500 of those in the Army Reserve. Today I have 

1,500, so I am short about 2,000 of those vehicles. So that kind of 

gives you a magnitude of somewhere around 7,000 trucks right on 

hand right now I can say I am short. That will grow, as I mentioned earlier, as we regenerate new structure in the Army Reserve 

with new capability, a lot of which will be ground-based and truckbased. 

Additionally, we have some significant needs in our capabilities 

with communication systems because just as you have to shoot, you 

have to move and communicate. We are short radios, and we are 

short communication systems, command-and-control systems that 

are critical to our needs also. 

Mr. YOUNG. You and General Carpenter both mentioned recapping a lot of vehicles. What is the most protective—well, let me rephrase that. What is the most efficient vehicle for a soldier on the 

battlefield to use, a recapped, a rebuilt vehicle, or a new vehicle 

with modern whatever technologies are added to the new vehicle? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, the recap program, no matter what 

kind of a vehicle it is, takes it back to zero miles and zero hours. 

And it is, for the most part, a great use of taxpayer dollars, and 

it is being a good steward of the taxpayer dollars and so those are 

important. 

But it really doesn’t make sense, for instance, to recap an older 

vehicle unless you can provide the same capability, read that, the 

same technology, the same, whether it is a weapons system or a 

logistical system, whatever. At some point, it doesn’t do you any 

good to recap the old model because you don’t get the capability 

that you need on the battlefield. 

So to the extent that it makes sense, we are recapping and modernizing the equipment that we have got. To the extent that it 

means a newer vehicle, like the comparison between a Humvee and 

an MRAP, you really are stuck with the modernization piece of it. 

HUMVEES

Mr. YOUNG. I recognize that some of the Humvees, for example, 

are not necessarily used in a combat situation. Maybe those are the 

ones that General Stultz talked about that are the thin-skins. But 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
172 

can you recap a thin-skin Humvee to make it as capable and as secure as you would if you built a new Humvee? 

General STULTZ. Not being a total expert in this, but in some of 

the programs they do, they can take it all the way down to the bare 

metal and start over again. And I think the question that you have 

to ask is, what does it cost to totally reset a Humvee, build it all 

the way back from scratch, to the capability that it has the structural capability to handle the armor, it has the electrical capability, 

it has the power generation, the motor, to handle all that? And 

then, once you do all that with the cost, what would it have cost 

to just build a new one and go from there? 

And I think that is part of the dilemma we face sometimes, is, 

what is the most effective? Because to get to the standard you are 

saying with some of the models we have, not with all of them but 

some of them, you literally have to tear it all the way down and 

start over. 

I was just in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, about two weeks ago, visiting 

two of the plants that are building the M–ATVs and building the 

HEMTTs. And they are resetting the HEMTTs there. And they 

showed me the line where they take the vehicle and, by the time 

they get through taking it down, all that is left are two metal rails. 

And then they bring in a new engine, they bring in a new transmission, they bring in new differentials, they bring in new whatever to reset that vehicle to the new standards of a HEMTT A4, 

is what they call it. 

And they tell me—now, I am not that expert—that they can do 

that much cheaper than manufacturing a new one. But I think that 

is the dilemma. 

The other dilemma we face is, how much are we going to invest, 

because we do have to be good stewards of our taxpayers’ money, 

in refurbishing the old equipment with a new generation of equipment? It is kind of the same challenge we face in technology. 

While I was there at Oshkosh, I drove that M–ATV around their 

course, a wonderful piece of equipment that they are using in Afghanistan now. And you say, you know, wow, it would be great to 

put these in the hands of all of our soldiers instead of that recapped Humvee. But the cost of that vehicle compared to a newly 

manufactured Humvee is tremendous. And that is where, can you 

afford that? 

Mr. YOUNG. Let me ask just one more question here. And this 

just shows that I don’t know that much about it, and that is why 

I am asking the question. 

If you are going to build something new, whether it is an airplane or a truck or an automobile, you start down the line, you put 

new pieces in place, you add on to the new thing; at the end of the 

line, the vehicle comes out. 

In the place of recap, you don’t do it that way. The first thing 

you have to do is start and tear it down before you can start to rebuild the process. And doesn’t that take additional time? Doesn’t it 

take additional workforce? Doesn’t that add to the cost of it? 

I am like you; I am just trying to figure out what is the most 

cost-effective way to give our troops the best vehicles possible. So 

you can respond to that for the record, if you like. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
173 

Although the Army Reserve relies on and benefit from the various Army’s Recap 

programs as a means to extend the Economic Useful Life (EUL) of older systems 

and long with procurement of new equipment fill equipment shortfalls, we need to 

defer answering the Recap cost benefit analysis question to HQDA who funds and 

manages these programs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. All right. 

Mr. Rothman. 

STOP-LOSS

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Generals, thank you for being here. Thank you for your distinguished careers and your service today. 

A question about stop-loss for the Army National Guard and 

Army Reserve. I am told that, as of January of this year, there are 

still approximately 3,400 soldiers in the Army National Guard and 

Army Reserve who remain on active duty beyond their scheduled 

separation dates as a result of stop-loss. And, in the fiscal year 

2000 defense appropriation budget, we provided a special $500-permonth pay for those individuals during fiscal year 2010. 

But I am told, General McKinley, that the Army Guard had previously stated that it would end the use of stop-loss in September 

of 2009. What policies have been taken to end stop-loss? And when 

will you expect there to be no longer any stop-loss for the Guard 

or Reserve? 

General MCKINLEY. Sir, if you don’t mind me passing that to my 

colleague who can give you the specific Army answer, I will pass 

to both Jack and to Ray. 

General CARPENTER. Sir, as you have pointed out, as of last September we were no longer mobilizing and stop-lossing soldiers that 

were deploying into theater. However, prior to that point, prior to 

the first of September, units that were mobilized for the 12-month 

mobilization period, stop-loss was in effect. So for the soldiers that 

were mobilized and deployed in August, for instance, of 2009, those 

soldiers are in theater and they are in a stop-loss status. 

Now, the 12-month mobilization, for instance, for the August soldiers that were mobilized is going to end in August, if not July, of 

fiscal year 2010. At that point, all the soldiers who were stop-lossed 

will be out of our ranks and out of the formations. 

So the process was not on the first of September to curtail stoploss for everybody, because what that would have done is soldiers 

would have been in mid-tour and it would have been disruptive to 

the units. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. General, is it fair, then, to characterize your answer as, by the end of August 2010, there will no longer be stoploss in the Army Guard or Reserve? 

General CARPENTER. Yes, exactly. Exactly. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. That is great news. 

General STULTZ. Yes, sir, one thing I would add to what Ray 

said, because you are exactly right, the other thing we did find in 

the Reserve, and I think the same thing in the Guard, is, of the 

soldiers that we had stop-lossed, traditionally around 75 or 80 percent of them ended up staying. They went into theater in a stopVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
174 

loss situation in a lot of cases so they could reenlist and get the 

tax benefits that were associated with being deployed. And so—— 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Okay. That is good information. But for the other 

25 percent, they were indentured servants. 

General STULTZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. And that is a charitable name for it. 

Just two other fast questions—— 

Mr. DICKS. Indentured volunteers, how about that? 

STATE OF ECONOMY

Mr. ROTHMAN. Indentured volunteers. Okay, yeah, that is probably more accurate. 

Two other fast questions, if I may. 

Given the present state of the national economy, and perhaps 

international economy, but certainly here in America, a number of 

our Guard and Reserve are having trouble when they get back, no 

longer on active duty, finding jobs. Their jobs disappeared. Their 

businesses that they worked for have disappeared, not just their 

position within that organization. 

Is there some kind of job counseling? Is that appropriate? Do we 

have that in our Reserve and Guard situation? And if we don’t 

have it, why not? And if we do have it, can we make it better? 

General MCKINLEY. The unemployment statistics, sir, really concern me. I think our Guard is experiencing about twice the unemployment rate when they return from overseas as the statistic nationally. 

And each State, to their credit, through their Adjutant General 

and their Governor and the offices in their States, have worked 

very hard to come up with reemployment programs. I think that 

is why General Stultz’s opening comments that he made today 

about some of the initiatives the Army Reserve has used have been 

very helpful for us, too. So I echo your concern. 

So, Jack, you may want to just summarize that real quick. 

General STULTZ. Yes, sir. What we said in the early opening is, 

we recognize the problem with the employers, and we have to have 

employed soldiers if we are going to sustain the Reserve and 

Guard. And so we have initiated a lot of programs partnering with 

employers. 

The challenge you are going to have or we are having is, those 

soldiers who return to find that the job that they had, the industry 

has gone out of business or has laid off or whatever, we can find 

a new job for them, but it may not be where they live. And so now 

they are confronted with this thing of, I want to live in my hometown where I left; you are offering me a new job, but it may be two 

States over, in some cases. 

EMPLOYER SUPPORT

Mr. ROTHMAN. But, General, is it the policy of our military, and 

certainly our Guard and Reserve, to find each and every Guard and 

Reserve member no longer on active duty, looking for a job, who 

has been on active duty, is it our policy to find each and every one 

of them a job? Or is that just anecdotal or hit-or-miss? 

General STULTZ. It is not a policy, not within the Army Reserve, 

that we find soldiers jobs. It is a practice that we say we think we 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
175 

owe it to them. And if we are going to sustain that operational 

force, we are going to have to be looked upon as, ‘‘I can be a member of the Reserve and I can get a good job.’’ 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Right. But if I may, if it is not a policy, then it 

would seem to be at the discretion of the present leadership of the 

Guard and Reserve. And I am—— 

Mr. DICKS. Should it be a policy, if the gentleman will yield? 

Mr. ROTHMAN [continuing]. Wondering why it shouldn’t be a policy, or why it should not be a policy. 

But I think, you know, if it is important enough to do, we ought 

to make it a policy. If it is not that important, then it shouldn’t be. 

But to rely on local decision-makers, when perhaps this should be 

a national policy, is something that perhaps the committee can discuss. 

Or do you have an opinion on that, any of you gentlemen? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, there is a program called Employer 

Support to the Guard and Reserve. And it is hugely active across 

the National Guard and across the Reserve components. 

The fact of the matter is, in the Army Guard, 70 percent of our 

soldiers are nontraditional; read that: They are not full-time in the 

National Guard, and they are not students. And if we don’t have 

70 percent of those soldiers who are supported by employers out 

there, frankly, we don’t have a National Guard. And so—— 

Mr. ROTHMAN. So we do have a policy, General? Is that what you 

are saying? 

General CARPENTER. We have a program. I am not sure ‘‘policy’’ 

is the right terminology to put on it. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Okay. The objective is to be as helpful as possible. 

The policy is not to assure that each one gets a job, but the policy 

is to be as proactive and helpful as possible. Is that a fair restatement? 

General STULTZ. Yes, sir. 

MORALE

Mr. ROTHMAN. And, finally, if I may: Morale. There is a lot of 

anger in our country these days, for lots of reasons. And some say 

that it is—and I am wondering, do you see any morale issues, political, one side or the other, infiltrating itself into any aspect of the 

Guard and Reserve that you are aware of? 

General MCKINLEY. Congressman, you know, it has been 35 

years since folks our age at this end of the table were subjected to 

conscription and the draft, and it is an all-volunteer force. And I 

won’t speak for Jack; he can speak for the Army Reserve. But from 

the Air National Guard and the Army National Guard, we are seeing nothing but strong, patriotic desire to serve. 

The propensity to serve is great. Young people in numbers are 

coming to our recruiters, wanting to be part of these organizations, 

for a variety of reasons. But I have not seen any indicators, to my 

knowledge—and I will let Army and Air speak—that talk about 

any kinds of morale problems. 

In my opening comments, what I sense on the horizon, though, 

is if you don’t let these young people serve in a capacity that lets 

them be prepared to be part of that first team effort, wherever it 

is, if it is overseas or if it is at home, but if you relegate the Guard 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
176 

to a second-class citizen or put it on the shelf and don’t use it and 

don’t make it part of the Army and the Air Force, that is when I 

suspect we will have people say, ‘‘We didn’t sign up for this.’’ 

So I am actually leaning towards maintaining our Guard in an 

operational capacity enough so that young men and women feel 

that they have contributed to the overall effort of our Nation. And 

I am watching out very carefully with the Adjutants General, who 

are my board of directors, to make sure we don’t go back to a point 

where we are under-used, under-utilized, under-equipped, not wellled. Those are my biggest concerns. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Kingston. 

C–130S

Mr. KINGSTON. General McKinley, I want to ask—because I have 

the 165th Guard unit down in Savannah, Georgia, that has a very 

aging C–130 fleet, and I am worried as I see what is happening 

with the redistribution of some of these planes. If they have aging 

fleets and there is no plan to get them C–130Js, are they on some 

kind of—should we put them on a watchlist? 

General MCKINLEY. Congressman, I live down the road in Jacksonville. I flew the 130s in Savannah. It is a great organization and 

a great unit. When I flew them, they were new airplanes. We have 

aged our C–130 fleet dramatically over the last 20 years, and now 

Savannah has some of the oldest model C–130s. 

I have charged our Air Director, General Wyatt, to work with the 

United States Air Force to come up with some strategies. And if 

you would allow me to let him talk to you about the C–130 fleet, 

I think it is important to hear where it stands. There has been 

some speculation that the Air Force wants to draw down older airplanes, and I think General Wyatt can give you some confidence 

that he is working very closely with United States Air Force on a 

modernization strategy. 

General WYATT. You know, Congressman, if you will, an earlier 

question dealt with airplanes in the Air National Guard, and the 

question had to do with the fill rate of the authorized airplanes. 

The days since BRAC 2005 have changed significantly. There 

was a significant amount of organic airlift in the Air National 

Guard that was removed out of the Air National Guard as a result 

of BRAC. Since then, we have had some data points, the most recent one being the Mobility Capabilities Requirements Study 

(MCRS) that was filed February 1, addressing the tactical airlift, 

where the C–130 fits. And the conclusions of that study, which was 

commissioned by TRANSCOM, indicated that, while there are 

about 401 C–130s in the total force, the need foreseeable in the future would be only 335. 

But I would point out that that study was commissioned before 

any consideration was given to what we call the direct support mission. The direct support mission is a newly emerging mission that 

is in support of the Army. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council identified a need of 78 airplanes to handle the direct support 

mission on behalf of the United States Army. We have in the program 38. It used to be a 78 requirement, but the program has been 

reduced to 38 C–27s, which addresses some of the tactical airlift. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
177 

But I would suggest to you that the study, because it does not consider the direct support mission, needs to be revised to consider 

that. 

We have seen in PB–’11 the difficult choices that the Air Force 

has to make with this aging C–130 fleet that you have mentioned. 

When taken in conjunction with the MCRS, the Air Force has determined a need to retire some of the older airplanes. And, in fact, 

they have done that with E’s in PB–’11 and some of the older H 

models. 

So we are in that period of time where we think there is probably 

a greater need for tactical airlift than the MCRS has identified, 

and we are working our way through that situation. 

The concern is that the direct support mission, if you take a look 

at what that really is, the Air National Guard has been doing the 

direct support mission on behalf of Governors since we have had 

airplanes, because that is how we respond to natural disasters. If 

you look at Katrina and you saw the numbers of airlift, organic airlift in the Air National Guard that responded on a moment’s notice, 

you can see the importance of organic airlift. 

So my concern is, while the Army says, ‘‘We need trucks, trucks, 

trucks,’’ I am saying we need to take a look at lift, lift, lift. So I 

see an opportunity or a need here to reexamine the MCRS in the 

light of the additional needs created by the direct support mission 

and the organic homeland support/homeland defense mission to determine whether the C–130 number is correct. 

Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman would just yield briefly, didn’t Secretary Gates say that we could do this with—make up the difference with C–130s? 

General WYATT. The mission can be flown with C–130s, yes, sir, 

it can. 

Mr. DICKS. Are we talking about the J model? 

General WYATT. It can be flown with any C–130. The question 

is, if you are going to do a significant portion of the direct support 

mission with C–130s, a lot of our C–130 fleet, the E models are 

now retired out of the fleet as a result of PB–’11, and we have a 

significant number of H models, H–1s, that need to be retired also, 

just because of the MCRS lowering the numbers but also because 

of age and the expense. 

Now, we do have the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) 

that is funded for a little over 200 of the H–2, H–2.5, and H–3 C– 

130s. That will help modernize some of H model fleet. But we are 

still talking about a possible need to address, whether it is C–130 

or C–27, that direct support mission, which also flows very well 

into the Governors’ and the Adjutant’s Generals responsibility for 

organic airlift for the homeland security/homeland defense mission. 

FORESTRY IN AFGHANISTAN

Mr. KINGSTON. General, it might be helpful to committee members, I know it would be very helpful to me, if maybe you could 

elaborate on this in writing. Because I think a lot of us are going 

to start hearing from our Guard units around the country, and we 

want to know—because, you know, Guard units have been doing a 

lot of good things over the years, and their aircraft are deteriorating in age. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
178 

General, I had a question for you. In Afghanistan, when we were 

over there, one of the things that came up is that the poppy industry is $200 million to $300 million, and a big issue in terms of trying to get the USDA over there, training them to look at alternative crops, wheat and so forth. 

There is this issue on forestry. And, as I understand it, Afghanistan has had a 50 percent deforestation since 1978. Mr. Chairman, 

I don’t know if you have heard that statistic, but, as a former Interior chair, I know you would be alarmed by that. But 50 percent 

of their forestry gone in a 25-, 30-year period of time. I think that 

is what I read. But that the Taliban is letting these guys cut down 

the trees short-term because they get in with the local population, 

who are historically in the logging area in the north, and we don’t 

seem to be able to do anything about it. 

As I heard you talk about citizen soldiers driving trucks over 

there, I am thinking about loggers, foresters, farmers who are in 

the Guard units being invaluable in terms of fighting the deforestation, because of the lumber industry and poppy. And I was wondering if you could tell me if you guys are playing a role in that. 

Mr. DICKS. If you would yield, also, we understand there are 

seven Guard units deployed to Afghanistan providing skill-based 

training and advice to Afghan universities, provincial ministries, 

and local farmers. And does USDA partner with the Guard to develop better agribusiness alternatives for Afghanistan? 

I mean, this poppy thing, I think we are in an absolute no-win 

position. I mean, we are kind of looking the other way. And I think 

we have to commit ourselves to an alternative crop strategy. Maybe 

eradication isn’t the answer this year, but I don’t see how we can 

let this continue to go the way it is going. 

And I would like to know about what these seven Guard units 

are doing. 

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TEAMS

Mr. KINGSTON. And I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to say this, General. When I was over there with the 

chairman about a month ago, I was briefed by our USDA folks. 

And there was no discussion of coordination with the Army Guard 

or anyone else on it. That might be taking place, but I am just saying it was not brought up at all. 

General CARPENTER. Sir, to follow up on the chairman’s comment, we have nine what we call Agricultural Development Teams 

in theater in Afghanistan right now as we speak. And they are 

working in 14 provinces in Afghanistan. 

An ADT is about a 60-person unit, combined between the Army 

and the Air National Guard. And inside that 60-person unit is a 

team of about 12 subject-matter experts that have an agricultural 

background. They may be engineers, they may be hydrologists, 

they may be crop specialists, they may be animal husbandry specialists. And those 12 people form the center of that team, and 

their whole mission is to reestablish agriculture inside of these 

provinces. 

The effort here is to get this organization, get the provinces and 

the farmers past what we call subsistence farming and get them 

into a commercial farming environment where they can actually 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
179 

produce the commodities so that they can sell them and make that 

a more viable industry, a more viable effort than what we see in 

the poppy trade right now. 

For the most part, what you see for the farmers out there that 

are raising poppies is that they are raising a crop and they are not 

getting a huge amount of money for raising that crop. The drug 

lords are the ones that are actually making the money. So if that 

farmer produces grapes or produces some sort of a grain commodity, it is going to be the same for him, in terms of the takehome or what they end up with. 

The ADT is organized to establish a long-term relationship between the province in Afghanistan and the land-grant college in 

Missouri, for instance, because Missouri got into this first, and that 

was the whole effort. We have worked with the USDA. As a matter 

of fact, we have gone over and briefed them. We have solicited their 

support. And they are absolutely interested in partnering with us 

in these Agricultural Development Teams. 

The effort for the ADT, Agricultural Development Team, was, 

when we get to what we call a permissive environment, in other 

words, when the fighting is lowered to some sort of an environment 

where we can put USDA officials, support from the universities 

into that kind of environment to support the growth of agriculture, 

then that is going to be the next step in terms of where we go with 

the development teams. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. A great question. 

Mr. Bishop. 

STATISTICS GUARD/RESERVE

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Welcome to all four of you gentlemen. 

I am going to look at a different tack. As you know, General 

Stultz, the Army Reserve is an organization of people who work 

hard to serve the Army and the Nation, and the officers and soldiers make up one of the most diverse groups. They come from a 

wide variety of communities and backgrounds. But the minority 

general officers rank seems to be not very diverse. Looking at the 

statistics, it appears as if there is in the Reserve, for example, 17.1 

percent black officers, of which there is only one black female general officer; zero Hispanic, Asian Pacific Islander, or Native American female general officers. 

I don’t know what the stats are in the Guard, but we have the 

same concerns about that. 

The Congressional Black Caucus has been working with the 

Joint Chiefs over the last several years to try to have general officer ranks at least reflect the population within the respective services. And we have been working continuously trying to make that 

happen, with a number of efforts, including mentoring, including 

the makeup of the promotion panels, and the reports of performance standards being equal-opportunity-inclusive. 

Can you tell me what the Reserve and the Guard are doing to 

try to maintain or to establish an adequate level of diversity, a reflective level of diversity? 

General STULTZ. Yes, sir. And it is a great point, because we are 

not satisfied with where we are, obviously, by what you just said. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
180 

We do have within the Army Reserve 15 female general officers 

right now in our ranks. But only one, Marcia Anderson, is African 

American, and so we are not balanced in that respect. We have approximately 12 percent minority general officers in our ranks, but, 

again, that does not reflect the rest of the troop population. So we 

have a ways to go there. 

We are actively, one, trying to mentor those in the ranks of O– 

5, O–6. And off of our most recent general officer board, which has 

yet to be published, we will increase our diversity somewhat. But, 

again, we are not getting there fast enough to satisfy us. Because 

what I need is I need for that young female soldier or that young 

minority soldier to be able to look to the top and say, ‘‘I have an 

opportunity, and I have representation.’’ 

Mr. BISHOP. And a mentor. 

General STULTZ. And a mentor, sir, yes, sir. 

And we have some wonderful, wonderful minority and female 

general officers that are not just wonderful military leaders, they 

are wonderful leaders in their civilian communities, in their hospitals or in their governments or in their businesses. 

But, you are right, we aren’t there yet. We are working to get 

there, but we are not there yet. 

General MCKINLEY. I would echo General Stultz’s comments that 

the National Guard is not there yet either. It is a journey, not a 

destination, in terms of managing our diversity programs. 

What I believe is important for us is to continue to mentor and 

nourish the young people in the States and the territories that 

make up our National Guard. And I work very closely with the Adjutants General in the States. We are a community-based organization, and if our units don’t look like the community that they work 

in and live in, then we have a serious problem. 

You know, ‘‘years of’’ have created some emphasis programs, so 

we are in a ‘‘year of diversity.’’ I was told by my staff recently that 

a year just doesn’t cut it. It should be a ‘‘decade of diversity,’’ with 

metrics built in every year to see how you do. And I have asked 

these gentlemen who work with me in the Army-Air Force to do 

that. 

And then, finally, President Obama has commissioned a commission on military diversity programs. General Les Lyles chairs it. I 

have had the opportunity to speak to General Lyles. He is looking 

across our components, active Guard and Reserve, to see how we 

are doing. And I think that will bring a real sense of emphasis once 

that report is submitted to the President, so that we all know that 

we have work to do, we need to continue nurturing the younger 

people so that they can feel empowered to be part of this organization. 

And I thank you for that question, because it keeps us focused 

on some very important reasons for why we are in these chairs. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Carpenter, I heard your comment that you are going to 

retire the Deuce and a Half. Boy, I will tell you, I spent 6 1/2 years 

riding in the back of one of those things. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
181 

General STULTZ. He still has the truck. 

Mr. ROGERS. And if I had known then that you were going to retire the Deuce and a Half, I would have worked to make you General of the Army. And so, it is sort of a sad time that you are going 

to retire the old ‘‘Deuce and a Half.’’ 

General CARPENTER. Sir, actually, you were instrumental in 

doing that. So, from riding in the back of that, you have made the 

possibility by way of funding through NGREA and all the rest of 

the support to retire that Deuce and a Half. So you have been more 

valuable in this process than riding in the back, sir. 

AGRICULTURAL EFFORT IN AFGHANISTAN

Mr. ROGERS. Yeah, any kind of lift, except the Deuce and a Half. 

You know, on the agricultural effort in Afghanistan, I remember 

going to Pakistan and Thailand about 20 years ago, where we were 

trying to pay farmers to grow something other than poppy—wheat, 

tobacco, and the like. And they would take our money and then go 

till another crop of poppy. And I suspect that is exactly what is 

happening in Afghanistan now. 

Have we ever thought about compensating the poppy growers for 

destroying their crop and combining that with teaching the growing 

of another crop? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, I am really not in a position to answer 

that question. That is probably a question that needs to be directed 

to the powers-to-be in theater and their strategy for how they are 

dealing with the war on terror in Afghanistan. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it seems to me that might be something we 

could think about. 

The Counterdrug Program—Kentucky National Guard has had a 

great history with eradicating marijuana growing in the Daniel 

Boone National Forest, which is, I think, the second-largest marijuana growing patch in the U.S. In fact, I have ridden on the helicopters as we traversed the mountains and been unable to land in 

the helicopter in that rough terrain, soldiers rappelling down the 

rope with a large net, cutting the marijuana and putting it in the 

net, and then being picked up by the chopper and transported, 

hanging, dangling 100 feet under the chopper with a big bag of 

marijuana maybe 50 miles to the landing spot—a dangerous operation, all the while trying to dodge bullets fired at them from the 

marijuana growers. I mean, it is not an easy chore. And yet the 

Kentucky Guard has just been heroic almost in that effort over the 

years. 

What can you tell me about your budget request for the continuation of that program in the Guard? And what do you think about 

the program? 

General MCKINLEY. Congressman, thanks for the question. 

You know, I go back a ways, and in 1989 I remember our Adjutant General, Ron Harrison, in Florida kicking off a program called 

Drug Demand Reduction in our high schools. And that was the initial stages of trying to reduce demand here at home. Because we 

know across the spectrum you can have interdiction, you can have 

eradication, but if you don’t reduce the basic demand, you are still 

going to have a flow of drugs across the border. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
182 

Congress authorized the Counterdrug Program for the National 

Guard. We feel it is very effective. Over time, our costs for 

sustainment of the program, quite frankly, have not kept up with 

the demands on the program. But if it wasn’t for this committee 

and what you provide for the Counterdrug Program, we would not 

be able to do the eradication efforts, we would not be able to have 

the relationships we have with the local law enforcement agencies 

and really, actually, have what I consider one of the crown-jewel 

programs in the National Guard. 

So the moneys we have in the budget will provide for an adequate Counterdrug Program. Any additional moneys that Congress 

would provide would enhance it. And I am most concerned with the 

efforts along the southwest border, what I am seeing in the nexus 

of drug lords, terrorism, instability across the border. I am very 

concerned that we have now reached a point in this Nation where 

this program is a vital program now to the States and territories 

and the District, and without the support of this committee, we will 

be far less effective at a time when we need it the most. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it has been a very effective way in Kentucky 

to get at that huge marijuana crop in the Boone National Forest, 

and I would hope that we could continue that. It has been very effective, but it needs help. 

You know, I think on the southwest border your services are 

probably going to be needed sooner than later, because it is growing out of hand. The drug cartels on that border now are spilling 

across into this country with violence. Every community represented here has an arm of the Mexican drug cartel there distributing drugs in huge numbers. And we have been unable to seal 

that border yet. But the most effective time that we were able to 

tackle the problem was when the Guard was there. And you did 

a great job. And I suspect that we will be calling on you again in 

that respect. 

Well, thank you, gentlemen, for your service. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. Hinchey. 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENTS

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you very, very much for everything that you 

do and for all of this issue, which has been absolutely deeply interesting. 

I know that the National Guard and the Army Reserve has been 

under a lot of pressure over the course of the last several years. 

And I know that that is something that is unusual, and it hasn’t 

happened in this way in, you know, quite some time. 

Maybe you wouldn’t be, you know, prepared to give us the exact 

specific information on this, but if that is the case, maybe you 

would be kind enough to just put it in the record for us so that we 

can take a look at it and see what the kind of pressure has been, 

how the numbers have gone up and how dramatically your military 

personnel were put into Iraq, say, for example, primarily, in such 

large numbers. 

General MCKINLEY. Sir, we would be glad to provide that from 

the National Guard perspective. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
183 

[The information follows:] 

WHAT KIND OF PRESSURE EXISTS ON NATIONAL GUARDSMEN IN IRAQ? 

Army National Guardsmen and their families encounter many of the same pressures as their Active Duty counterparts, such as suicide, divorce, post trauma stress 

disorders among others. However, the pressure that is unique in the Reserve Component is employment related issues. As a result of mobilizations, National Guardsmen in Iraq have experienced a tremendous amount of pressure and, in many cases, 

worrying when it comes to the high percentage of unemployment when they arrive 

back home. For example, the 41st BCT out of Oregon Army National Guard returned from deployment in April 2010, and reported 969 Soldiers needing help finding jobs. 

According to a U.S. Department of Labor April 2010 report, young, unemployed 

veterans who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan face even lower odds of finding 

jobs in this economy than their civilian counterparts. The jobless rate hit 21 percent 

last year for the youngest veterans, who are 18 to 24 years old. That is compared 

to 16.6 percent of non-veterans in the same age range. The annual unemployment 

rate for the youngest group of veterans from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has 

been increasing during the past three years, from 12 percent in 2007, to 14 percent 

in 2008, to 21 percent in 2009. That is compared to an overall unemployment rate 

of 9.7 percent nationally. 

Also, with the increase in overseas deployments, many self-employed Army National Guard Soldiers, Reservists and Small Business Owners are losing their businesses or experiencing financial losses. Many self-employed Soldiers have filed 

bankruptcy because they are not protected under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) which provides the legal basis for 

the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. Self-employed business owners do 

not have the same job protection that businesses are required by federal law to extend to their workers. 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENTS IN IRAQ AND KUWAIT

The ARNG has deployed over 240,000 Soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom 

(OIF). In FY05, a total 60,356 Guardsmen were deployed in support of combat operations in Iraq and Kuwait, reaching the highest point since OIF started. During 

FY08 the Guard deployed 36,942 Soldiers and in FY09 a total of 33,937 troops. The 

National Guard has maintained a high operational tempo for more than eight years 

in support of OIF. See the attached chart depicting the level of activity of the ARNG 

operational force in Iraq and Kuwait. 

HOW DRAMATICALLY HAVE YOUR MILITARY PERSONNEL BEEN AFFECTED BY BEING

PUT INTO IRAQ IN SUCH LARGE NUMBERS? 

The Army National Guard and Active Duty Soldiers are exposed to the same 

stressful environment and suffer the same types of issues of post traumatic stress 

disorder, marital problems, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, among others. 

A study conducted by Anderson and Lie in 2007, more Soldiers returning from the 

war in Iraq show signs of mental health problems such as depression and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) six months after their tour of duty versus immediately 

coming home. The study revealed that although Reserve and Active component experienced many of the same traumatic combat experiences and was at similar risk 

for behavioral health concerns at Post Deployment Health Assessment, by the Post 

Deployment Health Risk Assessment this gap had significantly widened. For example, at Post Deployment Health Assessment, the incidence of PTSD in the Active 

component was 11.8% and 12.7% in the Reserve Component. At the time of Post 

Deployment Health Risk Assessment, the PTSD rate for Active component was 

16.7% compared with 24.5% in the Reserve Component. Similar trends have occurred with depression and overall mental health risk. 

The substance abuse is highly correlated with PTSD and other psychological disorders that may occur after stressful and traumatic events, such as those associated 

with the war. Alcohol use and alcohol-related problems before and after military 

combat deployment are other areas in where Soldiers showed increased risk. Reserve or National Guard personnel were significantly more likely to experience newonset heavy weekly drinking, binge drinking and alcohol-related problems compared 

to the Active Component, as well with respect to non-deployed personnel. (Source: 

JAMA.2008; 300 (6):663–675 or www.jama.com) 

With the onset of many behavioral and substance abuse related issues occurring 

six months after a tour of duty, a key lesson has been the need to ensure resources 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
184 

are available to care for the needs of these Soldiers. Furthermore, for those Soldiers 

who have been identified through Post Deployment Health Reassessments and care 

established, then continuity of care is crucial to ensure the Service members’ treatment does not lag and all services are completed. Analysis of suicide cases in the 

Army National Guard is helping to draft further tools for ARNG leaders and family 

members to use in support of Soldiers returning from war. 

Another enduring lesson learned from the overseas contingency operations is that 

we need to stabilize and sustain our forces mentally, physically, and spiritually. To 

provide the best support and transition assistance for wounded, injured, and ill Soldiers, the Army National Guard continues to support the Army’s warrior transition 

units and community-based warrior transition units. The transition units provide 

non-clinical support, complex case management, and transition assistance for Soldiers of all components at medical treatment facilities on Active Army installations. 

The community-based warrior transition units provide high-quality health care, administrative processing, and transition assistance for recuperating Reserve Component Soldiers while allowing them to live at home and perform duties close to their 

homes and families. 

The Army National Guard remains committed to supporting the families of deployed Soldiers throughout the deployment cycle. Army National Guard families 

were supported in numerous ways in FY09. The National Guard Bureau’s Family 

Program Office provided families with training via computer-based modules, centralized classes, and locally provided lectures to help make families self-reliant throughout the deployment cycle process. The Army Well-Being Program established the 

Army Families Online website, an information portal for families of National Guard 

Soldiers. The Department of Defense Military OneSource Program provided benefits 

which include counseling services, resources for parents, assistance with consumer 

credit, and online tax return preparation for military families. 

Another service available is the Resiliency Training Center, which focuses on prevention through proactive marriage workshops and stress-relief training before, during, and after deployments. The main goal of the resiliency program is to create ‘‘resilient’’ service members and families. 

Some of our Family readiness efforts include Family Assistance Centers, the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, the Strong Bonds Program, and Suicide Prevention training. The Army National Guard operates 369 Family Assistance Centers 

across all 54 States and Territories. 

The National Guard Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program provides information 

services, referral, and proactive outreach opportunities for Soldiers, Families, employers, and youth throughout the entire deployment and life cycle: pre-deployment, 

deployment, post-deployment, and return to civilian life. 

The Strong Bonds Program is a Commander’s program that is unit-based and 

chaplain-led to help Soldiers and their Families build and rebuild strong relationships, especially when getting ready for or recovering from a deployment. 

The Army National Guard recently initiated the Job Connection Education Program (or JCEP). This program improves National Guard force stability by advancing 

member skills at seeking, obtaining, and retaining civilian employment, much like 

the Army Career and Alumni Program, but at the local level. Job Connection Education Program team members work closely with local employers to ensure they are 

aware of all the resources available to them in their effort to hire local Guard Soldiers. The Army National Guard is also partnering with the Army Reserve in the 

Employer Partnership Office. 

To help Soldiers to improve their job skills, the Army National Guard has started 

an initiative called Guard Apprenticeship Program Initiative (GAPI). This initiative 

involves partnering with the Department of Labor and coordinating with the Department of Veterans Affairs while National Guard Soldiers work in their civilian 

jobs and participate in the program. Apprenticeship is a training opportunity for 

ARNG Soldiers to earn national certification and skills in a specific field while earning wages. 

As you know, the Air National Guard does its deployments a little differently than the Army National Guard does. They volunteer 

their members, and they have a shorter rotation, but they have a 

higher frequency rate. 

So, whether it be United States Air Force through its Air National Guard or Ray Carpenter’s Army National Guard, the services have used the National Guard very effectively. Most of our 

members have deployed once, twice, maybe three times. I was out 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
185 

in the field the other day; a soldier had deployed three times, getting ready to go on his fourth deployment. I am sure Jack is the 

same way. 

So we will provide you our exact numbers for the record. 

Jack. 

General STULTZ. Yes, sir, same, we can provide those numbers 

for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

The numbers of USAR mobilizations since 9/11 for contingency operations follows: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
186 

FY Total Enduring Freedom Iraqi Freedom Joint Endeavor Joint Guard- ian-Kosovo Noble Eagle Southern Watch-Kuwait TTAD Air Force Se- curity Border Secu- rity 

FY01 ......................................................................................... 860 .................... .................... 57 25 778 .................... .................... .................... ....................FY02 ......................................................................................... 14,390 2,209 .................... 348 307 11,319 174 .................... .................... 33 FY03 ......................................................................................... 65,639 58,090 106 341 229 6,844 28 .................... 1 ....................FY04 ......................................................................................... 35,443 9,677 22,869 45 89 2,750 .................... 10 3 ....................FY05 ......................................................................................... 33,347 9,675 20,196 18 71 3,358 .................... 27 2 ....................FY06 ......................................................................................... 24,917 7,338 14,341 13 55 3,165 .................... 5 .................... ....................FY07 ......................................................................................... 24,220 10,509 10,979 14 19 2,689 .................... 10 .................... ....................FY08 ......................................................................................... 27,436 14,406 12,824 1 9 189 .................... 7 .................... ....................FY09 ......................................................................................... 17,397 9,878 7,445 .................... 20 36 .................... 18 .................... ....................FY010 ....................................................................................... 2,675 1,884 788 .................... .................... 1 .................... 2 .................... ....................

Totals .............................................................................. 246,324 123,666 89,548 837 824 31,129 202 79 6 33 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
187 

Just for perspective, though, I mentioned earlier, I am authorized 

currently 205,000. I have mobilized over 190,000 since 9/11. Now, 

that is not 190 of that 205, because they have obviously—some retired, some got out, and we have new recruits. But we keep about 

30,000 soldiers mobilized ongoing within the Army Reserve, in addition to our full-time force that is there all the time. 

General CARPENTER. Sir, what you refer to is what we call 

optempo and the frequency with which we are mobilizing and deploying soldiers. 

Because of what we do in terms of cross-leveling soldiers to units, 

right now for the soldiers that are deploying, their normal dwell is 

somewhere around 2.2 years. The units’ dwell is somewhere around 

3.3 years. And so this is probably at the top end of where we want 

to be. 

Ideally, in the Army Force Generation Model for the Reserve 

component, we would like to see 1 year deployed and 4 years at 

home. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thanks very much. 

General WYATT. From the Air National Guard side, we do our deployments considerably different. We participate in Air Expeditionary Force rotations that are 120 days long. And we do have 

some stress career fields that, when they are mobilized, may go 

into theater a little bit longer. But we do enjoy the shorter mobilization periods. 

But we have been doing this since the early 1990s. I remember 

as a wing commander at Tulsa our first deployment in 1996. And, 

since 1996, that particular unit has I think been in theater around 

13 times. But they are for shorter periods of time. 

I measure the stress on the force a couple of ways, sir. One is 

to get out in the field, CONUS and OCONUS when I am allowed 

in theater, to see firsthand what the morale is and what the spirit 

of our airmen is. The second method is taking a look at our retention rates. And our retention rates are exceeding all of our goals 

and have been for a significant period of time. Our retention rate 

is over 90 percent. 

What I am seeing is a resilient force, a force that relishes its opportunity to be an operational force. We enjoy working with the 

United States Air Force to allow us to do shorter mobilizations, 

which addresses the needs of, not only predictability, but a shorter 

time away from those jobs and those families. And I think that is 

one of the reasons why we have been able to do that since the early 

1990s, and I don’t see any reason why we can’t continue doing so. 

I think the key is the predictability, trying to keep the rotations 

as short as possible, at least from the Air National Guard side; 

and, secondly, making sure that the missions that we do are the 

same frontline missions that the United States Air Force does. We 

fly about 33 percent of all the United States Air Force missions 

worldwide on about 7 percent of the Air Force budget. 

So we think we are ready, reliable, accessible, available, and we 

can keep doing it this for an indefinite period of time. 

C–5A

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, thank you very much. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
188 

And, if I may, General Wyatt, I would like to ask you another 

Air Force question, if I may, about the C–5As and the C–17s and 

how that situation is changing. Apparently, under the proposed fiscal year budget, it includes the retirement of 12 of these C–5As and 

then the replacement of eight C–17 aircraft. 

So that situation seems to be something that may be concerning. 

How is the adjustment going to be with the reduction of 12 and the 

replacement of eight of these two different aircraft? How is that adjustment going to be? Is it going to be difficult to deal with this 

situation? 

General WYATT. I think the answer to that question would be— 

I previously referenced the Mobility Capabilities Requirements 

Study that basically establishes the number of strat lift, as opposed 

to tactical airlift that I talked about earlier. The C–5s and C–17s 

fall into that strat lift category. And I think the issue becomes a 

total force issue when you consider that the Air National Guard, 

the Air Force Reserve, and the active-duty Air Force all fly C–5s 

and C–17s. 

The C–5s that are in the Air National Guard, one of them in 

your State, sir, at Stewart—we also have one in West Virginia and 

a C–5 unit in Tennessee. We have an Air National Guard C–17 

unit in Jackson, Mississippi. And then we have a couple of units 

in Alaska and Hawaii, where the Air National Guard associates 

with the active duty to fly those airplanes, the C–17s. 

The challenge is, there are certain numbers of the larger C–5A 

that our Mobility Capabilities Requirements Study says that the 

Air Force needs to keep, and that will probably be a mixture of the 

newer B’s and probably some of the A models. 

To answer your question, what the Air Force is doing right now, 

in conjunction with the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve, is taking a look at the best way to maintain the required 

force structure with the larger-body C–5 fleet and also try to modernize the C–5 fleet in the numbers needed, with the re-engining 

program, to convert the B’s and some A’s into what we call C–5M 

models. 

So I think the Air National Guard will be participating, I am 

sure we will with the Air Force and the Air Force Reserve, to determine the right number of those. And then I see a need to convert 

some of our existing C–5A units to C–17s. The C–17 is a newer airplane, more reliable, higher MC rates, less to maintain. So it fits 

well with where we need to go in the Air National Guard. 

I think that what you will see is probably some of our units— 

and I don’t know which ones because we are still working with the 

Air Force—but some of our units convert from C–5As to C–17s. I 

think some of our units may stay in the C–5 and convert to C–5Ms. 

We don’t know for sure. But we are working those issues. 

But it will be a total force look. And I am sure the Air National 

Guard will be involved, to some degree, continuing in the future in 

strat lift, because it is a way that the Air National Guard can continue to be a relevant partner in all of the missions and provide 

the relief that the active-duty Air Force needs in the high operations tempo. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
189 

Your unit right now is one of the four units in the Air National 

Guard that is assisting with the surge into Afghanistan, a huge 

load on the strat lift. And your folks are doing a fine job. 

C–17S

Mr. HINCHEY. Do you know where those C–17s are going to be 

located? 

General WYATT. I don’t. The process that the Air Force uses is 

called the Strategic Basing Executive Steering Group, and they are 

taking that decision under advisement right now. I am advised 

that they hope to have a decision on the bed-down of the C–17s in 

June of 2011, I think is when they predict that they will have the 

final basing decisions. But the criteria for the next bed-down 

should be coming soon. 

General MCKINLEY. And if I could add, sir, that it is really important for us to have dialogue with the States through the Adjutant General to the Governor. So our pledge to this committee is 

to work with the Air Force to make sure we release as much information as soon as we know it so that there is an active dialogue 

so there are no surprises. I can’t guarantee that, but that is our 

goal, and that is what we owe you. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DICKS. Ms. Kilpatrick, please. 

STRYKER BRIGADES

Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Generals, good afternoon. Thank you for your service, your testimony and commitment. 

After we ratchet out of Iraq and step in Afghanistan, the Stryker 

has been used quite effectively. The Stryker is now in a modernization program to increase survivability and that kind of thing. And 

the Stryker brigades that we had there are now moving to Afghanistan. 

Is there a need, General Carpenter, for the Stryker up-modernization vehicle? You talked about the MRAPs. I know the 

Humvees are gone. Is there a use for the Stryker and where in Afghanistan? 

General CARPENTER. The active Army has Stryker brigades deployed into Afghanistan as we speak. We have one Stryker brigade 

in the Army National Guard. That is the 56th Stryker Brigade, out 

of Pennsylvania. They deployed into Iraq, and they have been home 

now since last fall. They came home in September. They did a tremendous job over there. And that vehicle is a pretty impressive vehicle. And that unit got kudos across the board for their accomplishments in Iraq. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Fine. 

SUICIDES

And let me mention, if I might, Mr. Chairman—I know we are 

short on time—suicides. Everything I have read, suicides are up, 

unlike the other Army, active Army, and you all too. 

The young men and women or the men and women have support 

services that they can go to when they come out. I don’t think that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
190 

is available to them in the National Guard. Is that a reason why 

suicides are up? And why are they up. 

General MCKINLEY. Ma’am, the outcry from our Adjutants General in the States have brought us to the conclusion that we need 

to resource psychological counselors in each State. And I will let 

Ray cover it. 

I know, Jack, you have it, and Bud. 

But we have seen statistics that concern us greatly. And we had 

not put enough money into those programs prior to this spike in 

suicide rates and statistics. So I think all of us can assure you that 

we take this very seriously and we are throwing resources at it, 

which we think will help. 

Jack, do you want to start, and we will just go down the row? 

General STULTZ. Yes. 

It is an area of focus. Any soldier we lose is a tragedy, whether 

it is one or whether it is 20. 

The challenge we have right now in the Army Reserve is—I look 

at it from two different perspectives. One is, I have a challenge, unlike the active Army where we teach a battle buddy system and 

look out for your buddy and if your buddy is having problems you 

should take care of him; my problem is that battle buddy only sees 

his battle buddy 2 days out of month. See, the other 28 days he 

is back home with his family, with his civilian job. He comes to 

drill for that one weekend. 

And so we are trying to develop a program and an approach— 

just like General McKinley said, we have to put the resources out 

there, but we have to put them at the right location. We not only 

have to focus on the solder, we have to focus on the family, because 

that family is going to see that soldier the other 28 days of the 

month when he is exhibiting the concern that they have. And then 

we have to break down that stigma of ‘‘I can’t ask for help, I am 

a soldier’’ or ‘‘I can’t ask for help for my husband because I don’t 

want to hurt his career.’’ 

The other thing that we are confronted with is, most of the suicides that I am experiencing in the Army Reserve are not related 

to deployments. Most of the suicides that I am experiencing in the 

Army Reserve are soldiers who haven’t deployed. 

We are looking at the situation of, are we getting soldiers who 

are coming to us because they are looking for help and they are 

looking to us because they understand the camaraderie, the concern, the care of the military. 

And so we are trying to put a major focus on what we call our 

Sponsorship Program. When a new soldier comes to the Army Reserve, let’s grab that soldier right away, let’s find out what is going 

on in his life, let’s find out what made you join the Army Reserve. 

Because he may be dealing with something right now that brought 

him to us that we can interdict and we can keep a good soldier, 

because he wants to be a soldier, and not just focus on the stress 

and strain of deployments but what else is going on in their lives. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you. 

General CARPENTER. Ma’am, I would tell you that our experience 

is exactly the same as what Lieutenant General Stultz has described. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
191 

What we have found—and we do a detailed analysis on each one 

of these suicides, because we want to know what happened in that 

individual’s life that caused them to think that suicide was the best 

option in terms of their future. And so, in the analysis, what we 

find is that they have had some sort of a significant event inside 

of their life, either they have lost their girlfriend, they have lost 

their job, you name it. And the coping skills that these mostly 

young people have are something we need to reinforce. 

And we have inside the National Guard a resiliency program 

that is being sponsored primarily out of the State of Kansas with 

the Adjutant General there, and we are working it across the Army 

National Guard, that will build up the resiliency for those people 

who are considering that as an option and resist the temptation for 

suicide. 

And inside the Army, they are also developing a resiliency program with the same objective. We have State best practices programs across the 54 States and territories, and the Adjutant General on that level are dealing with the units and dealing with the 

particular issue of suicide. It is a very troubling statistic and something we are trying desperately to reverse. 

PILOT PROJECT

Mr. DICKS. You know, on that point, I would like to just mention 

something. I am aware of a group called Psychiatry Networks, who 

have been trying to work out a pilot project or something. These 

are a group of people, many of which have had Guard and Reserve 

experience, who are psychiatrists. 

You know, you think about this generation; the technology is 

something that they are involved in. And, you know, it just seems 

to me, especially for the Guard and Reserve, when these people 

come home and they are not at a base, having some way of going 

online—I know the Army is experimenting with one operation in 

Hawaii at this point. But I think this is another concept that 

should be considered, and especially by the Guard and Reserve. 

Ms. Kaptur. 

READJUSTMENT FOR RETURNING TROOPS

Ms. KAPTUR. I want to support the chairman in his suggestions 

there. And, actually, there is a program that is being used by—invented by an Ohio psychiatrist and psychologist that is a little 

handheld device where they listen. I would like to get one of those 

into each of your hands, if that would help. You can listen to it; 

you can give it to your staff. It is being used in the VA; it is being 

used in different ways. 

And I found that in our region—I represent northern Ohio. I 

don’t have a big base, but I have the best 180th Tactical Fighter 

Wing of F–16s in the country. And we thank you, General, for your 

leadership there. And I represent a Red Horse unit, a combat engineering, and also, on the Reserve side, 983rd Combat Engineering. 

They are phenomenal. 

But when they come home, what we find, because the commanding officers with the Reserve are over in Chicago but we are 

over in Ohio, two States away, that we lose these men and women. 

In fact, the one casualty we had out of the 983rd actually was sepaVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
192 

rated from his unit in Iraq and he wasn’t with a buddy, and it creates a more vulnerable situation. 

When they come home, they don’t want to go to the VA clinic; 

they just want to go back to whatever county they are from. And 

it doesn’t work that well at the local level. So we are glad you are 

focused on that. And I would just implore you to—we will send you 

this information, and maybe you can use it in some way. But we 

are looking for better ways to readjust those who are coming home. 

ENERGY

My major question really revolves around energy. I am dedicating a major portion of my career to make this country energyindependent. I don’t know that I am succeeding very much, but I 

am sure trying. 

And I know the Marine Corps is listening. They have a great segment on their Web site. Army is a little—I don’t know; they are out 

there somewhere. Navy is doing a lot. 

And my question to you is, to what extent has our commitment 

to energy independence as a country actually been operationalized 

inside of your commands? And both on, for instance, trucks. I represent all these big trucks. And are we working on research platforms with our local universities, with the Reserve, with the 

Guard, to use all kinds of ingenuity to bring up gas mileage and 

to get new energy systems in there, as well as on the bases that 

you command? What about getting energy use down there, using 

new technologies? 

How embedded is this in your operations, or are we still just at 

the cutting edge of all of this? 

General MCKINLEY. Ma’am, I am in my fifth year here on this 

assignment. I was the director of the Air Guard before this. Both 

services, Air Force and Army, have put an awful lot of emphasis 

in these programs, which then translates down to the Army Guard 

and the Air Guard. 

Each director had some statistical data that I pulled up today, 

because I knew you might be interested in this issue because you 

were last year. So they will give you—— 

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you for remembering. 

General MCKINLEY. No, ma’am, I know that. And we thank you 

for that interest, because we think we have to put more emphasis 

in conserving our resources. DoD is the largest consumer of energy 

of anybody in the government. 

My charge to both the directors of the Army and the Air Guard 

is to do continuous process improvement and wring out every efficiency we can. Because I know that it is not going to be long before 

the budgets in the Department of Defense are going to start getting 

more constrained, and we are going to have to wring out every dollar that we can within the National Guard to sustain the programs 

that are most meaningful to us. 

So, that is my commitment to the Committee and to you, ma’am, 

is that we will continue to do that. But I would like, if you have 

a second—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
193 

PETROLEUM PRODUCT FUELS

Ms. KAPTUR. Just on the record, General, for Ohio, our General 

Yatt, our Adjutant, told us that one-third of his State share is 

spent on utilities, on facilities maintenance. And I said, what if we 

could relieve you of that burden and you could put it into readiness? Boy, his eyes got real big. 

General MCKINLEY. Greg knows how this works, and he is a very 

strong advocate for this. 

But, Bud, Air; and then Army; and then, Jack, I am sure you 

have a comment. 

General WYATT. First of all, Congresswoman Kaptur, a comment. 

Air Force-wide, you probably have been following the conversion 

from use of petroleum product fuels. We are the largest user of petroleum products of any—— 

Ms. KAPTUR. I have noticed. 

General WYATT. And what we are doing, we have an Air Forcewide program to take a look at biofuels conversion and testing 

biofuels in place of petroleum products. And we are making great 

progress. 

Ms. KAPTUR. I would love to have someone, General, come and 

see me on that, so I can see where you are headed. 

General WYATT. I will accommodate that, yes, ma’am. 

And, also, I think the State of the Ohio is listening to you. I remember early in my tenure as a director visiting the 180th Fighter 

Wing, Block 42 F–16s, in Toledo—— 

Ms. KAPTUR. Best in the country. 

General WYATT [continuing]. And a great, innovative solar energy farm that they have in place up there. 

We have in the Air National Guard several initiatives across the 

country. I took a brief this morning from the Virgin Island Air National Guard exploring wind tunnel and wave action energy to help 

offset some of the costs of energy consumption in the Virgin Islands. 

But we have done audits across all of the Air National Guard 

bases. We know where our problems are. We are now focusing 

about $25 million a year out of our particular budget toward now 

putting our money where our knowledge is, into solving some of 

our energy efficiency problems. 

Ms. KAPTUR. I am going to get a little parochial here, General, 

but I would love for you to work with the Reserve and figure out 

how to run a conduit from our F–16 unit up to the 983rd Combat 

Engineering Unit, and, all of a sudden, we help both bases. 

General WYATT. You know, when I visited the folks at Toledo, 

there are periods of the day when they generate more energy than 

they use. So that is an option. 

Ms. KAPTUR. And we would sure love that combat engineering 

unit to figure out how to store it. If we could do a fuel cell, whatever we need to do, to break through to new technologies, we are 

very interested in that. These are really intelligent people that are 

based out of those units, and they want to help. 

General CARPENTER. Ma’am, a quick comment. The Army established a goal in 2003 to reduce the energy consumption by 3 percent. And the Army National Guard, over that period of time, has 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
194 

reduced our consumption by 12 percent. And we are the only component that has met that requirement. So we are well aware of 

that particular initiative. 

But we use the vehicles that the Army produces, for the most 

part, and so we are kind of stuck with how that fuel consumption 

works. Where we can really be innovative is in the facility business, as you pointed out. 

And we have 15 States that are involved in different kinds of 

projects to conserve utilities. In North Carolina, we have a geothermal well that supports an installation there and reduces the 

utility costs. In other places we have wind farms and we have solar 

panels. 

So that is really, as you pointed out, that is really where the savings can be harvested inside the Army National Guard. 

Ms. KAPTUR. I know we have to vote, and the chairman has been 

very generous, but just let me say that, at our Air Guard base, they 

are looking at how to convert their fleets inside the base to plugin hybrids in the solar system that is up there. 

At the 983rd, we have the possibility to use local engineering talent at our university to help infuse the fuel systems with hydrogen 

in order to save on fuel and develop some new platforms. But we 

need the leadership at the national level to let these officers down 

at that level know it is okay. You know, we need these platforms 

out there at these Guard and Reserve bases, so anything you can 

do to help us on that would be greatly appreciated. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STRYKER BRIGADE

Mr. DICKS. All right. 

Let’s go back to the Stryker Brigade. What do you think of the 

double-V hull on this Stryker, the one that is being developed? 

General MCKINLEY. I will let the Army comment. 

General CARPENTER. Sir, it is being developed inside the Army 

Evaluation Command. They are, as I understand it, working to 

field that particular product out to the Stryker Brigades. 

I am not totally familiar with exactly what the status of that is, 

at this point. But suffice it to say, anything that protects soldiers 

is something that we absolutely are in support of. 

Mr. DICKS. Yes. Well, General Dynamics I think is working on 

this, and they are trying to develop it as quickly as possible. 

If a Stryker Brigade were added to the Army National Guard, 

where do you recommend it be located? And any answer that 

doesn’t have the West Coast involved—well, I make no secret that 

I have recommended that we do it. 

And Washington, Oregon, and California, I think all the Governors have written a letter suggesting that it be done with, I 

think, a battalion in each State. What do you think of that idea? 

General MCKINLEY. Well, General Casey is obviously aware of 

the interest of the three States on the West Coast. General Casey 

has expressed an interest to me to dialogue. Obviously, the Army 

will provide those resources to the component that they choose. 

I certainly think, from a strategic perspective, that the Stryker 

wheeled vehicle has applications to defense of the homeland. So I 

am interested in looking at ways to make sure that our single 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
195 

Pennsylvania Stryker Brigade has an ability to round out itself. We 

have a saying in the National Guard—Jack, I don’t know if it is 

in the Army Reserve—but if you have one of anything, it is not a 

good situation. So here we are in the National Guard with one 

Stryker brigade. We cannot cross-level. We can’t bring in people 

from other parts of the country to help. 

So, if the United States Army and if we were able to work an 

arrangement with the General Casey—the West Coast obviously is 

uncovered at this point. The southwest border, as we have talked 

about, is another area that is of concern to us. So those are my initial thoughts, sir. 

Mr. DICKS. So you would be interested, possibly, in more than 

just one additional unit, but possibly a third? 

General MCKINLEY. Sir, I can’t get into General Casey’s force 

modernization strategy, but I will tell you that both Jack and Ray 

have expressed an interest to me that this is a vehicle that is being 

used today; it is the future. It has much more relevance than a 

tracked vehicle for a variety of reasons. And so, as General Casey 

looks at his force lay-down, I certainly want to be at the table, and 

I know Jack and Ray do, too, when that discussion is made. 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. The Army is talking about a new Bradley, 

right, or a follow-on to Bradley? Yeah. Has the Guard been involved in any of that discussion or not? 

General CARPENTER. Well, sir, the only thing I am aware of is 

the new ground combat vehicle that is a replacement for the FCS 

program at this point. And it is in its initial stages inside the 

Army, at this point, sir. 

M1 ABRAMS TANK

Mr. DICKS. Okay. What about the M1 Abrams tank? The Army 

budget request includes procuring two variants of the M1 Abrams 

tank. One version is the M1A1 situational awareness tank, and the 

other is the M1A2 system enhancement package. What are the advantages of each tank, and what are the key differences? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, I would have to take that question for 

the record, if I could, please. 

[The information follows:] 

The M1A2 SEP comes with the following upgrades: • Stabilized Commanders Weapon Station (CWS) • Armored Gun Shields • Counter Remote Control Improvised Explosive Device Electronic Warfare 

(CREW) II A kits 

• Drivers rear Security System 

• Improved Line Replaceable Units (LRU) 

• Tank infantry phone 

• Improved voltage regulator 

• Blue Force Tracker and Force XXI Battle Command for Brigades & Below 

(FBCB2) 

The M1A2 SEP doubles the all weather sensor capabilities to produce a true 

‘‘hunter-killer’’ platform, while the updated computers provides split-second Command and Operations over the entire spectrum of conflict. The open architecture of 

the SEP is ready to accept the insertion of capability sets and other technology, 

while the built in testing and prognostics saves diagnosis and repair time and 

money. The upgrades to the SEP create an extraordinarily survivable and lethal 

fighting platform that provides the Soldier with an even greater advantage. 

Mr. DICKS. The Army justification material indicates that the 

M1A1 situational awareness tanks are for the Army National 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
196 

Guard and the M1A2 system enhancement package tanks are for 

the active Army. 

What is the rationale in providing one type of M1 tank to the 

Army National Guard and another to active units? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, currently we have two variants of tanks 

inside the Army National Guard, so this is not an unusual situation. As we deploy these units into theater, normally they get the 

most modern equipment and the most capable equipment. And so 

we have seen, inside of the deployments we have made, especially 

in 2005 when we were deploying heavy forces, that the best, the 

most modern piece of equipment was the tank that we used. 

Now, as we see additional Stryker brigades fielded inside the 

Army, for instance, those newer, modern tanks will cascade to us 

inside the Army National Guard. 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. 

What about sniper detection? Are you involved in that at all? I 

assume you are. 

General STULTZ. From the Army Reserve’s perspective, no, sir. 

MISSION-ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT LIST (MEEL)

Mr. DICKS. Just for the record, the Army has provided countersniper equipment to units in response to operational need statements from units which requested devices that are deployed or preparing to deploy. 

Should counter-sniper equipment be standard issue for Army 

units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan. Does the Army have a 

plan to make a soldier-worn and vehicle-mounted counter-sniper 

devices standard issue? What has been the feedback from soldiers 

who have used counter-sniper devices in combat? 

Anybody have anything on that? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, the deployment process for units that 

go to Iraq and Afghanistan is they get a MEEL, a mission-essential 

equipment list. And inside that MEEL, that is where you would 

find the counter-sniper capability as well as some of the other capabilities that you described. 

As it is recognized by the theater commander or the units in theater as a requirement for that mission, it becomes part of the 

MEEL. And so, that is over and above what the normal equipment 

is that goes with that unit. 

Mr. DICKS. So how do people train in that situation? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, they either train—— 

Mr. DICKS. In Kuwait or in country or—— 

General CARPENTER. That is what I was going to say. They either 

train at the mobilization station before they depart CONUS, or 

they train in Kuwait, for instance, at Camp Buehring before they 

go up into Iraq. 

Mr. DICKS. But they do have some opportunity to train on the 

equipment they are going to be using, right? 

General CARPENTER. Yes, sir. 

UH–60 SHORTFALLS

Mr. DICKS. What are the current UH–60 shortfalls in the Army 

Reserve and the Army National Guard? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
197 

General CARPENTER. Sir, with regard to the Army National 

Guard, our biggest problem isn’t the shortfall of the UH–60s. We 

actually, by the time we get the new piece of the modernization 

program here inside of fiscal year 2011, we will have the requisite 

number of UH–60s. 

Our problem is modernization. When we get completed with the 

modernization program for the UH–60—that is the A to D model 

program that we are involved in right now, and the A to A model— 

we will still have over 200 aircraft at the end of that, which is in 

2021–2022, I believe. We will still have aircraft that are not modernized. So, past the POM that we are dealing with right now, I 

think the number is around 220 aircraft. 

Mr. DICKS. Right. So, in the NGREA account, there is not enough 

money there to be able to take care of these kinds of requirements, 

right? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, we have not purchased any UH–60 helicopters with the NGREA account at this point. We are looking at 

that as an option, and we are working with the Secretary of Defense and also with, I believe, some of the members of your staff 

on that particular issue. 

NGREA ACCOUNT

Mr. DICKS. Let me ask you—you just raised a very interesting 

point. Do you get advice from the Secretary of Defense on how to 

spend the NGREA money? I thought we gave it to the Guard and 

you were supposed to figure it out. But I can understand that the 

Secretary could have a role in that, but how does that work? 

General MCKINLEY. Sir, we do that within the National Guard. 

The Secretary allows us to do that. We brief it up through the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Reserve Affairs so that they 

have full visibility. But what you send the money to us to do is 

what we do. 

Mr. DICKS. And we give you flexibility to pick out your highest 

priority items, right? 

General MCKINLEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. 

General Carpenter, do you have any comment on that? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, we have almost solely purchased what 

we call critical dual-use equipment inside the Army National 

Guard with the NGREA account, and we will continue to do that. 

We have never, however, purchased a UH–60 aircraft, to this point. 

And we haven’t been told no. And, frankly, we are interested. 

Mr. DICKS. General Wyatt, what are the current HH–60 shortfalls in the Air National Guard? 

General WYATT. Mr. Chairman, we have three HH–60 combat 

search and rescue (CSAR) units in the Air National Guard: New 

York, Alaska, and California—five aircraft at each of those locations. I believe there is a program of acquisition in the Air Force 

now for six HH–60s to replace aircraft lost in theater. I think those 

aircraft are scheduled to go to the active component. 

When the CSAR–X program was cancelled, our concern became 

replacement and/or recapitalization of our aging HH–60 fleet. So 

while we don’t currently have any shortfalls in the number of airframes, we are looking at ways to improve the capabilities and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
198 

make sure that those aircraft that we have are recapitalized and/ 

or modernized until the next platform of choice comes on line with 

the United States Air Force. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Visclosky. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I am fine, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. I have a couple more questions, but why don’t 

we go vote? 

[Recess.] 

SPIN-OUTS FOR THE BRIGADE MODERNIZATION EQUIPMENT

Mr. DICKS. We have General Carpenter here. 

When will the Army National Guard units begin to receive items 

of equipment that are spinouts from the cancelled Future Combat 

System program? Or will you? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, originally there was no plan for us to 

receive the spinouts. And subsequently there has been a plan now 

put in place for, I believe it is two brigades inside the Army National Guard that are going to receive those spinouts, probably 

somewhere post-2015. 

Mr. DICKS. 2015. What is your assessment of the potential contribution of the spinout equipment to the Army National Guard 

units? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, most of those spinouts are technologyoriented and will improve the capability of the unit as they assume 

their mission. 

Mr. DICKS. Will they have any relevance to the State mission? 

General CARPENTER. The spinouts that I have seen, sir, may 

have. I would like to take that one for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

The Spin-outs for the Brigade Modernization Equipment are tentatively scheduled 

to reach the Army National Guard (ARNG) late in FY13. The ARNG will either receive the XM 156 Class 1 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle or the XM1216 Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle from the Future Combat Systems spin out program. Both 

vehicles have the potential to be used in support of domestic operations as well as 

for the tactical mission. 

Mr. DICKS. Yeah. And you might as well do this: What do you 

expect this equipment will contribute to the tactical mission and 

for the disaster relief? So we will do that one for the record. 

[The information follows;] 

The ARNG will either receive the XM 156 Class 1 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle or 

the XM1216 Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle from the Future Combat Systems 

spin out program. Both vehicles have the potential to be used in support of domestic 

operations, as well as for the tactical mission. 

The committee understands that A-model Apaches found only in 

the Army National Guard units are not considered deployable for 

the current fights. The Army has been in the process of converting 

early-model AH–64A aircraft to the AH–64D configuration. What is 

the status of getting all of the older A-model Apaches converted to 

D-models? 

General CARPENTER. Sir, we have four units, four battalions that 

have not been modernized; read that: Go from the AH–64D model 

to the Longbow model. And we are scheduled to complete the transformation of all those battalions by 2014. 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. Is the A to D conversion fully funded? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
199 

General CARPENTER. Sir, it is in the POM. 

Mr. DICKS. It is in the POM, okay. 

What training aids or simulators are available to train air crews 

to avoid both hostile and non-hostile losses? 

General WYATT. Can I take that for the Air National Guard, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. DICKS. Yeah. Yeah. 

General WYATT. We do have some simulation at some of our 

units, primarily fighter units, to avoid the hostile fire. 

Mr. DICKS. But what about the Apaches? Do the Apaches have 

simulators? 

General CARPENTER. Yes, sir. There is a simulation program at 

the Army Aviation Center in Rucker. And there are also some regional aviation training sites where there are simulators for that 

purpose. 

Mr. DICKS. All right. I think we have covered it. Thank you very 

much. We appreciate your good work. 

And the committee stands adjourned until April the 21st at 10:00 

a.m., when we will hold a hearing on the national capital register 

master plan for medical. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions submitted by Mr. Tiahrt and the answers thereto follow:] 

AT–6B NATIONAL GUARD DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

Question. Last week, the RAND Corporation released a study recommending investing in Irregular Warfare capability, including purchasing 100 AT–6B-like aircraft (along with 30 additional MC–12s–ISR aircraft). 

Can you please explain what the current timeline is for the AT–6B Air National 

Guard Demonstration Program? 

Answer. The ANG AT–6B demo is scheduled for August/September 2010. 

Question. What do you see the future of Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance aircraft in the Guard and active force? 

Answer. While the Air National Guard (ANG) cannot address how the active force 

will ultimately organize, train, and equip the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance 

(LAAR) force; the ANG is full partners with the active force in developing this much 

needed capability. The ANG has addressed the possible future of the LAAR aircraft 

within the ANG force structure as part of the ANG Flight Plan, excerpted below: 

‘The ANG has a pool of highly qualified specialists that would bring immediate 

experience and expertise to Irregular Warfare (IW) missions in both material and 

non-material solutions. The work force maturity and experience of ANG pilots and 

maintainers will benefit the Building Partnership Capacity aspect of the LAAR mission. The ANG’s dual federal/state missions and cross-domain expertise makes the 

ANG well-suited to perform IW-focused missions. 

In the test and training areas, the ANG has a proven record of achievement in 

fighter/attack test and training through the ANG Air Force Reserve Test Center 

(AATC) and Formal Training Units. Additionally, the ANG is already involved with 

LAAR technology development through the AATC/AT–6 demonstration and a formal 

cross-flow of information with the Imminent Fury Operation Test and Evaluation. 

The United States Air Force post-Base Realignment and Closure fighter draw 

down will leave many ANG fighter units without a mission, risking the loss of valuable fighter/attack experience and absorbable cockpits. These units have basing facilities and access to airspace and ranges that would facilitate bed-down of a LAAR 

force. 

As evidenced by the ANG’s mature partnership efforts through the State Partnership Program, heavy participation in Remotely Piloted Aircraft operations and processing, exploitation, and dissemination the ANG is already involved in IW efforts. 

As IW-related mission areas mature—specifically with regards to procurement levels, organization constructs, and training requirements—the ANG will likely be 

well-suited for proportional representation. In addition to presenting highly experienced personnel to the Combatant Commands, Guardsmen can provide the capabiliVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
200 

ties of IW platforms to the states to meet emerging Incident Awareness and Assessment and Defense Support of Civilian Authorities needs.’ 

AFRICOM 

Question. In addition, Thomas Lamont, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve affairs, said ‘‘Our Reserve force can play a great role in U.S. 

Army Africa’s missions, bringing with them military skills and also skills from their 

civilian lives that apply to emerging nations on the African continent.’’ 

What are your thoughts on growing the role and responsibility of the Army Reserve in AFRICOM? Would it make sense to have an AFRICOM dedicated Army Reserve Theater Support Command base in the United States? 

Answer. The Army Reserve has built Echelon Above Brigade (EAB) Combat Support (CS)/Combat Service Support (CSS) as one of its core competencies. Our Civil 

Affairs, Engineer, Medical, Logistic and Training capabilities fit well with 

AFRICOM’s potential needs. To your specific question, today we provide 38% of the 

Army’s EAB CSS capability and are well positioned to assume an additional Theater 

Support Command (TSC) if the Army’s requirement system determines there is a 

need for it. Currently the Army has not made the determination if AFRICOM and 

United States Army Africa (USARAF) require a TSC. The Total Army Analysis 14– 

18 (TAA 14–18) is in progress and will validate all force structure requirements; 

this will provide the analysis to support the Army leadership in making resourcing 

decisions. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Tiahrt. 

Questions submitted by Mr. Dicks and the answer thereto follow:] 

CIVIL SUPPORT TEAMS

Question. As you are aware, since calendar year 2000, Congress has appropriated 

over half a billion dollars to establish, certify and equip the 57 Weapons of Mass 

Destruction—Civil Support Teams (CST) Teams. Recognizing the extremely perishable skills of the Teams and the need for a coordinated and standardized training 

program, in Fiscal Year 2007 Congress authorized and appropriated the CST 

Sustainment Training and Evaluation Program. This program directly addresses the 

Commission on the National Guard and Reserve stated concern that the nation 

‘‘does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available’’ to respond to a chemical, 

biological or nuclear weapons incident, creating ‘‘an appalling gap that places the 

nation and its citizens at greater risk.’’ 

Since the initiation of CST STEP, over forty (40) teams have received collective 

sustainment training at the HAMMER Training and Education Center ensuring 

that a critical national asset is ready to respond at any time, in a coordinated fashion, to CBRNE incidents. Throughout the past several years Congress has worked 

closely with the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to support long-term programmatic 

funding for the CST STEP. NGB staff continue to be supportive of the CST STEP 

and the HAMMER facility, however, I am concerned with your commitment to make 

CST STEP a program of record. What are your plans for funding the CST STEP 

in the current fiscal year? What are your plans for funding the CST STEP in Fiscal 

Year 2012? 

Answer. CST STEP remains an important program to ensure readiness of critical 

CBRNE and disaster response capability within the United States. Although we do 

not have current year funds, we are working closely with the Services to seek FY12– 

17 POM funding for live agent training in support of our CST capability. Recently, 

Congress has not fully appropriated requested funding for the CSTs and other NG 

CBRNE capabilities. However, the NG remains committed to seeking out all training venues that effectively meets documented training requirements and are supportable within the budget appropriated by Congress. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Dicks.] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(201) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010.

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 

WITNESSES 

CHARLES L. RICE. M.D., PRESIDENT, UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES, PERFORMING THE DUTIES FOR 

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS 

DOROTHY ROBYN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT) 

VADM JOHN MATECZUN, MC, USN, COMMANDER, JOINT TASK FORCE 

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION MEDICAL 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DICKS

Mr. DICKS. The committee will come to order. 

Today, the Committee will receive testimony regarding the National Capital Region integration as a result of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure, known as BRAC. This hearing will cover 

the comprehensive master plan and various medical treatment 

issues pertaining to soldiers and their family members. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, 

with full support from this Committee, required the Department of 

Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive master plan to 

provide world-class military medical facilities and an integrated 

system of health care delivery for the NCR. Military medicine in 

the National Capital Region already incorporates many of the 

world-class attributes and capabilities. However, the Committee is 

concerned about the timeline for integration and ensuring that access to treatment is not disrupted. 

The 2005 BRAC recommendation that will realign operations 

from Walter Reed Army Medical Center to the new Walter Reed 

National Military Medical Center and Fort Belvoir Community 

Hospital is the Department’s first step in the larger effort to transform the way it delivers health care in the NCR. This transition 

represents the most significant realignment of medical care, including the movement of patients, physicians, and facilities, in the history of the Department of Defense. DOD has estimated the total 

cost of the newly identified requirements associated with achieving 

the new standard will be $781 million. 

The projects, including conversion to single-patient rooms and replacement and renovation of older infrastructure on the campus, 

requires a mix of military construction and operation and maintenance funding. The plan intends to provide wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers with access to warrior transition services 

that will surpass the quality of current services. The plan will also 

provide a road map to continue improving healthcare facilities for 

our military families. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
202 

The Committee understands that resolving budgetary and governance issues is critical to the success of this integration. The 

Committee stands ready to assist, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the Department to develop a plan to guide the way ahead. 

The committee would hope that the Department would take seriously the need to fully fund in future budget submissions the upgrade and/or replacement of military medical facilities throughout 

the enterprise. 

Now I will turn to Mr. Young for any comments that he would 

like to make. 

REMARKS OF MR. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I wanted to 

join with you in welcoming our distinguished panel this morning. 

The condition of our medical facilities in the National Capital Region and throughout the country is an issue that is very important 

to me and to this subcommittee. 

Since the beginning of the war on terror, my wife and I have 

spent hundreds of days at both Bethesda and Walter Reed and 

know firsthand the challenges facing our wounded soldiers who receive their treatment there and their families who—at some point, 

the government leaves off, but the families still need a lot of help 

and especially the medical professionals who take such good care 

of them. 

The BRAC decision to consolidate these facilities has been made; 

and so we focus our attention to making sure that our men and 

women, our heroes, our warriors serving our country and their 

families, are provided with the world-class health care facilities 

they deserve. It is both of our jobs to make sure that happens, and 

it is a job that we on this subcommittee take very seriously, and 

I am sure that our panel does as well. 

So I look forward to our discussion this morning, Mr. Chairman, 

and I thank you for the tremendous interest that you have always 

shown in our wounded heroes and our medical facilities. I look forward to this hearing this morning. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DICKS. Dr. Rice, you may proceed with your statement. Your 

entire statement will be placed in the record. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. RICE

Dr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of 

the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our plans 

for fully implementing the BRAC decisions as they relate to military medical transformation in the National Capital Region. I want 

to offer a few brief statements today about where we are headed 

in the next 17 months, as well as over the longer term. 

The decision to consolidate medical functions in the National 

Capital Region is one of the single most transformative initiatives 

in the military health system, as you have already observed. It will 

change how we deliver and integrate health care delivery in a joint 

environment. 

We have 440,000 beneficiaries in this region, 80,000 of whom are 

enrolled in our military hospitals and clinics. The NCR also serves 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
203 

as the principal referral center for casualties aeromedically evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan combat theaters, a population to 

whom we have profound obligations. 

The major transition activities planned for completion in the next 

17 months include the closure of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 

and the relocation of many of the clinical activities to the Bethesda 

Naval Hospital campus to become the new Walter Reed National 

Military Medical Center; relocation of other Walter Reed activities 

to a newly built community hospital at Fort Belvoir; the closure of 

inpatient services at the medical center at Andrews Air Force base, 

with a comprehensive ambulatory care clinic and aeromedical staging facility remaining in place. 

Construction at both the Bethesda and Fort Belvoir sites is well 

under way. Our approach to medical facility design is new. Investments in evidence-based design concepts for our new facilities offer 

a better healing environment for patients and their families and 

other important benefits to include lower infection rates and shorter lengths of stay. 

The hospital at Fort Belvoir will be a showcase for this new approach. Admiral Mateczun, Dr. Robyn, and I recently visited the 

Fort Belvoir hospital last month, and we were all impressed by the 

design concepts being incorporated that will create an unmatched 

healing environment. 

I thank you again for this opportunity. The new approach to 

health care in the National Capital Region will set new standards 

for design, service, and quality. We believe it will be a model not 

just for military medicine, but for United States medicine. I appreciate the ongoing support of this committee and your continuing interest as we complete our master transition plan and finalize our 

governance model. 

I am pleased to respond to any questions that you may have, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The statement of Dr. Rice follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
204 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 628 here 65009B.001
205 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 629 here 65009B.002
206 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 630 here 65009B.003
207 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 631 here 65009B.004
208 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 632 here 65009B.005
209 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 633 here 65009B.006
210 

Mr. DICKS. We will finish the witnesses and then go to questions. 

Dr. Robyn, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations 

and Environment. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. ROBYN

Dr. ROBYN. Thank you, Chairman Dicks, Congressman Young, 

distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am honored to appear before you this morning. 

My office is the advocate for maintaining the investment necessary for our facilities to support our missions and personnel effectively. My office also oversees the BRAC process which, among 

other things, has been a significant engine for the recapitalization 

of our enduring facilities. The 2005 BRAC process is channeling a 

significant amount of money into our enduring facilities, with hospitals and medical facilities among the largest beneficiaries. 

The 2005 BRAC commission endorsed the Department of Defense’s proposal to consolidate and realign medical care delivery in 

the National Capital Region. The BRAC decision recognized that 

the renovation of the aged and deteriorating Walter Reed facility 

was not the best use of our resources. By allowing us to channel 

these resources to the new configuration, BRAC addressed longstanding health care facility needs in the National Capital Region. 

In the Department’s view, this restructuring will transform medical 

care delivery in the NCR. 

Now, with less than 17 months to go before the BRAC deadline, 

September 2011, we are on schedule and on track to provide stateof-the-art facilities under the BRAC program for our wounded warriors and other beneficiaries in the National Capital Region. 

As Dr. Rice said, we just toured the construction at Bethesda. It 

is quite remarkable, 10 years of construction activity going on in 

2-and-a-half years’ space of time on a very small footprint with a 

number of challenges. 

In the course of transforming medical care in the NCR, we have 

made positive course corrections at several points in response to 

outside independent reviews. I won’t go into detail on those, but I 

will say that the enhancements that resulted from responding to 

those outside recommendations account for most of the increase in 

the cost of this BRAC process. It was originally estimated to cost 

$1 billion in the NCR and has ended up costing $2.6 billion. A little 

bit of that was inflation given the very high inflation we saw in the 

construction industry, but most was actual expansion of scope and 

improvements that were not initially anticipated. 

In addition, because of these course corrections, by the time we 

complete the medical BRAC construction at Bethesda and Belvoir, 

those facilities will have many of the attributes of the world-class 

standard as defined by the Defense Health Board. 

In addition to the improvements we have already made, we will 

be making longer-term efforts to achieve all of the world-class attributes at Bethesda. However, those improvements should occur 

separate from BRAC and after we have completed the BRAC construction process. The reason is simple. We have an enormous 

amount of construction under way now at Bethesda linked to 

BRAC. As we said, the installation has a small footprint and the 

terrain and the on-base roads impose additional constraints. We 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
211 

simply cannot undertake any additional construction without jeopardizing the safety of ongoing medical operations. 

I appreciate this opportunity to highlight what we are doing. My 

colleagues and I look forward to working with the Congress to help 

make these goals a reality. Thank you. 

[The statement of Dr. Robyn follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
212 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 637 here 65009B.007
213 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 638 here 65009B.008
214 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 639 here 65009B.009
215 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 640 here 65009B.010
216 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 641 here 65009B.011
217 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 642 here 65009B.012
218 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 643 here 65009B.013
219 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 644 here 65009B.014
220 

Mr. DICKS. All right. Admiral Mateczun. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL MATECZUN

Admiral MATECZUN. Thank you, Chairman Dicks, Ranking Member Young and other distinguished members of the subcommittee 

for inviting us here to discuss the Department’s progress in transforming military medicine in the National Capital Region to improve care for our Nation’s servicemembers, particularly those most 

in need of our help, the wounded warriors who are returning from 

Iraq and Afghanistan, retirees, and their families. 

This committee has gone to extraordinary measures to support 

these efforts in the National Capital Region. Not only will these efforts allow for enhanced cancer care in the region, the committee’s 

support has and will continue to be invaluable to the Department’s 

efforts to achieve the new statutory world-class medical facility 

standards at the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital. 

The comprehensive master plan required in the fiscal year 2010 

NDAA is in the final stages of approval within the Department and 

is a top priority for DOD top leaders. I have had the opportunity 

to meet with Admiral Mullen, as the chairman; the vice chairman, 

General Cartwright; and the services chiefs in the tank on many 

occasions to discuss military medicine in the National Capital Region. Dr. Rice and Dr. Robyn, who are here today, Dr. Stanley and 

Mr. Hale and Secretary Lynn have been intimately involved 

throughout the development of this plan. This type of involvement 

from the Department’s top leaders is an indication of our commitment to the issue and its inherent complexity. 

Military medicine and the National Capital Region has made 

great progress in incorporating additional attributes of world class 

as defined by the Defense Health Board and codified in the fiscal 

year 2010 NDAA. DOD has provided $65 million of funding in fiscal year 2010 to expand the existing operating rooms at Bethesda 

to achieve that new world-class standard. It has also realigned 

$125 million in additional fiscal year 2010 BRAC funding for Bethesda to address many other recommendations of the Defense 

Health Board’s panel, including the incorporation of input from clinicians and end users. 

Moreover, the Department has requested $80 million in fiscal 

year 2011 of the President’s budget to expand ADA-compliant lodging and parking on the Bethesda installation. The lodging design 

that we are now using will support warriors and nonmedical attendants in a two-bedroom suite concept that will improve on the 

Malone House model at use at Walter Reed today. 

We have moved into this era where we are providing rehabilitation to the wounded warriors who are coming back, particularly 

those with wound injuries and amputation and traumatic brain injury, and this rehabilitation requires a new model for the lodging 

that we use for them. It requires that we transition them from an 

inpatient status to activities of daily living with a nonmedical attendant, if necessary, and then move them on to becoming increasingly independent in those activities of daily living and then even 

off campus to make sure that they have achieved the independence 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
221 

necessary to move on, either back into the Department or into retirement. 

Once the BRAC renovations are finished, conversion to single-patient rooms, which is one of the newly established world-class 

standards, will be more than 50 percent complete on the Bethesda 

campus. When approved, the master plan will show how the Department will address those additional world-class attributes that 

are required, and the plan will address concerns expressed in letters this committee and the House Armed Services Committee sent 

to the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary. 

Thank you again for inviting us to discuss the progress of military medicine and for the critical support that this committee has 

provided. I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of admiral Mateczun follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
222 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 648 here 65009B.015
223 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 649 here 65009B.016
224 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 650 here 65009B.017
225 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 651 here 65009B.018
226 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 652 here 65009B.019
227 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 653 here 65009B.020
228 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 654 here 65009B.021
229 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 655 here 65009B.022
230 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 656 here 65009B.023
231 

MASTER PLAN SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS

Mr. DICKS. All right. With the submission of the DOD’s comprehensive master plan delayed, can Congress expect a timely submission regarding a construction schedule and an update on other 

portions of the comprehensive master plan by June 30, 2010, as required by the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Chairman Dicks, the Department will have 

those plans that are required by the NDAA by the end of June. 

Those plans will provide significant granularity about the detail 

necessary to meet those requirements. You have mentioned an 

amount here that those reports will address very specifically; and, 

in addition, any of the questions that remain about authorities will 

also be addressed in that report. 

Mr. DICKS. Does the Department believe there will be enough 

lodging at the new Walter Reed to support wounded warriors, nonmedical attendants, and families? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. The number of rooms that will be 

available on the Bethesda campus, there will be room for all of the 

wounded warriors who need nonmedical attendants. They will be 

completely ADA compliant. In addition, there will be rooms for the 

nonmedical attendants that are necessary for those wounded warriors and for family members. 

Mr. DICKS. What is the Department’s position on Representative 

Davis’ legislation that establishes JTF CAPMED and places Secretary Lynn in charge of running hospitals in the National Capital 

Region? 

Dr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, the Department is currently reviewing 

that legislation and has not yet come to a conclusion. 

Mr. DICKS. What capabilities at Walter Reed will be lost during 

the transition and after the transition is complete? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Mr. Chairman, all of the capabilities that 

exist separately at Walter Reed today and at Bethesda are incorporated into the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, so 

no capabilities will be lost in the end state. There are singular capabilities at each, singular capability for amputee care, for instance, at Walter Reed that will transfer in toto to the Bethesda 

campus and is included in the new construction and will actually 

be enhanced from a facility’s perspective. 

The open traumatic brain injury capability that exists at Bethesda today will still exist at Bethesda in the future, and we will 

have increased inpatient capability. So that in the end state all of 

those world-class capabilities or best-in-the-world capabilities will 

be included in the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. 

Mr. DICKS. Does the Department still believe it can complete the 

transition of Walter Reed by the BRAC deadline, September 15, I 

think, 2011? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. Does the Department plan to apply the new worldclass definition to other hospitals in the military health system? 

Dr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, the Department is planning to incorporate those elements of world-class design into future facilities. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
232 

Mr. DICKS. How will the Department ensure that project requirements identified for world class at the new Walter Reed Bethesda 

will be funded? 

Dr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, the Department supports the President’s budget and believes those requirements in the current fiscal 

year and in fiscal year 2011 are fully funded. 

Mr. DICKS. So the $80 million in the 2011 appropriation bill request for ADA requirements, is that all at Walter Reed? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. That is on the Bethesda campus. 

Mr. DICKS. At the new campus. 

Will the world-class requirements at the new Walter Reed Bethesda be identified in time to inform the POM 2012 process? 

Dr. RICE. Yes, sir. The POM process is under way, and the attributes of world class are being incorporated into the planning as 

we consider future projects. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Young. 

MORALE OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The last time we met, Admiral, in a hearing about a year ago, 

I guess, I asked a question about morale on the part of the medical 

personnel, because there was some confusion about who was in 

charge. If you remember, I asked that specific question, who was 

in charge, and you answered you were, which helped identify where 

we direct those questions. The morale problem was because doctors 

weren’t sure where they were going to be and what they were going 

to be doing. Has that situation improved? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir, I believe that situation has improved. 

To give you an example, we just had three town hall meetings 

with the civilian workforce at Walter Reed. There are 2,200 skilled 

medical civilian personnel that are there, and they have been wanting to know where it is that they are going to go, are they going 

to have a job, and which hospital would it be at. 

What we were able to tell them is that we were finishing the 

process now. We had promised them last year we would come back 

and let them know by spring of this year where it was they would 

be going. They have kept faith with us and stayed on the job at 

Walter Reed, and we will be notifying them no later than the first 

of July about where the job opportunities were going to be. 

There were not many questions about the morale. They were concerned primarily about whether they would be able to get into the 

Fort Belvoir and Bethesda hospitals, whether the traffic was going 

to be really bad, and whether there was going to be parking on the 

complex. So I think the morale has significantly improved. 

AMPUTEE CARE AND TREATMENT

Mr. YOUNG. I agree with that, by the way. In visiting at Walter 

Reed, I see quite a lot of Navy medical personnel, and at Bethesda 

I see a lot of Army medical personnel, and everybody seems to be 

working together really well, and that certainly bodes well for the 

patient, the wounded warrior. 

The committee has invested a lot of resources building up Walter 

Reed to become a world-class center for amputee treatment. How 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
233 

is this consolidation affecting those capabilities and will they be 

adequately replicated? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. They will be replicated and improved upon. 

Two particular ways they will be improved, within the MATC 

right now, that is over on the Walter Reed campus, is in temporary 

buildings. It will be incorporated into the new outpatient building 

on the Bethesda campus. It will have additional capabilities such 

as a rock climbing wall, which many of them use in their rehabilitation. Physical therapy and occupational therapy and the orthopedics capabilities are all going to be co-located. 

So, from a physical perspective, the care that they get as inpatients and during their rehabilitation will be extraordinary. 

The lodging is going to be I think one of the most significant improvements that we have. Today, at the Malone House, when there 

is maybe a person there that is undergoing limb salvage and they 

are in a wheelchair and they have a lot of appliances attached to 

them, it is not easy to get around in the rooms. In the new suites 

that are being built and in the administrative building that goes 

along with them and in the dining hall, we have designed very 

good spaces for them to be able to move around in. So I think they 

will actually be in a better environment than they are today. 

CENTER FOR DEPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY

Mr. YOUNG. That is good news. Because we do have a lot of amputee cases at both hospitals. This war has been vicious as it relates to our troops losing limbs. In fact, in your hospital at Bethesda today, there is a young man who lost most of both arms and 

most of both legs. It is a really sad situation, but I tell you his morale and his attitude is really super. These people, these heroes are 

really special, their attitude toward their country and mission and 

toward the military, and it makes you really proud. 

Dr. Rice and I had a brief conversation as we were entering the 

room before the hearing started, and he had some comments that 

I would like to get on the record. So I want to ask Dr. Rice about 

the Center for Deployment Psychology that is headquartered at Bethesda and now an integral part of the Centers of Excellence for 

Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury. Doctor, I was interested to hear what you told me as we were entering the room, 

and I would like to get those comments on the record, if you are 

willing. 

Dr. RICE. Yes, sir, Mr. Young. 

Under your leadership—— 

Mr. YOUNG. That was the part I wanted to hear. 

Dr. RICE [continuing]. You recognized that particularly returning 

guardsmen and reservists who often go back to areas of the country 

that are remote from military treatment facilities were seeking 

treatment for their psychological challenges from civilian psychologists who had no experience in the military. Thanks to your vision, 

we established the Center for Deployment Psychology at the Uniformed Services University expressly to provide educational opportunities for civilian psychologists in both one- and two-week 

courses to acquaint those psychologists with the challenges in the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
234 

combat environment so they can provide better care for the patients who sought their assistance. 

I am pleased to say that program has been very successful. It is 

now incorporated into the Department’s budget and is, as you 

pointed out, part of the Defense Centers of Excellence for Traumatic Brain Injury and Psychological Health. We are very proud of 

its accomplishments. 

Mr. YOUNG. Dr. Rice, thank you very much. I want to thank all 

of you. Caring for our wounded warriors has a high priority, and 

this committee views it as one of the highest priorities. If there is 

something that is needed in our medical military system that you 

don’t have, we would really appreciate you letting us know, because we want to make sure that nothing is left undone to care for 

our wounded warriors. 

I thank you all for your testimony this morning and look forward 

to the rest of the hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Visclosky. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. No questions at this time. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Moran. 

INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW

Mr. MORAN. I agree with the remarks by the chairman and the 

ranking member. This is hardly a confrontational hearing. We admire, respect, and appreciate all that you have been doing for the 

military needs of our service people. 

It was troubling, though, that the Independent Design Review 

that was required by the fiscal year 2009 defense authorization bill 

which was completed just last summer found that the Department’s plan would not result in a world-class facility at Walter 

Reed, that it would not meet joint commission accreditation standards, and that it was ambiguous about its vision, goals and expectations of the new hospital. It did find that the Fort Belvoir hospital would be a world-class facility. And some of the skeptics, it 

confirmed some of their worst fears. I thank you for turning it 

around. 

In that independent review, there was a comment that was particularly striking. It said, ‘‘Service-specific and facility-centric military health care cultures and a confusing and redundant chain of 

command was a particular concern of the independent review.’’ 

What do they mean by that? Obviously, they were deliberately obtuse there, but are you addressing that? Is it something we should 

be concerned about? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Mr. Moran, there is a tremendous question, 

and it is not just a military question. As I have gone out and talked 

to people that really want to help us out at the Mayo Clinic, the 

Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, and Kaiser, we grew up in a system 

that is built around facility hospitals or clinics, and it is very difficult to change that mind-set to integrate care for the patients all 

of the way through primary care, specialty care, including prevention and the other activities that we need to do. I believe that is 

what they were talking about on the facility-centric piece of it. 

I myself have commanded a medical center, hospital clinics, and 

when you are in that position you tend to focus on optimizing that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
235 

facility, rather than optimizing the patient experience. It is part of 

the structural difficulty that we have to deal with. We find ourselves every day still trying to break out of that as we form this 

new region here in the capital region with a north hub in Bethesda 

and a south hub down in Fort Belvoir. 

The service centricity seems to be focused on the fact that we 

have three different service systems. When you have three different 

service systems, that means that all policies diverge in execution. 

Everybody executes a little bit differently. Here in the National 

Capital Region, what that means is we have to go back to define 

standard operating procedures and align those divisions, particularly as they relate to patient safety and patient centric care. These 

are significant challenges. 

I think we are finding a way ahead to be able to do those things, 

but I don’t want to underrepresent the challenges that are presented in doing that. 

CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

Mr. MORAN. I can understand there are different approaches to 

mental health issues, but generally the practice of medicine is pretty consistent, at least in terms of its objective. 

Dr. Rice seems to be pregnant with a comment that you want to 

make, but let me raise something else, and then you can address 

this, too, if you would like. 

Chairman Murtha and I think Mr. Young and Mr. Dicks and 

probably all of the committee, we commended the Department of 

Defense particularly for including the Centers of Excellence in the 

construction plans for the new Walter Reed medical center and providing the funding that was needed to operate the centers. They 

nationally recognized naval military medicine to be in the forefront 

in the advancement of modern medical care, breast care, 

gynecologic care, prostate pain, neuroscience, integrated cardiac. 

They are really impressing the whole—you talked about Mayo and 

Cleveland clinics. They are impressing the entire country’s medical 

establishments with what has been achieved. 

But the reason I raise it is the amount of space that you have 

planned is less than is currently available at Walter Reed. I question even whether the amount of money being provided is consistent with what we thought was going to be an expansion of 

these Centers of Excellence. Can you address that as well? 

Dr. RICE. Yes, sir. Mr. Moran, on the subject of the Centers of 

Excellence, I think one of the challenges that any Center of Excellence in an academic environment faces is it is a new model and 

it takes awhile for the appropriate organizational effort to be 

brought together. We anticipate that there will be efficiencies of 

both space and of funding as a result of the way these are being 

designed. 

I would point to the cancer center that Admiral Mateczun spoke 

about earlier. What we have learned from the civilian academic 

world is that, rather than have the hematology oncology clinic located in one area and the surgical oncologist in another and the radiation oncologist in yet another, and the diagnostic radiologist, 

bringing them all together to better focus on the cancer patient’s 

needs does result in efficiencies of operation and, therefore, by imVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
236 

plication, by a lower funding requirement. And the space can be 

better utilized because for a substantial part of the day the surgeons, for example, are in the operating room and therefore the 

clinic facilities that they would be using are available to the radiation oncologist or to the hematologist oncologist. 

Mr. MORAN. So there is no reduction in prioritization or focus on 

the diagnosis? 

Admiral MATECZUN. No, sir. Actually, we have an implementation team led by Dr. Craig Shriver, who is the head of one of those 

centers, and they will identify to us what they believe are the requirements, and then we will bring back those and incorporate 

them. 

Since we have never done it within the DOD before, this is the 

first time, and we need to understand it. There is no need to reduce 

the space that they need. 

FT. BELVOIR BARRACKS AND SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. MORAN. One last question. There are some things that have 

seemed to have slipped through the cracks in this planning, and we 

hate for them to be identified when it is too late. For example, I 

had to ask for an additional $34 million for barracks to house the 

new facilities staff at Fort Belvoir. That hadn’t been handled. As 

you know about the infrastructure, and I won’t get into that because that is just too sticky a wicket to deal with right now in this 

context, but both at Fort Belvoir and Bethesda there are real questions about being able to handle the staff, patients, families, even 

the population around the facilities. 

But it just came to my attention that there is only one dining facility that is open after 6 p.m. At Bethesda, and it is a Subway. 

Think about that. Only Subway is open after 6 when you have 

thousands of people there? We have an NGO that has to provide 

once-a-month weekend meals at that facility to the families of 

wounded warriors because of the current lack of dining facilities. 

It seems like a mundane issue, but it is not mundane if you 

haven’t eaten all day, and it is 6, and there is nothing open on the 

entire campus. Have you thought about that? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. The lodging complex that is going 

up now, Building 62, includes a dining facility incorporated in it, 

particularly for the wounded warriors themselves. That dining hall 

will operate independently for them. 

We are looking at how to bring in the food courts or other things 

that we need to into current operations, but we will specifically address it in achieving the rest of those world-class standards. As we 

have gone out to the other places, what they tell us is the experience for patients is significantly enhanced with opportunities to eat 

other than dining facility types of food. We will make sure that 

those are incorporated. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Chairman Dicks. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

INTEGRATION OF MEDICAL FACILITIES

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you all for the remarkable job you 

do on behalf of some remarkable people who serve our country so 

well, those who have been injured both physically and mentally. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
237 

Committee members here have been witness to a lot of transformations. We saw some I think major progress with our VA system, which I think is still the world’s largest medical care system, 

and we obviously take a look at the transformation of our nuclear 

facilities and modernization. 

I just want to focus where Congressman Moran initially focused 

his remarks, on the command and governance plan. And I refer 

perhaps, Dr. Rice, to your remarks where you say ‘‘implementing 

the 2005 BRAC commission recommendation has required a careful 

choreography.’’ That is not exactly a military term, but I am interested in what in fact you are doing in terms of literally a command 

and governance plan? Can you put some meat on the bones here? 

Mr. Moran put his finger on it. You have each of the services 

which is proud of their history. I made the mistake a few years ago 

of complimenting the Marines for what they do to wrap their arms 

around their fellow Marines. When they are down from my state, 

New Jersey, they go in to look at all facilities, but they give special 

attention. I am just wondering, how you are putting this all together? Is there actually a plan here? And I ask the question because, when something goes south, people start pointing their fingers at others around them. 

Dr. RICE. Yes, sir. Congressman Frelinghuysen, I think President 

Kennedy summed it up well when he said, victory has many fathers; defeat is an orphan. 

The integration of medical facilities is a very complex undertaking. In the civilian world, which is where I spent much of my 

career, in the civilian academic world, there are a number of examples of mergers or attempted mergers between large facilities: Penn 

State Geisinger comes to mind, the University of California at San 

Francisco and Stanford, Beth Israel and Deaconess in Boston are 

just a couple that come to mind. They are very complex undertakings and frequently end up becoming unstuck, as Stanford and 

the University of California San Francisco and Penn State 

Geisinger did. 

Layered on top of that are the three military services, because 

we do deliver care through the services. So this integration has required significant strategic and operational decision making in coordination at the senior leadership levels to reach consensus on key 

issues. 

Admiral Mateczun has met a number of times with the Joint 

Chiefs to discuss both the facility design as well as the operational 

characteristics. I think it is important to underscore that, throughout those discussions on what the ultimate governance and leadership will look like, we have not lost focus on our primary responsibility, which is the care of our beneficiaries. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So how would you gauge your success so far 

working with the different services, being mindful and respectful 

and, obviously, being aware of what has happened in the private 

sector when these sort of combinations and mergers occur? We are 

interested, obviously, in the end product here. 

Dr. RICE. As are we. 

Admiral Mateczun has done an astonishingly good job. I point 

out regularly that he was an explosive ordnance disposal man early 

in his career, so it is pretty hard to startle him. And he has a backVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00237 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
238 

ground as a psychiatrist, which seems to be entirely appropriate for 

this undertaking. He has done a terrific job I think of bringing together the various elements that have to be considered, from patient care delivery to logistics to finance to construction. It is a very 

complex undertaking. To sum up, it is a work in progress, but I 

think we ultimately see where it is headed. 

Admiral MATECZUN. The comprehensive master plan will address 

those operational control issues. 

Mr. DICKS. May I just add on here, this is the first joint operation, right, of a joint hospital? We are going to have the Army, the 

Navy, and the Air Force there all at the same time? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. And ‘‘joint’’ is a term that gets used 

in many different ways, but this is the first joint hospital. Joint 

means under a joint command. We have hospitals where we have 

people from three services working or tri-service staffing, but this 

is the first joint hospital. 

Mr. DICKS. Who is sorting this out? You are the one that is in 

charge. Do you meet with the Surgeon General of the Air Force, 

the Surgeon General of the Army and you all work out a plan for 

how we are going to do this? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. I get to meet with the Surgeon 

Generals of all of the services, and we come to agreement on many 

issues. On those that we were not able to come to agreement on, 

we go to the tank with the service chiefs. When we are not able 

to go to agreement there, we start working our way through the 

OSD side of the Department up to the Deputy Secretary, who tells 

us which way it is going to be. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a nut that needs to be cracked here, and we need to be successful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Bishop. 

RELOCATION NOTIFICATIONS TO NCR MEDICAL COMMUNITY

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Approximately 1,900 of the personnel at the Walter Reed Army 

Medical Center are supposed to go to the new Walter Reed, and 

2,000 are supposed to go to Fort Belvoir. Have those individuals 

been notified of where they are going? If not, when will the medical 

staff at Walter Reed be notified of their future employment? And 

equipment, how much of the equipment at the old Walter Reed will 

be utilized at the new facility and/or Fort Belvoir? And for the committee, if you could, if you need to provide that information for the 

record, as well as give us some indication to this subcommittee 

what additional equipment will be required for the move. 

And the other thing is, what are the plans for the disposition of 

the old Walter Reed facility and how much funding is expected for 

the cleanup after that disposition? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Congressman Bishop, thank you for that 

question. 

The people at Walter Reed, I talked briefly about the civilian personnel, 2,200 of them that we will notify. Actually, we have 4,000 

civilians working within the National Capital Region, and we will 

tell all of them where it is that they are going to be. Those that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
239 

are the most impacted are the 2,200 that are at Walter Reed. We 

will let them know by the first of July. 

On the active duty personnel, we have talked to the service 

chiefs and, because of the detailing cycles, we are going to probably 

be notifying all of those folks in the summer. 

We have already selected integrated department chairs, so we 

have leadership that is working across both of those hospitals. 

They know the people that they are working with, and they have 

to make sure that we are able to staff both of them adequately and 

well and able to keep the training programs going. 

Today, we have training programs at both Walter Reed, or they 

train at both Walter Reed and Bethesda. In the future, they will 

be training on both the Bethesda campus and on the Fort Belvoir 

campus, because there is going to be 120 beds there and a lot of 

patients to work with. After that, we will work through the contractors, who are also an integral part of the workforce. 

We expect by the end of summer we will have at least notified 

the services. It is up to the services to notify the active duty folks 

where they are going to be going. Some will be detailed in as they 

come into the area. Some will have to be detailed into those billets 

out of Walter Reed. 

In terms of the reuse equipment, we have identified $50 million 

in reuse equipment that we will move from Walter Reed into either 

Bethesda or the Fort Belvoir campus. That is the major equipment. 

We are now going back and taking a look at the other equipment 

to see if we can find additional amounts of equipment that we can 

reuse as well. 

We are trying to standardize equipment as we go, and so we 

want to make sure in terms of those patient safety items that we 

standardize them across the two hospitals. Right now, in our outfitting and transition budget, we have enough money to do the procurements that we need and to incorporate this reuse equipment. 

Dr. ROBYN. In terms of the disposition, that will go to GSA. 

Mr. BISHOP. What about the cleanup? 

Dr. ROBYN. Can I take that for the record? I am not sure if we 

have estimated what the cleanup cost will be yet. I will get back 

to you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

The costs to clean up Walter Reed and Forest Glen are primarily related to radiological decommissioning. The total cost is approximately $15.14M. The Army has 

spent $1.6M in FY06–FY09, has $3.7M programmed in FY10, and has requested 

$9.0M in the FY 11 budget. The Army will fund the remaining cost of $841K in FY 

12. The Walter Reed garrison expects cleanup to be completed by March 2013. 

Based on its environmental surveys, the Army also expects that the boiler plant 

(bldg 15) to require environmental restoration. The garrison does not expect this to 

be a major undertaking. The Army will not know the cost of this restoration effort 

until it completes a Corrective Action Plan and the District of Columbia’s Department of Environment approves the plan. 

MEETING BRAC DEADLINES

Mr. BISHOP. Dr. Robyn, you testified at the MILCON hearing 

that the September 15, 2011, BRAC deadline was not going to be 

met. 

Dr. ROBYN. No, sir, I did not testify to that. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
240 

Mr. BISHOP. What did you say? 

Dr. ROBYN. No. I testified that we believe we will meet the deadline of September 15 for all of our BRAC actions. We have six actions that we are watching very closely, and some of them are part 

of the National Capital Region BRAC process. But we believe we 

can make the BRAC deadline for all of our BRAC actions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is there going to be any resulting additional costs? For some reason, I thought you said there was going to be $169 

million additional costs because of the weather delays? 

Dr. ROBYN. I did not testify to that. I think we met privately 

with appropriations staff to brief them on the six ones that we are 

watching closely. We indicated that in order to meet the BRAC 

deadline, which we view as important for a lot of reasons, and I 

can go into that, that we are planning to spend some additional 

money at these facilities. House appropriations staff came up with 

the $169 million calculation. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is that a reasonable figure? 

Dr. ROBYN. That is a reasonable figure, yes. 

Mr. DICKS. When will medical services be rendered at Fort 

Belvoir Community Hospital? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Sir, there is an existing community hospital 

that will actually move into those facilities and be able to start providing care early in 2011 or late in 2010, depending on the support 

that is in that central tower that we have got. Those buildings will 

actually be ready early, and the existing hospital staff out there 

will move into that facility as soon as they can to start delivering 

services. They will probably deliver outpatient services first, and 

then we will finish the inpatient tower and be able to deliver inpatient services there in the summer of 2011. 

Mr. DICKS. When will services end at Walter Reed? 

Admiral MATECZUN. The industry standard across the country is 

to move over a very short period of time. We have a war game exercise that we are doing to see exactly how short that period is. But 

probably sometime around August of 2011 we will move all of the 

patients and then the staff. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Kingston. 

INCREASING BRAC COST ESTIMATES

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Robyn, I want to find out a little bit of background. As I understand it from BRAC, this was supposed to save $724 million, 

and the cost was $988 million to integrate Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and 

Fort Belvoir Community Hospital with a savings of $124 million; 

is that correct? With annual recurrent savings of $99 million? 

Dr. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. That was the BRAC numbers from 2005; correct? 

Dr. ROBYN. Yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Where are those numbers now? 

Dr. ROBYN. I believe before you got here I testified that the 

BRAC estimate for the realignment in the National Capital Region 

would cost about a billion dollars. The actual number is closer to 

$2.6 billion. The reason for that has a little bit to do with inflation 

in the construction industry. It has mostly to do with expansion in 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
241 

scope, and enhancements that we made to the original plan, largely 

in response to an outside independent review chaired by Togo West 

and Jack Marsh. So we added a number of facilities and other improvements to the original plan. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay, so the cost went from $988 million to $2.6 

billion? 

Dr. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Did the savings also change? What does that do 

on—— 

Dr. ROBYN. Those are roughly the same. 

Mr. KINGSTON. So we are still talking about a reduction, but the $724 million comes off $2.6 billion, rather than off $988 million? 

Dr. ROBYN. The cost of BRAC overall is significantly more than 

the original estimate. The original estimate is based on a model, 

COBRA, which is not really designed to tell you—it is designed to 

compare alternatives in the context of the decisions that a BRAC 

commission makes. It is not really designed to tell you the full cost 

of BRAC actions. So it is a little bit misleading. 

But with BRAC overall, as with BRAC in the National Capital 

Region, the increase in cost is largely due to expansions in scope. 

We have used BRAC as an opportunity to build new where we had 

planned to renovate, to do substantial renovation and improvement. It has been a driver. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask you this. If that is the case, why 

didn’t BRAC anticipate that expansion? And when you talk about 

inflation, you know, that would be something that BRAC should 

take in mind; and I would find it hard to believe during this period 

of time you would have that much inflation when people are desperate for work. If there is inflation, that is BRAC’s idea to anticipate it, and I don’t think the case is there to say there was inflation. 

Dr. ROBYN. I was not involved in this at the time, but my understanding is there was extraordinary inflation in the construction industry in parts of 2007, 2008, when most of the major construction 

activity on BRAC occurred. So that is not the major factor, but it 

is a factor. I suppose if we could have anticipated it, we would 

have, but we didn’t. 

Mr. KINGSTON. All right. In terms of the expansion, how is it 

that that wasn’t foreseen by BRAC? Okay, hey, listen, if we start 

moving these pieces of the puzzle around, there are some opportunities that we should look at and there should have been a footnote 

to Congress on this proposal, and maybe there was. 

Dr. ROBYN. There are some of you who know this history far better than I do. My understanding is, in the context of the National 

Capital Region, that the story about conditions in lodging at Walter 

Reed prompted these outside independent reviews. It was in response to those reviews and the desire to apply to new facilities, 

the recommendations that these facilities be made world class overall that these enhancements were included in the plan. So it was 

a bit of a moving target, and it was a response to new information 

and outside independent reviews as we went through this process. 

Mr. KINGSTON. It would appear to me some of that should have 

facilitated additional savings, but it did not? It was just all on the 

high end? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
242 

Dr. ROBYN. Apparently so, yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. So a little Capitol Hill hysteria, is that what 

caused this? 

Dr. ROBYN. I wouldn’t put it that way, no. I think there were 

genuine issues that were raised. 

Mr. KINGSTON. On BRAC, how much of this happens when 

BRAC comes out with, okay, here is the savings, and how often do 

those savings get implemented as proposed by BRAC? Because 

what Congress tends to do I think is vote on BRAC, have the victory, have the agony, and move on and assume that BRAC is consistent. 

Dr. ROBYN. Right. 

BRAC SAVINGS

Mr. KINGSTON. But how much of it really does come out to be 

like this where there is really no savings at all? 

Dr. ROBYN. I think we do anticipate savings from BRAC overall, 

and we have had savings historically. It is why the Department is 

so concerned with meeting the BRAC deadline. 

BRAC is kind of sacred to us. It has achieved enormous savings. 

It is very politically difficult for the Congress and others, but it has 

been absolutely essential to our ability to save money. 

And I should point out probably that, in the case of prior BRACs, 

the focus was largely on getting rid of excess capacity. This BRAC 

had a different focus, and the focus was on enhancing our 

warfighting capabilities. So it was a different focus, less on reducing excess capacity and more on improving our ability to carry out 

our mission. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Do you come back to Congress with a report on 

BRAC periodically that says we are on track and here is what the 

savings are? Are there some good news stories out there? 

Dr. ROBYN. Yes. I am sorry that I don’t have them at the tip of 

my tongue. I testified last month before the HAC–MILCON subcommittee and had those numbers at hand. But we have historically achieved significant savings, in the billions of dollars a year. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. 

Mr. YOUNG. If the gentleman will yield, can you provide those 

numbers for us for our record? 

Dr. ROBYN. Yes. Absolutely. 

Mr. YOUNG. There might be some debate about that. 

[The information follows:] 

Overall, DoD is projecting that BRAC 2005 will save approximately $4B annually 

beginning in FY 2012. The annual savings for the Walter Reed closure is approximately $172M. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Hinchey. 

ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and thank 

you for all of you do in this particularly challenging time. 

I wanted to ask you a question about the Armed Forces Institute 

of Pathology, which is something that was historically significant 

in this country and which had served the military and veterans’ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
243 

communities since the Civil War. It was abolished in 2005. I think, 

frankly, it would be interesting to look into this. I don’t know if 

anyone has, but the rise in the inadequate attention to the growing 

number of people who are seriously wounded had something to do 

with the elimination of that Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. 

But 3 years later, the National Defense Authorization Act created 

the Joint Pathology Center and that was designed to ensure the 

key functions of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, that they 

wouldn’t disappear and they would come back into play, and those 

functions included education, consultation, research, as well maintenance and modernization of the tissue repository to try to make 

sure that all of those were preserved. 

Since that Armed Forces Institute of Pathology is currently oper- ating under a fiscal year 2010 budget of $76 million and a proposed 

fiscal year 2011 budget of $67 million, $9 million less, how does the 

Department of Defense anticipate that the Joint Pathology Center 

will be retaining its mission of serving as a world-class pathology 

entity? Can you tell us in detail the Department of Defense’s funding expectations and the plans to ensure a smooth transition to 

this JPC? 

Dr. RICE. Thank you for that question, Mr. Hinchey. 

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, as you correctly identify, was a world renowned center and consisted of a number of elements, including the Armed Forces Medical Examiner’s Office, a 

Legal Review Office, the tissue repository, which had been, has 

been in existence for almost 100 years in the consultation and education portion of AFIP’s mission. 

What has happened over the last 20 years or so in the world of 

pathology, and my comments here are particularly focused on the 

area of consultation and evaluation of tissue, that world has 

changed a good deal and has moved into a much more molecular 

focus as opposed to the traditional looking through a microscope at 

tissue and recognize the morphology. The result of that molecular 

focus is that pathologists around the country now have expertise in 

technologies available that allow rapid diagnosis without so much 

of an investment in morphologic recognition. 

What the BRAC did was to dis-establish the AFIP, as it then existed, to move the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner up 

to Dover Air Force Base, where, as you know, the casualties return. 

And subsequently, the Joint Pathology Center was established as 

an element reporting to Admiral Mateczun at the Joint Task Force. 

As I understand it, Admiral Mateczun, correct me if I am wrong, 

the initial operating capability for the Joint Pathology Center is anticipated for this summer, and it will be a full spectrum pathology 

consultation service for the Federal Government in support of clinical care. The pathology education will take place in partnership 

with the Department of Pathology at the Uniformed Services University, and it will be an integrated component of the Walter Reed 

National Military Medical Center and the Department’s Pathology 

Residency Fellowship Programs. 

We undertook an evaluation of the tissue repository to determine 

whether or not the samples there were still in good condition and 

usable for research and have discovered that approximately 90 percent of the samples are in fact usable for that purpose. How we 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
244 

proceed, subsequently, is still open to question because there are 

both legal and ethical considerations that have to be factored in. 

These were not samples that were collected originally for research 

or education purposes; therefore, to use them for that has some 

ethical and legal dimensions to it. And we expect to undertake an 

outside study probably in collaboration with the Institute of Medicine to pursue them. 

Admiral MATECZUN. In terms of the budget, sir, we are standing 

up the initial operating capability. We know that there is going to 

be approximately 118 staff that move over with those functions. We 

are hiring right now against that. Of course, most of the—and we 

are working through the transfer-of-function, transfer-of-work 

questions associated with the BRAC. Most of the pathologists that 

are there today will be coming over, but we have to matrix at the 

start. And we are finalizing the budget now. 

JOINT PATHOLOGY CENTER

Mr. HINCHEY. I thank you very much for that. 

Do you think that you could provide us with a detailed summary 

basically of the facility and the staffing needs of the Joint Pathology Center and all of that which takes into account the vision of 

the JPC as a world class facility, something that is really going to 

be exemplary and do all the things that really need to be done for 

these people who need it so much? And if you can also, recent Defense Health Board Recommendations, if that is possible? 

Dr. RICE. Yes, sir, we would be glad to provide those for you. 

[The information follows:] 

The Joint Pathology Center (JPC) will provide world-class diagnostic subspecialty 

consultation, education, training, research and maintenance/modernization of the 

tissue repository in support of the mission of the DoD and other federal agencies. 

A Concept of Operations has been developed and was approved by the Commander, 

Joint Task Force National Capital Region Medical on 31 March 2010. 

Capabilities: The core group of functions of the Joint Pathology Center includes 

a robust pathology Consultative Service with associated state-of-the-art technologic 

support, the Tissue Repository, Education and Research, and the Veterinary Pathology Service. Each function has defined missions that collectively will meet the requirements of the law and will meet the defined mission of the Joint Pathology Center. Leveraging of existing capabilities and expertise within the Joint Area of Operations and the development of strategic partnerships with other military and federal 

agencies and organizations will enhance and augment the core functions of the Joint 

Pathology Center. 

Governance: The JPC will be a subordinate organization within the Joint Task 

Force National Capital Region Medical (JTF CAPMED). 

Facilities: The tissue repository buildings on Forest Glen (buildings 510 and 606) 

will house the Tissue Repository, Consultative Service, Office of the Director, and 

Telepathology. Histology, immunohistochemistry, special stains, specimen 

accessioning, and transcription will be performed at the new Walter Reed National 

Military Medical Center, Bethesda in the Department of Pathology. Adequate room 

for these services was planned into the space and processes of the histology laboratory and administrative areas. 

Staff: The JPC will require 135 Active Duty and civilian staff. 

Defense Health Board Recommendations: The Defense Health Board (DHB), in its 

advisory role to the DoD, reviewed the initial Joint Pathology Center (JPC) Concept 

of Operations (CONOPS), which was not a detailed implementation plan. Among its 

comments were recommendations on workflow considerations, physical location of 

capabilities for consultative services, ratio of professional staff to administrative 

staff, civilian collaboration and alignment of the Joint Pathology Center (JPC) under 

the Joint Task Force National Capital Region Medical (JTF CAPMED). The implementation plan and detailed and revised CONOPS that was approved on 31 March 

2010 addresses the concerns of the DHB and will meet the recommendations of the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
245 

DHB review with the exception of JPC oversight being provided by a Board of Governors. Based on the JPC’s mission set, DoD recommends a Federal Board of Advisors comprised of primary stakeholders. The JPC continues to work very closely 

with the DHB as details are finalized. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

ENDURING MISSIONS BEYOND BRAC

Mr. DICKS. Does the JTF CAPMED have missions that go beyond 

the NCR Base Realignment and Closure Coordination, Admiral? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. In our charter, we have a BRAC 

mission. I have responsibility for BRAC oversight of the medical 

BRAC projects. In addition, I am responsible for the health care 

that is delivered within the National Capital Region. So that goes 

beyond the BRAC project significantly, particularly when it comes 

to contingency operations. So we are able to plan now with JTF 

NCR, which stands up in case of an emergency here within the 

Capital Region. They coordinate the military districts, and I become a medical functional component of the commander of that 

Joint Task Force. So I am responsible for coordinating all of the 

emergency response that goes on. 

Just as an example, we just finished up the Nuclear Security 

Summit and the medical support from the Department that went 

into that. So there are significant other missions. The Joint Pathology Center is another mission not related to the BRAC and certainly an enduring mission. So, yes, we do have other missions besides BRAC. 

Mr. DICKS. Will medical personnel in the new hospitals still deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir, absolutely. And on the Comfort and 

all the other places that they need to deploy. In fact, what we will 

be able to do is to protect these assets in case of deployments. 

Today, if a large-scale mobilization occurs, it leaves an individual 

hospital potentially vulnerable. If the Comfort goes out, then a lot 

of the Bethesda staff goes with it. As we distribute the active duty 

force across both of those hospitals, we mitigate the risk to any one 

deployment that goes on. 

My job as the JTF commander is to make sure that we maintain 

the ability to receive casualties here in the National Capital Region 

as our country’s primary casualty reception site. And so, as people 

mobilize and go off to their missions, we have to make sure that 

when they send the patients back, that they have somewhere to go. 

The change that has really occurred over the last 5 years is with 

the Critical Care Transport Teams. I was a Joint Staff Surgeon 

when we sent all of the capabilities into Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

We sent a huge medical footprint, including some 64 hospitals and 

41,000 medical personnel there to be ready to take care of casualties. At that time, we weren’t able to move them back in critical 

care status. Now that we are, we don’t have to have that footprint 

in theater, but we do have to maintain that footprint back here. 

And so we haven’t relieved the need for beds; we have just moved 

it out of theater back here. So part of the mission that we have is 

making sure that we have those beds and the capability to receive 

casualties here. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
246 

Mr. DICKS. Why does it make sense to regionalize health care delivery in the National Capital Area? 

Admiral MATECZUN. The National Capital Region is the largest 

collection of both the military beneficiaries and military forces to 

provide care. And so putting together an Integrated Regional System allows us to address, for instance, things like primary care; 

where are we putting our clinics? 

Without coordination today, we are reliant upon each of the services to decide where it is that they want to invest in primary care, 

rather than examining the total needs of the population and rationally putting primary care there, just as an example. 

Dr. RICE. May I add to that? 

Mr. DICKS. Sure. 

Dr. RICE. I think another very important reason to regionalize 

care in the National Capital Area is to take advantage of the education and research capabilities that are unique to this region. The 

new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center sits right 

across Wisconsin Avenue from the world’s largest biomedical research complex, the National Institutes of Health. And on the campus at Bethesda is the Uniformed Services University. So we simultaneously have the ability to answer the unsolved questions in 

both military medicine and in health care generally, as well as to 

educate the next generation of military medical leadership. 

MAINTAINING CAPABILITIES UNDER BRAC

Mr. DICKS. Are all capabilities being planned for the new Walter 

Reed National Military Medical Center inclusive of all care that is 

currently being provided to service members and their family members? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. The BRAC requires that the capabilities that existed at the time of the BRAC are maintained, and 

that is the basic rationale for the distribution of the resources that 

are there, so nothing goes away. In fact, there has been a new mission that has been added particularly for casualty care over the 

last couple of years, and so that enhancement will also be maintained, but there will be no diminishment in the capability for medical care here in the National Capital Region. 

Mr. DICKS. With each service medical component employing different concepts of care, delivery and processes, how will you develop common practices? Well, I think you have answered that. 

Anything else you would like to add on that? 

Admiral MATECZUN. No, sir. Common processes are important. 

And this is something that really relates directly and specifically 

to patient safety. And we are working on that. In something just 

as simple as conscious sedation, where somebody comes in for a 

minor procedure, we have to be able to have a standard procedure 

that all of our nurses and technicians know and support, no matter 

where it is that they happen to be working in the Capital Region. 

And so we view that standardization as a patient safety imperative. 

Mr. DICKS. Do we have a list on the $781 million of what we are 

talking about, what kind of projects are we talking about? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
247 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. At the broad sort of upper level, but 

not at a level of specificity yet. We don’t have a level yet that has 

been approved by the Department. 

Mr. DICKS. That is a better answer. Well, whatever you got, send 

it up here, will you, so at least we will be able to take a look at 

it? 

[The information follows:] 

Below is a list of projects that comprise the $781M. Additional detail has been 

provided in the Department’s Comprehensive Master Plan for the National Capital 

Region Medial, which was provided to Congress in response to section 2714(b) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. 

Project Description Funding 

Type 

Estimated 

Cost ($M) 

Comprehensive Clinical Expansion.New Construction, Renovation, Demolition, Parking 

Garage, Temporary Facilities, Outfitting and Transition, Commissioning, AT/FP, Enhanced Building 

Information Systems.

MILCON/O&M ............ $651M ($567 

MILCON $84 

O&M) 

Installation Upgrades ........ Pedestrian Ways, Vehicular Access, Plazas, 

Childcare, Utility Infrastructure, Etc.

MILCON .................... $85 

Medical Center Technology Smart Technology, RTLS, External SONET ................... O&M ......................... $30 

Installation and Medical 

Center Environment.

Campus Way finding and Master Planning ................ O&M ......................... $15 

Total ......................... ...................................................................................... .................................. $781 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Young. 

TEMPORARY BYPASS OF LANDSTUHL

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The policy and the practice has been, a soldier is wounded on the 

battlefield and treated immediately with the closest medical facility 

and then transported to Landstuhl in Germany. And then, from 

there, back here to either Walter Reed or Bethesda. I understand 

now the decision has been made to bypass Landstuhl and come directly from the area directly to Washington to the National Capital 

Area. What is the reason for that? 

Dr. RICE. Sir, I think it primarily has to do with the concern 

about flying through the ash of the volcano whose name I cannot 

pronounce. But as I understand it, the air space is now beginning 

to open up over Europe, so my expectation is that we would resume 

the use of Landstuhl. I might point out that, in the past, it has 

been the practice when the patient’s circumstances warrant it to 

bypass Landstuhl and fly directly back to the United States. In the 

case of—in a few instances of severe neurologic injury and certainly 

in the case of a severe burn, where the unique capability exists at 

Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, patients have been 

flown directly back from the theater to San Antonio. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you for that answer. I wasn’t sure when I 

read that decision whether it was a permanent decision or whether 

it was temporary because of the volcanic ash, which I can’t pronounce either. 

Dr. RICE. No, sir. It had purely to do with concern for the aircraft 

and the safety of the crews. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
248 

BUILDING 18 AT WALTER REED

Mr. YOUNG. On another subject, just one more question, Mr. 

Chairman. A couple of years ago, the Washington Post did a number of articles really blasting the Army at Walter Reed for conditions at Building 18. What is the status of Building 18 today? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Sir, it is not being used for any patient care 

activities. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, actually, at the time that the stories were written, it was used for med-hold patients rather than patients that 

were being treated. 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. There are no medical-hold patients 

in Building 18 today. 

Mr. YOUNG. Is Building 18 empty then? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. It is being refurbished, as I understand it, but I am not sure what the ultimate plan for it is. But 

there are no patients in that building. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Frelinghuysen. 

ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As part of this undertaking, I understand there are efforts underway to develop world class simulation labs, the latest and state-ofthe-art information technology, smart beds, smart rooms, things of 

that nature; been a lot of focus in the public domain on electronic 

medical records. Sometimes we give the VA more credit for, shall 

we say, a seamless system in the military. God only knows what 

you have. The issue of medical equipment, we talked earlier about, 

you know, the private sector, the race to get the best equipment. 

And obviously, this committee is prepared to give you whatever you 

need and I think historically has been very supportive of that. Of 

all the stuff we are setting up here, the technology, can you assure 

us you will be using—you will get the best of what there is? And 

most important, this is still a military installation. Will you assure 

us that whatever you set up is hardened in a way that somebody 

could not attack it and bring the whole damn thing down? I wonder 

if that is in your overall review. This is what plans and governance 

are all about. Before we fill the new building and provide the infrastructure, what are we doing in some of these areas? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Yes, sir. In the realm of technology, in particular maybe kind of taking a look at the plan that the Department is using for the data storage that we have. And it is really 

key. The data storage is key because what we are doing in the National Capital Region is making sure that all of the medical data 

that is available, including images, can be available to anybody at 

any one of our—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Instantaneously? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Instantaneously, yes, sir, which is not happening today. It is hard to move images between Walter Reed and 

Fort Belvoir today, for instance, in some instances. So we are putting together that technology. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
249 

What we will have are data centers that will be mirrored in the 

future. And so the Health Affairs is working on a plan that will actually have regional data repositories that will be mirrored, so that 

if something happens, and those are actually not inside the Capital 

Region, they are placed outside of the Capital Region, so that if 

something happens, that data would still be available for patient 

care. It is mirrored so that it is always available. If it goes down, 

it is still available on the mirror site, the mirror servers. And so 

we are thinking about I think each of those areas as we try to 

move forward. 

Mr. DICKS. Would the gentleman yield? Have you built any of 

those data centers yet? 

Dr. RICE. No, sir. That is all in design. We are pretty far along 

in understanding how that will all come together, but they are not 

actually built as yet. 

Mr. DICKS. But have you decided on locations? 

Dr. RICE. No sir. 

Mr. DICKS. Who is in charge of this, who is in charge of the data 

centers? 

Dr. RICE. Well, the—— 

Mr. DICKS. Mateczun just pointed the finger at you. Are you the 

guy? 

Dr. RICE. There is a process under way in the Department right 

now for the way ahead on the electronic health record. And it involves network integration in the Department, as well as other 

components of the Department that are responsible for information 

technology. This is a very hot area of discussion, and we realize 

that it is a critical element for us to be able to accomplish our mission. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I won’t reclaim my time from the chairman 

because it is his time. 

Mr. DICKS. Go ahead. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Who is in charge? You are in charge of 

this? 

Dr. RICE. Well, I wouldn’t go that far, no, sir. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No, I say I think we are interested in making sure we get this right. 

Mr. DICKS. We are interested in data centers, and we are working with the intelligence community. I mean, this is happening 

with Google, with all the major companies are having to come up 

with these data. Sometimes they are leased; sometimes they are 

bought. We are just interested in this. I mean, we would like to 

know, who is going to make the decisions about location? 

Dr. RICE. That will be a Department level decision because it involves not just the health record, but involves a number of business 

processes in the Department as well as the secure transmittal of 

sensitive information. 

Admiral MATECZUN. Sir, the device chairman, General Cartwright, heads up technology panels, and he is working very closely 

with all of the information systems people within the Department 

and all of the wickets that you have to go through with not only 

the intelligence community but with the health community as well. 

And so—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
250 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just so I understand, the panels that you 

put together, you know, for these purposes, they are going to trump 

the services in terms of what they historically have done collecting 

data and information on their own? 

Dr. RICE. Well, I think the—— 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I know, once people enter the system, you 

sort of own them. But I am just wondering here. 

Dr. RICE. Well, there are certainly requirements that each of the 

services has to manage its particular operational requirements. 

Then there is a collective set of information that has to be used 

across the entire Department. The electronic health record would 

be one example of that. The system that defines eligibility for commissary or health care privileges would be another such system. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You have got a lot of systems now. It is apparent you are going to have a lot of systems in the future. And 

you are obviously going to be able to marry them because we are 

in a world of technology where these things are possible. Sometimes maybe you don’t want to have them too married, because 

then you endanger probably somebody bringing perhaps the whole 

damn system down. 

Dr. RICE. Yes, sir. To go back to your earlier question, how the 

network architecture is laid out is under, that is General Cartwright’s area of responsibility. Defining what the applications look 

like in the health care environment, that is, how does a nurse collect vital sign information, how does a physician write electronic orders, that comes under Health Affairs. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So you are giving us a high level of assurance we are going to get this right? 

Dr. RICE. Yes, sir. We have to get it right. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Kingston. 

LATEST MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES AND EQUIPMENT

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Rice, I am interested in this situation that Mr. Frelinghuysen 

mentioned about medical equipment. Whenever I go to the hospital, 

and I have been on the operating table and visited lots of friends 

and have doctor friends, I am just amazed at the advancement and 

development of medical technology. And you know, I think doctors 

are really smart people, but the people who design this equipment 

must be geniuses. It is incredible the evolution of these things. And 

you think back to your own BlackBerry, you would never use a 

BlackBerry that is 3 years old. And can you imagine what we will 

be using 3 years from now. Yet, at the same time, the military, you 

know, is known for its red tape. And getting that equipment in and 

deciding which ones are good and which ones are bad, I have seen, 

for example, in education, they finally get smart boards, and we 

haven’t seen any real results on it. It is a fun play toy, and it gives 

teachers a novelty factor, and they get enthusiastic about it, but 2 

years later, they realize they haven’t really done much. And that 

happens with—I think it is right and proper to do things, but some 

of these are just gee-whiz gadgets, and they are only gee-whiz. 

Some of them really do work, and some of them don’t. And I know, 

for example, MRIs really haven’t wiped out the use of a CAT scan, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
251 

that you can still go back, and you need the balance. But how do 

you manage that picking and choosing the equipment, getting it in 

there, getting rid of the bad stuff, embracing the good and moving 

on quickly? 

Dr. RICE. You have put your finger on a very complex problem 

that confronts all of health care; certainly, I can only speak with 

any knowledge about that. Having been responsible for a large university health care system before I came to the Department of Defense, I regularly had a parade of various physician advocates who 

would come into my office assuring me that this latest gadget was 

exactly what we needed to take better care of patients with not 

much evidence frequently. We have to establish a better evaluation 

process for comparing new technologies against existing technologies. And where existing technologies really have been supplanted, then get rid of them, because the newer one is better. Or 

alternatively, the newer one may look fancier, may have more dials 

and lights and whistles on it, but in fact does not do a better job 

than what we have now. It is an enormously complex problem. The 

Department exists only as a microcosm of that within the larger 

picture of American health care. 

Mr. KINGSTON. You know, getting back to Mr. Frelinghuysen’s 

statement, I think this committee wants to be supportive of you 

getting the good equipment but I think would also be very supportive of whatever red tape reforms you need in order to flow. And 

it is not just money. And I think often at the VA system, you know, 

no one—it is unpatriotic to suggest the VA system isn’t efficient, 

but let’s all be honest with ourselves, the emperor is naked in 

many cases, and we don’t want to admit it. But the VA system is 

very bureaucratic. I know, in my own district, we have been trying 

to get a VA clinic open now for 3 years that was supposed to be 

operating in July of 2008, and we still don’t even have a location. 

It is just absurd how inefficient it is. 

So I think what we would like to see from testimonies like yours 

is not always, you know, and you are not asking for money, but you 

know, what are some of the reforms that we can give you to allow 

you to get the stuff in and out? 

Dr. RICE. Yes, sir. I don’t think this is primarily a red tape problem. I think it is more of a conceptual problem of how we undertake an honest evaluation of new technologies against existing 

technologies. And as I said, this is something that the entire country, in fact the entire world, grapples with. 

REMARKS OF MR. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I need to take one other second. 

I know Dr. Rice had a proper education at America’s finest University of Georgia. Are you an Athenian or are you from Atlanta? 

Dr. RICE. No, sir, I am an Athenian. In fact, your father and my 

father were on the faculty together. 

Mr. KINGSTON. That is what I thought. I used to read to your little brother Will when my parents would go over to your house, and 

you were already in the Navy at the time. And your sister Ida and 

I were the same age, but my job was to read to Will so that the 

parents could carry on in the next room and I think sip their Brandy uninterrupted by your little brother. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
252 

Mr. DICKS. Sounds good. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Yeah. It should stay on the record. But we have 

known the Rice family for many, many years. 

Dr. RICE. Yes, sir. 

FINAL PERSONNEL PLAN

Mr. DICKS. All right. Going back to the employment issue, is it 

true that there is no final personnel plan yet? Is that true, or are 

you close to one? 

Admiral MATECZUN. Sir, what I have learned is that there is a 

vast difference between the manpower and the personnel communities. And one is about spaces, and the other one is about faces. 

And you know, the spaces have to have resources attached to them. 

And we are working out the final MOU with the services for those 

manning documents that have—the spaces are there. We are figuring out how many of them have money attached to them, and 

then we match the spaces to the faces after that. So I believe that 

the answer would be, it is not final and it may never, never completely be. We do have an internal, an intermediate manning document that we are constructing. We will get to memoranda of agreement with the services on what they resource those memoranda to. 

Mr. DICKS. All right. 

Any other questions? The committee will stand adjourned until 

10:00 a.m. tomorrow in H–140, when we will hold a hearing on the 

Defense Health Program and Wounded Warrior Programs. Thank 

you very much. 

[CLERKS NOTE.—Questions submitted by Mr. Young and the answers thereto follow:] 

Question. Dr. Rice, I understand that JTF CAPMED has been given command 

responsibilty for the new Joint Pathology Center in Bethesda, and the National Tissue Repository developed and currently maintained by the Armed Forces Institute 

of Pathology. Can you provide us with a summary of your plans for the center, its 

leadership, and how you will assure that it develops its operations at ‘‘world class’’ 

standards? 

Answer. The plan for the Joint Pathology Center (JCP) is to allow for the provision of diagnostic subspecialty consultation, education, training, research and maintenance, and moderization of the tissue repository in support of the Department and 

other federal agencies. To lead this effort, an interim director of the JPC was appointed in December 2009. We will assure that it develops according to ‘‘world-class’’ 

standards by applying the best technology and expertise to the Center. 

Question. Dr. Rice, the Secretary’s Defense Health Board (DHB) has provided a 

series of recommendations that it believes are necessary for optimal development of 

the Joint Pathology Center. Have those recommendations been fully incorporated in 

your planning? Please provide for the record, each recommendation and its disposition in your planning. 

Answer. Yes. The Joint Task Force is very appreciative of the input provided by 

the Defense Health Board and has utilized it extensively in refining the plan for 

the Joint Pathology Center (JPC). We fully assessed the DHB recommendations and 

vast majority were incorporated into the plan. The recommendations and their responses are as follows: 

CLINICAL SCOPE OF SERVICE

1. Define the scope of subspecialty services provided by the JPC. 

Subspecialty services provided to the federal agencies will include: 

dermatopathology, neuropathology and ophthalmic pathology, urologic pathology, 

nephropathology, cardiovascular pathology, gastroenterologic and hepatic pathology, 

gynecologic and breast pathology, infectious disease pathology, pulmonary pathology, environmental pathology, full-service state-of-the-art molecular pathology laboratory, oral and neuroendocrine pathology, hematopathology, and soft tissue and 

bone pathology. Additionally, the JPC will provide muscle biopsy interpretation and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
253 

Environmental and Biophysical Toxicology laboratory services. Radiology-Pathology 

consultation and correlation will be provided by the Department of Radiology at 

Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC). 

2. Define In-theater support provided by the JPC. 

There are four tiers of support in the continuum of care when considering in-theater support and support of the combat mission. Additionally, there is support of 

the Armed Forces Medical Examiner mission. 

a. Provided support to the deployed pathologist through telepathology and surgical pathology consultation and the rapid diagnosis of such infectious agents such 

as Leishmaniasis. Recognizing that the deployed pathologist has limited access to 

continuing medical education opportunities, one focus of the JPC mission will be to 

provide robust on-line education in order to help meet those needs. Additionally, the 

Veterinary Pathology Service will provide pathology consultative support for working animals in-theater. 

b. Provision of services to Medical Treatment Facilities (MTF) providing direct 

support to in-theater operations. The JPC will provide consultation, and telepathology support to those MTFs with an emphasis on quality and turn-aroundtime. Additionally, imbedded fragment and Environmental/Biophysical Toxicology 

analysis and muscle biopsy interpretation are available to support those services. 

c. Provision of services to stateside MTFs providing care to the wounded warrior. 

In addition to the services described in item 2b, the JPC will provide support to clinical and research initiatives centered on warrior care such as the Combat Wound 

Initiative and the Traumatic Brain Injury program. 

d. Provision of services to the Veterans Administration in support of long term 

care of wounded warriors. In addition to provided the full spectrum of consultative 

services and support as described above, the JPC will support VA clinical and research initiatives such as the VA Depleted Uranium Follow-up Program. 

3. Define the scope of service for telepathology provided by the JPC. 

The mission of telepathology is to provide surgical pathology consultation to distant military medical treatment facilities with an emphasis on provision of support 

for pathology in-theater and remote locations throughout the contiguous United 

States and outside continental United States. At full operating capability (FOC), the 

JPC will continue the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) mission of providing consultation by telepathology to the DoD and VA. In consultation with its’ 

federal government stakeholders, the JPC will develop a detailed ‘‘enterprise-wide’’ 

solution to providing appropriate telepathology services including formal consultation, quality assurance, and primary consultation for smaller facilities. Telepathology will also be utilized for video teleconferences in support of the education 

mission. 

4. Define level of support provided to the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System. 

The JPC will provide full-service support to the critical Office of Armed Forces 

Medical Examiner (OAFME) mission. This includes full-spectrum pathology subspecialty consultation, including gross brain and heart dissection and 

neuropathology and cardiovascular consultation, support of the OAFME Forensic 

Toxicology mission by the Environmental/Biophysical Toxicology Laboratory, and 

immunohistochemical/ special stain support. The JPC will support the OAFME live 

courses and collaborate and support ongoing research initiatives. The level of support for the OAFME mission has been discussed and carefully coordinated with the 

Armed Forces Medical Examiner. 

5. Identify the process of handling individual cases, including accession, triage, 

disposition, flow, reporting, and quality assurance. 

This process is evolving as we review and evaluate options for laboratory information systems and appropriate tracking mechanisms as well as work on developing 

a comprehensive Quality Management System for the JPC. The JPC will accession 

specimens at WRNMMC (utilizing a dedicated area and staffing) that will ensure 

the integrity of the specimen/case submitted and identify and provide all reports for 

previous specimens accessioned to the specific patient. The JPC will have a robust 

courier system from WRNMMC to the JPC that will transport cases to the JPC. 

Dedicated administrative personnel at the JPC will distribute the cases to the appropriate subspecialty for assignment to a specific pathologist. 

6. Recommend that the Department pursue funding sources with other federal 

agency stakeholders. 

Upon delegation of the JPC mission to the JTF, the JTF began work on refining 

the funding requirements for the JPC and is working with Health Affairs to secure 

funding for FY2011. The funding of the JPC will be programmed funding handled 

in a manner similar to other organizations within the JTF. As the major federal 

stakeholder in the JPC, the VA has expressed support for funding of the JPC as 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
254 

the level currently provided to the AFIP. We are working closely with the VA to 

refine the funding requirements necessary to support the services provided to the 

VA. As we bring other federal stakeholders on board, the JPC will seek similar 

agreements for funding. 

7. Recommend positioning of JPC directly under JTF CapMed leadership rather 

than as a component of hospital-based pathology department. 

As delineated in the final Concept of Operations, the Joint Pathology Center is 

situated within the headquarters of the Joint Task Force National Capital Region 

Medical (JTF CAPMED) as an organization distinct for the Medical Treatment Facilities and the Centers of Excellence. 

8. Recommend establishment of a governance board of federal agency stakeholders. 

9. Recommend that the governance structure ensures that stakeholder interests 

receiving significant support. 

(Answer to 8 and 9): The Joint Task Force established a Board of Advisors, consistent with other similar organizations. The Board of Advisors will be comprised 

of key stakeholders in the JPC will advise the Director of the Joint Pathology Center on matters such as services provided, organizational structure, function, and responsibilities. The Board of Advisors will be comprised of a senior pathologist nominated by each of the military services and other nonmilitary governmental key 

stakeholder organizations. Representation from key stakeholders will ensure that 

stakeholder interests and needs will be appropriately addressed by the JPC. 

10. Ensure periodic assessment of resources in order to meet mission. 

The JPC will utilize input from stakeholders, the Board of Advisors, and from the 

JPC pathology staff in determining additional services provided by the JPC. The 

placement of the JPC within the headquarters of the JTF will allow for a streamlined and expeditious review and resourcing for such new requirements. 

11. Apply business principles such as LEAN design to make JPC as cost efficient 

as possible. 

The JTF and JPC has applied appropriate business principles in the development 

of the plan for the JPC including utilizing nationally recognized Task Force recommendations for histology and immunohistochemistry laboratory testing. 

12. Performance metrics should be developed in order to ensure success. 

The Quality Management Plan will define the specific requirements for turnaround-time and other quality indicators (performance metrics) and will include a 

process for monitoring critical indicators and appropriately addressing issues. Expectations of the JPC include a ‘case-received-by-WRNMMC to assignment-to-responsible-pathologist’ of only a few hours, next shift turn-around of all special stains 

and recuts (i.e special stains are with the responsible pathologist by next shift), appropriate timeliness of consultation, communication of unexpected results with submitting pathologist, and timely faxing of reports. Additionally, quality indicators 

and metrics will be established for other ancillary studies such as molecular studies, 

biophysical toxicology studies, and electron microscopy. 

13. Organizational structure sufficiently flexible for collaborative relationships 

with non-Federal entities to provide education component. 

The JPC envisions opportunity for collaborative relationships with non-Federal 

entities to provide continuing medical education. 

14. Recommend appropriate technical staffing be included to provide the necessary support of the specialty pathology personnel. 

15. Staffing needs to address levels of experience among pathologists (i.e. staffing 

with relatively junior pathologists vs. senior more experience pathologists). 

(Answers to Recommendations 14 and 15) Additional pathology and support and 

administrative staff in histology, molecular services, education and research, tissue 

repository, Automated Central Tumor Registry (ACTUR), and logistical support. The 

addition of more pathologists will allow for senior and experienced pathology oversight of consultation and other services and will allow for mentoring and development of more junior staff while ensuring quality of consultative services provided 

by the JPC. The addition of additional support and administrative staff will allow 

for better and timely workflow, enhanced services, and better support the pathologists in consultation, education, and research. 

16. Recommend that JTF CapMed conduct a full man-power allocation review. 

The Commander, Joint Task Force National Capital Region Medical appointed an 

Implementation Team and, later, a Transition Team consisting of pathologists from 

all three services, the VA, Uniformed Services University of the Health Services 

(USUHS), AFIP, as well as technical personnel from the JTF, Health Affairs, and 

Army Executive Agent. The teams reviewed the Concept of Operations in detail, 

identify any gaps in services, personnel, and resources and made recommendations 

that were ultimately included in the final Concept of Operations. Additionally, reVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
255 

views of technical and administrative support (personnel, space, and resourcing) of 

the JPC were provided by the administrative shops of the JTF and were incorporated into the staffing plan and the final Concept of Operations. 

17. The JPC should conduct a survey of other federal agencies to determine their 

current and future pathology needs. 

18. Federal agencies should identify areas of subspecialty support needed. 

19. Plan should ensure that the equity of all Federal agencies is considered in the 

services provided by JPC. 

(Answer to 17–19): The Joint Pathology Center utilized the workload data from 

the AFIP in helping to construct the Concept of Operations. Additionally, we have 

engaged our major federal government stakeholders (VA and NIH) in this process. 

The VA has expressed the need for extensive pathology consultative support, an established quality assurance review mechanism for their pathology cases, support of 

the Depleted Uranium Follow-up Program, and continuing medical education support for their pathologists. The NIH has expressed an interest in limited use of the 

consultative services as well as opportunity to partner or utilize the Tissue Repository in support of clinical research initiatives. These were all considered and incorporated into our Concept of Operations. 

20. Consider legal issues when non-DoD entities have access to tissue. 

21. Delineate access and usage limits of resources. 

22. Define route of access to specimens for civilian sector. 

23. Consider funding streams from collaborative agencies with industry. 

(Answer to 20–23). The JTF is fully and carefully utilized the repository in such 

a manner that ensures sustainability and allows for support of critical clinical research within the federal government and with civilian academic institutions. Given 

the limited utilization of the Tissue Repository specimens in the past, the JTF also 

strongly believes that a careful and considered approach that engages our stakeholders and encourages strategic partnerships is necessary to fully develop a plan 

for utilization of the Tissue Repository for research. The findings and recommendations of the Tissue Repository Consensus Conference (2005) and the Asterand Corporation will be utilized. Additionally, the JPC will include a way to more fully utilize the assets of the Tissue Repository for clinical care and education. The JTF is 

currently working with Health Affairs to contract for the required expertise necessary to help develop a strategic vision and plan for the modernization and utilization of the Tissue Repository. 

24. Research agenda should not be developed autonomously but rather through 

DoD health research management process. 

25. Process for criteria, inclusion, and prioritization for protocol approval must be 

clearly defined in strategic plan. 

(Answer for recommendations 24 and 25). The JPC will provide opportunity for 

pathology research through established IRB approval processes and funding mechanisms with the JTF. The JPC will provide opportunity for collaborative research 

with Uniformed Services University of the Health Services (USUHS), military and 

VA Medical Treatment Facilities, and civilian organizations through established 

processes within the JTF. The JPC will support clinical research initiatives such as 

the Traumatic Brain Injury and will utilize the Environmental/ Biophysical Toxicology laboratory to support current and future research initiatives. The JPC will 

expand the opportunity for utilization of ACTUR and Cohort Registry Data to be 

used for collaborative research efforts. A careful plan will be developed to allow for 

appropriate utilization of the Tissue Repository in research efforts throughout the 

federal government and civilian organizations. 

26. Define contributions provided by USUHS. 

The JPC is working with USUHS to provide continuing medical education credit 

for its online courses. Initially, we envisioned that USUHS would provide the administrative support for the online course material but have since incorporated that 

into the JPC as an intrinsic function. The JPC will also actively engage USUHS 

staff in helping to identify and develop course content for its online education and 

will support USUHS live courses. 

27. Define the level of Graduate Medical Education support that will be provided 

by JPC. 

The final Concept of Operations better delineates the scope of graduate educational opportunities to be provided by the JPC including support of graduate medical education within the federal government through onsite rotations with subspecialists, extensive support of the National Capital Consortium Dermatopathology 

Fellowship and the Navy Oral Pathology Residency Program, and provision within 

the JPC of the Veterinary Pathology Residency Training Program. 

28. Recommend opportunities for collaboration and development with other professional organizations. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
256 

Through strategic partnerships, the JPC envisions ample opportunity to collaborate with other professional organizations in the development and offering of educational activities. 

29. Incorporate a method for adopting educational programs. 

30. Consideration of broad spectrum of interest areas when determining the continuing education provided by the JPC: 

(Answer to Recommendations 29 and 30): As delineated in the final Concept of 

Operations, refinement of the continuing medical education resources to be provided 

by the JPC including teleconferences, webinars, on-line courses, and a digital slide 

repository to support Maintenance of Certification requirements and those of low 

volume and deployed providers. The JPC will also expand the scope of educational 

resources to actively involve stakeholders in its educational offerings such as cytology and clinical pathology. The JPC will develop and update its’ educational curriculum based on input from stakeholders and end-users as well as based on the 

needs identified through the Specialty consultants. 

31. Strategic plan should include measures to procure equipment. 

The Joint Pathology Center is utilizing established procurement processes with 

the Joint Task Force to procure equipment. 

32. Advises workflow considerations and physical location that would allow consolidation of all consultative services. 

Consultative Services are largely consolidated in one location with collocation with 

critical functions such as Electron Microscopy, Telemedicine, as well as administrative support and access to the vast Tissue Repository. 

33. Advises satisfactory assurance of adequate resourcing. 

The placement of the JPC within the headquarters of the JTF will allow for a 

streamlined and expeditious review and resourcing for such new requirements. The 

JPC recognizes that consultative services need to be flexible in terms of support provided to our stakeholders and that new missions, additional missions, and emerging 

technologies will arise. 

34. DHB welcomes opportunity to participate in design/review of the strategic 

plan. 

The Joint Pathology Center has engaged the Defense Health Board and looks forward to their help in establishing the organization. 

Question. Dr. Rice, what provisions are you making for managing and modernizing the National Tissue Repository, and for ensuring continued tissue accessions 

for this valuable resource? How will this resource be made available for study to 

military and civilian medical researchers in the future? 

Answer. By policy, the Joint Pathology Center (JPC) is required to maintain and 

modernize the National Tissue Repository and utilize the repository, as necessary, 

in the support of consultation, education, and research. The goal of the JPC is to 

establish itself as the tissue repository for the Federal Government. The tissue repository will also be used in support of research and education for governmental and 

civilian collaborative efforts. In order to make the repository available for medical 

researchers, JTF CAPMED is working closely with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to find an appropriate reviewer, such as the Institute of Medicine or similar organization, to help develop a strategic vision for the 

JPC and a detailed plan. 

Question. Dr. Rice, adequate and appropriate facilities are certainly a necessity 

for this important new medical research entity. Since the current labs at AFIP have 

recently undergone a $60 million renovation, have you considered leasing these labs 

back from GSA to allow the two renovated lab floors on the WRAMC campus to be 

used as Joint Pathology Center space until an adequate permanent facility can be 

provided? 

Answer. Yes, the Department considered a leaseback of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) building, but this raised significant issues concerning adequacy of force protection requirements and base support of post-BRAC use of buildings on the WRAMC campus. The Joint Pathology Center will have adequate and 

appropriate permanent space on the Forest Glen and Bethesda Campuses without 

the AFIP building. 

Question. Dr. Rice, I understand that your recent planning assumes an FY 2011 

budget request of around $22 million for the JPC. This is considerably less that the 

current budget $76 million budget for AFIP. Can you explain how you could attempt 

to cover the assigned mission responsibilities at that level while providing a world 

class center? 

Answer. The Joint Pathology Center (JPC) is not intended to replicate all capabilities of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) since many of the functions 

of the AFIP will be realigned elsewhere. The JPC budget was determined largely 

utilizing AFIP workload, identifying efficiencies gained through a new organizaVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
257 

tional structure and function as well as the current budget requirements for the specific functions of the AFIP that will be assumed by the JPC. The Armed Forces Medical Examiner System and other functions (e.g. Legal Medicine) that will be realigned elsewhere account for approximately two thirds of the AFIP budget. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Young. 

Questions submitted by Mr. Rothman and the answers thereto follow:] 

Question. Dr. Rice, what actions have been taken by the Department to preserve 

the AFIP capabilities until the new Joint Pathology Center is fully operational? 

Answer. The Department has approved a detailed concept of operations for the 

Joint Pathology Center (JPC) on March 31, 2010. With the help of AFIP, the JPC 

will establish its Office of the Director by October 1, 2010, and officially assume its 

mission from AFIP on April 1, 2011, with the goal of ensuring continuity of clinical 

care and support during the transition. The JPC will achieve full operating capabilities by September 2011. 

Question. Dr. Rice, what actions have been taken by the Department to establish 

a Joint Pathology Center? Where will the Center be located and when will it be fully 

operational? 

Answer. The Department approved a detailed concept of operations and implementation plan for the Joint Pathology Center (JPC) on March 31, 2010. The Joint 

Task Force National Capital Region Medical has been working with the Armed 

Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) and the Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Health Affairs to develop personnel, budget, logistics, and information technology 

plans in order to establish the JPC, which will be located on Forest Glen and the 

Bethesda Campus. The JPC is expected to achieve full operating capabilities by September 2011. 

Question. Dr. Rice, in order for the Defense Subcommittee to ensure it provides 

adequate funding, please provide a summary of the facility and staffing needs of the 

Joint Pathology Center (JPC) that takes into account the vision of the JPC as a 

world-class facility and recent Defense Health Board recommendations. 

Answer. The Joint Pathology Center will require 135 Active Duty and civilian 

staff, approximately $2 million in initial start up costs, and approximately $22.5 

million in annual operating costs. 

Question. Dr. Rice, please provide an update on the status of the creation of the 

JPC and its accompanying duties as outlined in Public Law No: 110–181 (H.R. 4986, 

the National Defense Authorization Act) and Public Law 111–32 (Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009). 

Answer. A detailed concept of operations for the Joint Pathology Center (JPC) was 

approved on 31 March 2010 that incorporates these statutory requirements as part 

of the JPC’s establishment. JPC will establish its Office of the Director by October 

1, 2010 and officially assume its mission from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) on April 1, 2011, with the goal of ensuring continuity of clinical care and 

support during the transition. The JPC will achieve full operating capabilities no 

later than September 2011. 

As section 722 of the National Defense Authorization Act 2008 required, the JPC 

shall function as the reference center in pathology for the Federal Government. The 

law requires the JPC to provide, at a minimum, the following services: 

1. Diagnostic pathology consultation services in medicine, dentistry, and veterinary sciences. 

2. Pathology education, to include graduate medical education (residency and fellowship programs), and continuing medical education. 

3. Diagnostic pathology research. 

4. Maintenance and continued modernization of the Tissue Repository and, as appropriate, utilization of the Repository in conducting the activities described in paragraphs (1) through (3). 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Rothman. 

Questions submitted by Mr. Dicks and the answers thereto follow:] 

Question. Dr. Rice, an integrated delivery system must be operated and managed 

as a single entity with a regional, unified view of acquiring materials, procuring 

training personnel and coordinating administrative tasks. To accomplish this unified 

medical mission, the medical services of the Army, Navy, and Air Force in the National Capital Region (NCR) will integrate to ensure the best utilization of resources 

available which will eliminate redundancies, enhance clinical care, promote health 

professions education and joint training, and enhance military medical research opVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 22, 2011 Jkt 065009 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A009P2.XXX A009P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
258 

portunities. This integration will also further the growth of transformative efforts 

with government, community and private sector partners. 

Please describe for the Committee the importance of realizing an integrated 

health care delivery system as the Department implements the Base Realignment 

and Closure (BRAC) Act of 2005 in the NCR and moves toward achieving worldclass medical care. 

Answer. The Department recognizes the importance of realizing an integrated delivery system (IDS) as this will achieve a synergy among military health care delivery systems. As the IDS is refined, it will continue to promote efficiency through 

regional consolidation and collaboration and enhance the quality of health care by 

reducing variance. The new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and Fort 

Belvoir Community Hospital will be established as joint hospitals that will operate 

from an integrated regional perspective. This will enhance patient care in many 

ways to include common models for primary care, specialty care and referrals. 

Question. Dr. Rice, has the Department taken the steps to ensure this is going 

to occur? 

Answer. Yes. The Department is tracking the development of the integrated 

health care delivery system in the National Capital Region closely. 

Question. Dr. Rice, has a joint business development plan been developed? 

Answer. Yes. The Commander, Joint Task Force National Capital Region Medical 

issued Fiscal Year (FY) 2011–2013 Business Planning Guidance to ensure medical 

readiness, provide quality health care, and execute Base Realignment and Closure 

requirements across the Joint Operations Area in the National Capital Region. 

Question. Dr. Rice, please describe current funding responsibilities for National 

Capital Region Medical and how these responsibilities will change during the transition? 

Answer. Currently, funding responsibilities for the Joint Task Force National 

Capital Region Medical (JTF CAPMED) as well as the Military Treatment Facilities 

(MTFs) within the National Capital Region (NCR) are managed through the Service 

Medical Departments with either BRAC funds or Defense Health Program funds for 

on-going operating expenses. 

JTF CAPMED has visibility of both the Army and Navy financial systems to ensure funds are appropriately received, obligated and executed. TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) and JTF CAPMED reconcile the obligations and execution data 

regularly and conduct semi-annual reviews to ensure the program remains as 

planned. 

The Department is currently reviewing the most effective authority for JTF 

CAPMED to manage resources for its assigned forces during the transition and postBRAC. It will provide details on this in its submission required under section 

2714(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010 that 

is due to Congress by 30 June 2010. 

Question. Dr. Rice, has the hospital and/or JTF CAPMED formed a relationship 

with the installation, i.e. Navy Installations Command? 

Answer. Yes. The relationship has been formed and the issue of authority has 

been refined. Those services and buildings that are not directly a part of the Walter 

Reed National Military Medical Center will be operated in direct support of the 

Medical Center’s missions. 

Question. Dr. Rice, the current NCR medical BRAC projects are scheduled to be 

completed by September 15, 2011. The Department ecognizes that the NCR medical 

BRAC construction, initial outfitting and transition and relocation timeline for the 

transition from Walter Reed to Walter Reed National Military Medical and Fort 

Belvoir Community Hospital must be accomplished in the next 18 months. The integration of the Army and the Navy’s two biggest and most prominent hospitals: Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), and the National Naval Medical Center 

(NNMC) makes it evident that military medicine in the National Capital Region 

(NCR) would never be quite the same, and the integration of these two military 

medical giants would be the model for the future of military medicine. 

How will the Department mitigate the risk of possibly serious disruptions of medical care during the transition? 

Answer. To mitigate any risk to patient care and safety, the Department has 

hired leading industry experts in hospital transitions through a contract with General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT). GDIT has developed plans for key 

activities, to include the development a patient move plan, publication of a move 

manual, staff training on patient movement, and day in the life exercises for operating the new facilities and scheduling mock patient move exercises prior to each 

of the internal moves. Additionally, the patient census will be adjusted at Walter 

Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) through controlled medical regulation of warriors, temporary limitation of elective surgeries and procedures at WRAMC, and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
259 

temporary transferring of services to other military treatment facilities in the Joint 

Operations Area. Inpatient and intensive care capability will be maintained at Malcolm Grow Medical Center until the end of Base Realignment and Closure. 

Question. How is the Department refining the current risk and issue management 

process to ensure confidence and uniformity in risk and issue management at all 

levels? 

Answer. The Department has refined its approach in the NCR Medical to effectively deal with risk and issues collectively. The program’s risk/issue management 

objectives are to: • Effectively manage risks through risk identification, assessment, planning, 

monitoring, and control • Reduce the likelihood that a risk event will occur • Minimize the impact of an issue or risk event • Develop awareness, understanding, and adoption of a structured and standardized JTF-wide risk management process • Refine the risk and issue management process (toward a planned, systematic, complete, objective, repeatable, defined, managed, preventative, qualitative, and quantitative process) to achieve confidence and uniformity in risk 

and issue management at all levels. 

The Joint Task Force National Capital Region Medical reviews risks and issues 

at every level of command and participates with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Installations and Environment, and other DoD staff in regular reviews 

of the program. 

Question. Dr. Rice, what types of risks or delays has the Department been anticipating if any at all? 

Answer. The Department has identified four possible risks or delay areas: Facility 

Construction Timeline and Funding, Accreditation, Patient Safety and Human Capital Risk. A further explanation and planned response is listed below. 

Facility Construction Timeline and Funding Risk: Intense management of construction agencies and the scheduling process of space availability to Initial Outfitting & Transition have and will continue to mitigate this risk and identify potential 

shortfalls in time for adjustment decisions and/or allocation of resources. 

Accreditation Risk: Maintaining accreditation, patient safety and quality of care 

is also vital to success during transition. A combination of JTF CAPMED proactively 

coordinating with the Joint Commission headquarters prior to Initial Operation Capability (IOC) to obtain advice, guidance and recommendations, along with a unity 

of effort for joint governance of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center 

(WRNMMC) and Fort Belvoir Community Hospital (FBCH) during the BRAC transition, will significantly mitigate the risks to patient safety and accreditation lapse. 

Patient Safety Risk: Patient safety is the Department’s number one priority during the transition. There are inherent risks associated with conducting extensive 

renovations and construction within and around an operating medical center. The 

Department also will mitigate risk through deferral of elective care and referral to 

private sector care. During the actual movement of patients from Walter Reed Army 

Medical Center (WRAMC) to the new WRNMMC and FBCH a small percentage of 

routine direct care system patients may temporarily be referred to private sector facilities or other military hospitals. Inpatient and intensive care capability will be 

maintained at Malcolm Grow Medical Center (MGMC) until the end of BRAC to 

provide NCR capacity for wounded warrior or other critical care during the transition period. 

Human Capital Risk: The loss of skilled and experienced human capital affects 

the ability to sustain world-class care and is therefore a significant risk. Utilizing 

a workforce mapping model to execute the Guaranteed Placement Program (GPP), 

the Department will be able to place the vast majority of WRAMC permanent government civilians at their desired work locations performing the work they want to 

do and will provide reassignment opportunities and career progression opportunities 

that do not exist today. 

Question. Dr. Rice, please describe the scope of the transition in terms of beneficiaries and physicians and other personnel. 

Answer. The transition will entail the movement or realignment of approximately 

19,000 direct care enrollees, 4,300 Active Duty Service members, and 2,100 government civilian employees currently at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), 

National Naval Medical Center, and DeWitt Army Community Hospital. 

Question. Dr. Rice, the Department estimates the total cost of newly identified requirements associated with achieving a world-class standard of care at Bethesda is 

$781 million. The projects, to include converting to single-patient rooms and replacing and renovation of older infrastructure on the campus, require a mix of Military 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
260 

Construction and Operation and Maintenance funding. The fiscal year 2011 budget 

request does not include funding to support the additional requirements that have 

been identified by the Master Plan. 

Can you provide for the Committee a listing of the types of projects that the $781 

million the funds would accomplish? 

Answer. The table below depicts the projects that comprise the $781 million: 

Project Description Funding 

Type 

Estimated 

Cost ($M) 

Comprehensive Clinical Expansion.New Construction, Renovation, Demolition, Parking 

Garage, Temporary Facilities, Outfitting and Transition, Commissioning, AT/FP, Enhanced Building 

Information Systems..

MILCON/O&M ............ $651M ($567 

MILCON $84 

O&M) 

Installation Upgrades ........ Pedestrian Ways, Vehicular Access, Plazas, 

Childcare, Utility Infrastructure, Etc.

MILCON .................... $85 

Medical Center Technology Smart Technology, RTLS, External SONET ................... O&M ......................... $30 

Installation and Medical 

Center Environment.

Campus Way finding and Master Planning ................ O&M ......................... $15 

Total ......................... ...................................................................................... .................................. $781 

Question. Dr. Rice, how will the already world-class amputee care, prosthetics 

care, and rehabilitation centers be established in the new facility? 

Answer. The world-class centers will be established by the following: most of one 

whole floor in the new WRNMMC outpatient clinic addition (Building A) will be 

dedicated to physical medicine modalities with additional services and diagnostic 

support provided on two other floors. Over 115,000 sq. ft. is dedicated to Physical 

Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Occupational Therapy, Amputee 

Center, Orthotics, Prosthetics, Chiropractic Services, Orthopedics, Podiatry, and a 

satellite Laboratory, Radiology, and Pharmacy on the first three floors of the new 

outpatient clinic. This represents the largest physical medicine footprint in all of the 

Department of Defense and will continue to provide WRAMC’s current capabilities 

in the care of amputees and the manufacture and adjustment of state-of-the-art 

upper and lower extremity prosthetics. 

Physical therapy plays a major role in the rehabilitation of amputees, traumatic 

brain injured and psychologically injured patients. Clinical space in the new clinical 

building outlined above and in the inpatient areas have been designed to offer the 

best medical care to these injured patients. Appropriate personnel have been designated on the current manpower document to complete the mission in these areas. 

Question. Will this require additional funding as well? 

Answer. No, we do not require any additional funding at this time. 

Question. Dr. Rice, what other projects beyond the ones outlined in the Master 

Plan may be needed in the Nation Capital Region to provide world-class care? 

Answer. At this time, no other projects beyond the Master Plan are needed. The 

current Military Construction (MILCON) funding projections complete the known 

requirements to achieve those attributes of the new, statutory world-class medical 

facility standard at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. These are based 

upon the best available planning information, and, specifically, the Medical 

MILCON components are based upon the latest Department of Defense cost guidance. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—End of questions submitted by Mr. Dicks.] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Carpenter, Major General R. W ............................................................................. 153 

Flynn, Lieutenant General G. J ............................................................................. 75 

Gates, Hon. Robert .................................................................................................. 1 

Hale, Robert ............................................................................................................. 1 

Mateczun, Vice Admiral John ................................................................................. 201 

McKinley, General C. R .......................................................................................... 153 

Mullen, Admiral Michael ........................................................................................ 1 

Phillips, Lieutenant General W. N ......................................................................... 75 

Rice, C. L .................................................................................................................. 201 

Robyn, Dorothy ........................................................................................................ 201 

Stultz, Lieutenant General J. C ............................................................................. 153 

Wyatt, Lieutenant General H. M., III .................................................................... 153 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1